Effectiveness of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination against virus-associated lower respiratory tract infection among adults: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Interactions of Streptococcus pneumoniae with viruses feature in the pathogenesis of numerous respiratory illnesses. METHODS: We undertook a case-control study among adults at Kaiser Permanente Southern California between 2015-2019. Cases were diagnosed with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI; including pneumonia or non-pneumonia LRTI diagnoses) with viral infections detected by multiplex polymerase chain reaction testing. Controls without LRTI diagnoses were matched to cases by demographic and clinical attributes. We measured vaccine effectiveness (VE) for PCV13 against virus-associated LRTI via the adjusted odds ratio of PCV13 receipt, comparing cases to controls. RESULTS: Primary analyses included 13,856 virus-associated LRTI cases and 227,887 matched controls. Receipt of PCV13 was associated with 24.9% (95% confidence interval: 18.4-30.9%) VE against virus-associated pneumonia and 21.5% (10.9-30.9%) VE against other (non-pneumonia) virus-associated LRTI. We estimated 26.8% (19.9-33.1%) and 18.6% (9.3-27.0%) VE against all virus-associated LRTI episodes diagnosed in inpatient and outpatient settings, respectively. We identified statistically-significant protection against LRTI episodes associated with influenza A and B viruses, endemic human coronaviruses, parainfluenza viruses, human metapneumovirus, and enteroviruses, but not respiratory syncytial virus or adenoviruses. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults, PCV13 conferred moderate protection against virus-associated LRTI. Impacts of PCVs may be mediated, in part, by effects on polymicrobial interactions between pneumococci and respiratory viruses.

Health inequities in SARS-CoV-2 infection, seroprevalence, and COVID-19 vaccination: Results from the East Bay COVID-19 study

Comprehensive data on transmission mitigation behaviors and both SARS-CoV-2 infection and serostatus are needed from large, community-based cohorts to identify COVID-19 risk factors and the impact of public health measures. We conducted a longitudinal, population-based study in the East Bay Area of Northern California. From July 2020-March 2021, approximately 5,500 adults were recruited and followed over three data collection rounds to investigate the association between geographic and demographic characteristics and transmission mitigation behavior with SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. We estimated the populated-adjusted prevalence of antibodies from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination, and self-reported COVID-19 test positivity. Population-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was low, increasing from 1.03% (95% CI: 0.50–1.96) in Round 1 (July-September 2020), to 1.37% (95% CI: 0.75–2.39) in Round 2 (October-December 2020), to 2.18% (95% CI: 1.48–3.17) in Round 3 (February-March 2021). Population-adjusted seroprevalence of COVID-19 vaccination was 21.64% (95% CI: 19.20–24.34) in Round 3, with White individuals having 4.35% (95% CI: 0.35–8.32) higher COVID-19 vaccine seroprevalence than individuals identifying as African American or Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Hispanic, two or more races, or other. No evidence for an association between transmission mitigation behavior and seroprevalence was observed. Despite >99% of participants reporting wearing masks individuals identifying as African American or Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Hispanic, two or more races, or other, as well as those in lower-income households, and lower-educated individuals had the highest SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and lowest vaccination seroprevalence. Results demonstrate that more effective policies are needed to address these disparities and inequities.

Effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing hospital admissions and deaths in people with COVID-19: a cohort study in a large US health-care system.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, oral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is authorised for use in patients aged 12 years or older with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who are at risk of progression to severe disease and hospitalisation. We aimed to establish the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing hospital admissions and death in people with COVID-19 in an outpatient prescribing context in the USA. METHODS: In this matched observational outpatient cohort study in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (CA, USA) health-care system, data were extracted from electronic health records of non-hospitalised patients aged 12 years or older who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result (their index test) between April 8 and Oct 7, 2022, and had not received another positive test result within the preceding 90 days. We compared outcomes between people who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and those who did not receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir by matching cases by date, age, sex, clinical status (including care received, the presence or absence of acute COVID-19 symptoms at testing, and time from symptom onset to testing), vaccination history, comorbidities, health-care seeking during the previous year, and BMI. Our primary endpoint was the estimated effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in preventing hospital admissions or death within 30 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. FINDINGS: 7274 nirmatrelvir-ritonavir recipients and 126 152 non-recipients with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests were included in our study. 5472 (75·2%) treatment recipients and 84 657 (67·1%) non-recipients were tested within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir had an overall estimated effectiveness of 53·6% (95% CI 6·6-77·0) in preventing hospital admission or death within 30 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, which increased to 79·6% (33·9-93·8) when nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was dispensed within 5 days of symptom onset. Within the subgroup of patients tested within 5 days of symptom onset and whose treatment was dispensed on the day of their test, the estimated effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was 89·6% (50·2-97·8). INTERPRETATION: In a setting with high levels of COVID-19 vaccine uptake, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir effectively reduced the risk of hospital admission or death within 30 days of a positive outpatient SARS-CoV-2 test. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and US National Institutes of Health.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 BA.4/BA.5 Omicron lineages with immune escape and clinical outcome.

Expansion of the SARS-CoV-2 BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants in populations with prevalent immunity from prior infection and vaccination, and associated burden of severe COVID-19, has raised concerns about epidemiologic characteristics of these lineages including their association with immune escape or severe clinical outcomes. Here we show that BA.4/BA.5 cases in a large US healthcare system had at least 55% (95% confidence interval: 43-69%) higher adjusted odds of prior documented infection than time-matched BA.2 cases, as well as 15% (9-21%) and 38% (27-49%) higher adjusted odds of having received 3 and ≥4 COVID-19 vaccine doses, respectively. However, after adjusting for differences in epidemiologic characteristics among cases with each lineage, BA.4/BA.5 infection was not associated with differential risk of emergency department presentation, hospital admission, or intensive care unit admission following an initial outpatient diagnosis. This finding held in sensitivity analyses correcting for potential exposure misclassification resulting from unascertained prior infections. Our results demonstrate that the reduced severity associated with prior (BA.1 and BA.2) Omicron lineages, relative to the Delta variant, has persisted with BA.4/BA.5, despite the association of BA.4/BA.5 with increased risk of breakthrough infection among previously vaccinated or infected individuals.

Association of upper respiratory Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization with SARS-CoV-2 infection among adults.

BACKGROUND: Streptococcus pneumoniae interacts with numerous viral respiratory pathogens in the upper airway. It is unclear whether similar interactions occur with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We collected saliva specimens from working-age adults receiving SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing at outpatient clinics and via mobile community-outreach testing between July and November 2020 in Monterey County, California. Following bacterial culture enrichment, we tested for pneumococci by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) targeting the lytA and piaB genes, and measured associations with SARS-CoV-2 infection via conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Analyses included 1,278 participants, with 564 enrolled in clinics and 714 enrolled through outreach-based testing. Prevalence of pneumococcal carriage was 9.2% (117/1,278) among all participants (11.2% [63/564] clinic-based testing; 7.6% [54/714] outreach testing). Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 27.4% (32/117) among pneumococcal carriers and 9.6% (112/1,161) among non-carriers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.73; 95% confidence interval: 1.58-4.69). Associations between SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumococcal carriage were enhanced in the clinic-based sample (aOR = 4.01 [2.08-7.75]) and among symptomatic participants (aOR = 3.38 [1.35-8.40]), when compared to findings within the outreach-based sample and among asymptomatic participants. Adjusted odds of SARS-CoV-2 co-infection increased 1.24 (1.00-1.55)-fold for each 1-unit decrease in piaB qPCR CT value among pneumococcal carriers. Last, pneumococcal carriage modified the association of SARS-CoV-2 infection with recent exposure to a suspected COVID-19 case (aOR = 7.64 [1.91-30.7] and 3.29 [1.94-5.59]) among pneumococcal carriers and non-carriers, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Associations of pneumococcal carriage detection and density with SARS-CoV-2 suggest a synergistic relationship in the upper airway. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine interaction mechanisms between pneumococci and SARS-CoV-2.

Receipt of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines in California (USA) during the 2021-2022 influenza season.

BACKGROUND: Despite lower circulation of influenza virus throughout 2020-2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, seasonal influenza vaccination has remained a primary tool to reduce influenza-associated illness and death. The relationship between the decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and/or an influenza vaccine is not well understood. METHODS: We assessed predictors of receipt of 2021-2022 influenza vaccine in a secondary analysis of data from a case-control study enrolling individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 testing. We used mixed effects logistic regression to estimate factors associated with receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine. We also constructed multinomial adjusted marginal probability models of being vaccinated for COVID-19 only, seasonal influenza only, or both as compared with receipt of neither vaccination. RESULTS: Among 1261 eligible participants recruited between 22 October 2021-22 June 2022, 43% (545) were vaccinated with both seasonal influenza vaccine and >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 34% (426) received >1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine only, 4% (49) received seasonal influenza vaccine only, and 19% (241) received neither vaccine. Receipt of >1 COVID-19 vaccine dose was associated with seasonal influenza vaccination (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.15-6.43); this association was stronger among participants receiving >1 COVID-19 booster dose (aOR = 16.50 [10.10-26.97]). Compared with participants testing negative for SARS- CoV-2 infection, participants testing positive had lower odds of receipt of 2021-2022 seasonal influenza vaccine (aOR = 0.64 [0.50-0.82]). CONCLUSIONS: Recipients of a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to receive seasonal influenza vaccine during the 2021-2022 season. Factors associated with individuals' likelihood of receiving COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines will be important to account for in future studies of vaccine effectiveness against both conditions. Participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in our sample were less likely to have received seasonal influenza vaccine, suggesting an opportunity to offer influenza vaccination before or after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Real-world uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among individuals expressing vaccine hesitancy: A registry-linkage study.

INTRODUCTION: Uptake of COVID-19 vaccination remains suboptimal in the United States and other settings. Though early reports indicated that a strong majority of people were interested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, the association between vaccine intention and uptake is not yet fully understood. Ourobjective was todescribe predictors of vaccine uptake, and estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of self-reported COVID-19 vaccine status compared to a comprehensive statewide COVID-19 vaccine registry. METHODS: A cohort of California residents that received a molecular test for SARS-CoV-2 infection during 24 February-5 December 2021 were enrolled in a telephone-administered survey. Survey participants were matched with records in a statewide immunization registry. Cox proportional hazards model were used to compare time to vaccination among those unvaccinated at survey enrollment by self-reported COVID-19 vaccination intention. RESULTS: Among 864 participants who were unvaccinated at the time of interview, 272 (31%) had documentation of receipt of COVID-19 vaccination at a later date; including 194/423 (45.9%) who had initially reported being willing to receive vaccination, 41/185 (22.2%) who reported being unsure about vaccination, and 37/278 (13.3%) who reported unwillingness to receive vaccination.Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for registry-confirmed COVID-19 vaccination were 0.49 (95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.76) and 0.21 (0.12-0.36) for participants expressing uncertainty and unwillingness to receive vaccination, respectively, as compared with participants who reported being willing to receive vaccination. Time to vaccination was shorter among participants from higher-income households (aHR = 3.30 [2.02-5.39]) and who reported co-morbidities or immunocompromising conditions (aHR = 1.54 [1.01-2.36]).Sensitivity of self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status was 82% (80-85%) overall, and 98% (97-99%) among those referencing vaccination records; specificity was 87% (86-89%). CONCLUSION: Willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination was an imperfect predictor of real-world vaccine uptake. Improved messaging about COVID-19 vaccination regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status may help improve uptake.

Waning of 2-Dose BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccine Effectiveness Against Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection Accounting for Depletion-of-Susceptibles Bias.

Concerns about the duration of protection conferred by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have arisen in postlicensure evaluations. "Depletion of susceptibles," a bias driven by differential accrual of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, may obscure vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates, hindering interpretation. We enrolled California residents who received molecular SARS-CoV-2 tests in a matched, test-negative design, case-control study to estimate VE of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines between February 23 and December 5, 2021. We analyzed waning protection following 2 vaccine doses using conditional logistic regression models. Additionally, we used data from a population-based serological study to adjust for "depletion-of-susceptibles" bias and estimated VE for 3 doses, by time since second dose receipt. Pooled VE of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 91.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 83.8, 95.4) at 14 days after second-dose receipt and declined to 50.8% (95% CI: 19.7, 69.8) at 7 months. Adjusting for depletion-of-susceptibles bias, we estimated VE of 53.2% (95% CI: 23.6, 71.2) at 7 months after primary mRNA vaccination series. A booster dose of BN162b2 or mRNA-1273 increased VE to 95.0% (95% CI: 82.8, 98.6). These findings confirm that observed waning of protection is not attributable to epidemiologic bias and support ongoing efforts to administer additional vaccine doses to mitigate burden of COVID-19.

Infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections and reinfections during the Omicron wave.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals and reinfections in previously infected individuals have become increasingly common. Such infections highlight a broader need to understand the contribution of vaccination, including booster doses, and natural immunity to the infectiousness of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections, especially in high-risk populations with intense transmission, such as in prisons. Here we show that both vaccine-derived and naturally acquired immunity independently reduce the infectiousness of persons with Omicron variant SARS-CoV-2 infections in a prison setting. Analyzing SARS-CoV-2 surveillance data from December 2021 to May 2022 across 35 California state prisons with a predominately male population, we estimate that unvaccinated Omicron cases had a 36% (95% confidence interval (CI): 31-42%) risk of transmitting infection to close contacts, as compared to a 28% (25-31%) risk among vaccinated cases. In adjusted analyses, we estimated that any vaccination, prior infection alone and both vaccination and prior infection reduced an index case's risk of transmitting infection by 22% (6-36%), 23% (3-39%) and 40% (20-55%), respectively. Receipt of booster doses and more recent vaccination further reduced infectiousness among vaccinated cases. These findings suggest that, although vaccinated and/or previously infected individuals remain highly infectious upon SARS-CoV-2 infection in this prison setting, their infectiousness is reduced compared to individuals without any history of vaccination or infection. This study underscores benefit of vaccination to reduce, but not eliminate, transmission.

Health inequities in SARS-CoV-2 infection, seroprevalence, and COVID-19 vaccination: Results from the East Bay COVID-19 study.

Comprehensive data on transmission mitigation behaviors and both SARS-CoV-2 infection and serostatus are needed from large, community-based cohorts to identify COVID-19 risk factors and the impact of public health measures. We conducted a longitudinal, population-based study in the East Bay Area of Northern California. From July 2020-March 2021, approximately 5,500 adults were recruited and followed over three data collection rounds to investigate the association between geographic and demographic characteristics and transmission mitigation behavior with SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. We estimated the populated-adjusted prevalence of antibodies from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination, and self-reported COVID-19 test positivity. Population-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was low, increasing from 1.03% (95% CI: 0.50-1.96) in Round 1 (July-September 2020), to 1.37% (95% CI: 0.75-2.39) in Round 2 (October-December 2020), to 2.18% (95% CI: 1.48-3.17) in Round 3 (February-March 2021). Population-adjusted seroprevalence of COVID-19 vaccination was 21.64% (95% CI: 19.20-24.34) in Round 3, with White individuals having 4.35% (95% CI: 0.35-8.32) higher COVID-19 vaccine seroprevalence than individuals identifying as African American or Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Hispanic, two or more races, or other. No evidence for an association between transmission mitigation behavior and seroprevalence was observed. Despite >99% of participants reporting wearing masks individuals identifying as African American or Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Hispanic, two or more races, or other, as well as those in lower-income households, and lower-educated individuals had the highest SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and lowest vaccination seroprevalence. Results demonstrate that more effective policies are needed to address these disparities and inequities.

Hospitalization and Emergency Department Encounters for COVID-19 After Paxlovid Treatment - California, December 2021-May 2022.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) is a combination protease inhibitor that blocks replication of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and has been shown to reduce the risk for hospitalization and death among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at risk for progression to severe disease* (1). In December 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for early treatment with Paxlovid among persons with mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 who are at high risk for progression to severe disease (2). FDA and a small number of published case reports have documented recurrence of COVID-19 symptoms or a positive viral test result (COVID-19 rebound) 2-8 days after recovery or a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result among patients treated with Paxlovid (3-7); however, large-scale studies investigating severe illness after Paxlovid treatment are limited. This study used electronic health record (EHR) data from a large integrated health care system in California (Kaiser Permanente Southern California [KPSC]) to describe hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) encounters related to SARS-CoV-2 infections during the 5-15 days after pharmacy dispensation of a 5-day treatment course of Paxlovid. Among 5,287 persons aged ≥12 years who received Paxlovid during December 31, 2021-May 26, 2022, 73% had received ≥3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine†, and 8% were unvaccinated. During the 5-15 days after Paxlovid treatment was dispensed, six hospitalizations and 39 ED encounters considered to be related to SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified, representing <1% of all patients to whom Paxlovid treatment was dispensed during the study period. Among these 45 persons, 21 (47%) were aged ≥65 years, and 35 (78%) had at least one underlying medical condition§ (8). This study found that hospitalization or ED encounters for COVID-19 during the 5-15 days after Paxlovid treatment was dispensed for mild to moderate COVID-19 illness were rarely identified. When administered as an early-stage treatment, Paxlovid might prevent COVID-19-related hospitalization among persons with mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 who are at risk for progression to severe disease.

On the use of the reproduction number for SARS-CoV-2: Estimation, misinterpretations and relationships with other ecological measures.

The basic reproduction number, R 0, and its real-time analogue, Rt , are summary measures that reflect the ability of an infectious disease to spread through a population. Estimation methods for Rt  have a long history, have been widely developed and are now enhanced by application to the COVID-19 pandemic. While retrospective analyses of Rt have provided insight into epidemic dynamics and the effects of control strategies in prior outbreaks, misconceptions around the interpretation of Rt have arisen with broader recognition and near real-time monitoring of this parameter alongside reported case data during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we discuss some widespread misunderstandings regarding the use of Rt  as a barometer for population risk and its related use as an 'on/off' switch for policy decisions regarding relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions. Computation of Rt  from downstream data (e.g. hospitalizations) when infection counts are unreliable exacerbates lags between when transmission happens and when events are recorded. We also discuss analyses that have shown various relationships between Rt  and measures of mobility, vaccination coverage and a test-trace-isolation intervention in different settings.

Clinical outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant and BA.1/BA.1.1 or BA.2 subvariant infection in Southern California.

Epidemiologic surveillance has revealed decoupling of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations and deaths from case counts after emergence of the Omicron (B.1.1.529) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant globally. However, assessment of the relative severity of Omicron variant infections presents challenges because of differential acquired immune protection against Omicron and prior variants and because longer-term changes have occurred in testing and healthcare practices. Here we show that Omicron variant infections were associated with substantially reduced risk of progression to severe clinical outcomes relative to time-matched Delta (B.1.617.2) variant infections within a large, integrated healthcare system in Southern California. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for any hospital admission, symptomatic hospital admission, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation and death comparing individuals with Omicron versus Delta variant infection were 0.59 (95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.69), 0.59 (0.51-0.68), 0.50 (0.29-0.87), 0.36 (0.18-0.72) and 0.21 (0.10-0.44), respectively. This reduced severity could not be explained by differential history of prior infection among individuals with Omicron or Delta variant infection and was starkest among individuals not previously vaccinated against COVID-19 (aHR = 0.40 (0.33-0.49) for any hospital admission and 0.14 (0.07-0.28) for death). Infections with the Omicron BA.2 subvariant were not associated with differential risk of severe outcomes in comparison to BA.1/BA.1.1 subvariant infections. Lower risk of severe clinical outcomes among individuals with Omicron variant infection should inform public health response amid establishment of the Omicron variant as the dominant SARS-CoV-2 lineage globally.

Statistical Deconvolution for Inference of Infection Time Series.

Accurate measurement of daily infection incidence is crucial to epidemic response. However, delays in symptom onset, testing, and reporting obscure the dynamics of transmission, necessitating methods to remove the effects of stochastic delays from observed data. Existing estimators can be sensitive to model misspecification and censored observations; many analysts have instead used methods that exhibit strong bias. We develop an estimator with a regularization scheme to cope with stochastic delays, which we term the robust incidence deconvolution estimator. We compare the method to existing estimators in a simulation study, measuring accuracy in a variety of experimental conditions. We then use the method to study COVID-19 records in the United States, highlighting its stability in the face of misspecification and right censoring. To implement the robust incidence deconvolution estimator, we release incidental, a ready-to-use R implementation of our estimator that can aid ongoing efforts to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic.

Use of Recently Vaccinated Individuals to Detect Bias in Test-Negative Case-Control Studies of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness.

Postauthorization observational studies play a key role in understanding COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness following the demonstration of efficacy in clinical trials. Although bias due to confounding, selection bias, and misclassification can be mitigated through careful study design, unmeasured confounding is likely to remain in these observational studies. Phase III trials of COVID-19 vaccines have shown that protection from vaccination does not occur immediately, meaning that COVID-19 risk should be similar in recently vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, in the absence of confounding or other bias. Several studies have used the estimated effectiveness among recently vaccinated individuals as a negative control exposure to detect bias in vaccine effectiveness estimates. In this paper, we introduce a theoretical framework to describe the interpretation of such a bias indicator in test-negative studies, and outline strong assumptions that would allow vaccine effectiveness among recently vaccinated individuals to serve as a negative control exposure.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on California Farmworkers' Mental Health and Food Security.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the mental health and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Latino farmworkers in California. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adult farmworkers (n = 1,115) between July 16 and November 30, 2020. We collected information via phone interviews. We used the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 scales to assess depression and anxiety symptoms. We adapted the U.S. Department of Agriculture six-question scale to assess household food insecurity. RESULTS: Nearly 20% of study participants reported symptoms of depression and 15% reported symptoms of anxiety. Six percent reported increasing an increase in their substance use and 37% experienced food insecurity during the pandemic. Depression and anxiety symptoms were more frequent among women or those who had experienced ≥1 recent COVID-19 related symptom, but less frequent among those who were married and/or worked in the fields. Increased substance use was more common among farmworkers who had ≥1 COVID-19 related symptom, but less common among women and those who spoke a language other than English at home, were born outside the U.S., or lived in crowded housing. Food insecurity was common among those who were born outside the U.S. or lived with children <18 years, but less common among those with more education, a higher income, or who had lived longer in the U.S. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has exacerbated challenges affecting mental health and and food security among farmworkers. Interventions and prevention efforts, led by respected and trusted members of the community, should include on-the-spot supplemental income, increased mental health services, and food support services.

Longitudinal social contacts among school-aged children during the COVID-19 pandemic: the Bay Area Contacts among Kids (BACK) study.

BACKGROUND: The San Francisco Bay Area was the first region in the United States to enact school closures to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The effects of closures on contact patterns for schoolchildren and their household members remain poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted serial cross-sectional surveys (May 2020, September 2020, February 2021) of Bay Area households with children to estimate age-structured daily contact rates for children and their adult household members. We examined changes in contact rates over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, including after vaccination of household members, and compared contact patterns by household demographics using generalized estimating equations clustered by household. RESULTS: We captured contact histories for 1,967 households on behalf of 2,674 children, comprising 15,087 non-household contacts over the three waves of data collection. Shortly after the start of shelter-in-place orders in May 2020, daily contact rates were higher among children from Hispanic families (1.52 more contacts per child per day; [95% CI: 1.14-2.04]), households whose parents were unable to work from home (1.82; [1.40-2.40]), and households with income < $150,000 (1.75; [1.33-2.33]), after adjusting for other demographic characteristics and household clustering. Between May and August 2020, non-household contacts of children increased by 145% (ages 5-12) and 172% (ages 13-17), despite few children returning to in-person instruction. Non-household contact rates among children were higher-by 1.75 [1.28-2.40] and 1.42 [0.89-2.24] contacts per child per day in 5-12 and 13-17 age groups, respectively, in households where at least one adult was vaccinated against COVID-19, compared to children's contact rates in unvaccinated households. CONCLUSIONS: Child contact rates rebounded despite schools remaining closed, as parents obtained childcare, children engaged in contact in non-school settings, and family members were vaccinated. The waning reductions observed in non-household contact rates of schoolchildren and their family members during a prolonged school closure suggests the strategy may be ineffective for long-term SARS-CoV-2 transmission mitigation. Reductions in age-assortative contacts were not as apparent amongst children from lower income households or households where adults could not work from home. Heterogeneous reductions in contact patterns raise concerning racial, ethnic and income-based inequities associated with long-term school closures as a COVID-19 mitigation strategy.

Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by mRNA-Based Vaccines Within the General Population of California.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness under real-world conditions, and understanding of barriers to uptake, are necessary to inform vaccine rollout. METHODS: We enrolled cases (testing positive) and controls (testing negative) from among the population whose SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic test results from 24 February to 29 April 2021 were reported to the California Department of Public Health. Participants were matched on age, sex, and geographic region. We assessed participants' self-reported history of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine receipt (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273). Participants were considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after second dose receipt. Among unvaccinated participants, we assessed willingness to receive vaccination. We measured vaccine effectiveness (VE) via the matched odds ratio of prior vaccination, comparing cases with controls. RESULTS: We enrolled 1023 eligible participants aged ≥18 years. Among 525 cases, 71 (13.5%) received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; 20 (3.8%) were fully vaccinated with either product. Among 498 controls, 185 (37.1%) received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273; 86 (16.3%) were fully vaccinated with either product. Two weeks after second dose receipt, VE was 87.0% (95% confidence interval: 68.6-94.6%) and 86.2% (68.4-93.9%) for BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively. Fully vaccinated participants receiving either product experienced 91.3% (79.3-96.3%) and 68.3% (27.9-85.7%) VE against symptomatic and asymptomatic infection, respectively. Among unvaccinated participants, 42.4% (159/375) residing in rural regions and 23.8% (67/281) residing in urban regions reported hesitancy to receive COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Authorized mRNA-based vaccines are effective at reducing documented SARS-CoV-2 infections within the general population of California. Vaccine hesitancy presents a barrier to reaching coverage levels needed for herd immunity.

Predictors of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Following High-Risk Exposure.

BACKGROUND: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are recommended for COVID-19 prevention. However, the effectiveness of NPIs in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains poorly quantified. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative design case-control study enrolling cases (testing positive for SARS-CoV-2) and controls (testing negative) with molecular SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test results reported to California Department of Public Health between 24 February-12 November, 2021. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of case status among participants who reported contact with an individual known or suspected to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 ("high-risk exposure") ≤14 days before testing. RESULTS: 751 of 1448 cases (52%) and 255 of 1443 controls (18%) reported high-risk exposures ≤14 days before testing. Adjusted odds of case status were 3.02-fold (95% confidence interval: 1.75-5.22) higher when high-risk exposures occurred with household members (vs. other contacts), 2.10-fold (1.05-4.21) higher when exposures occurred indoors (vs. outdoors only), and 2.15-fold (1.27-3.67) higher when exposures lasted ≥3 hours (vs. shorter durations) among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated individuals; excess risk associated with such exposures was mitigated among fully-vaccinated individuals. Cases were less likely than controls to report mask usage during high-risk exposures (aOR = 0.50 [0.29-0.85]). The adjusted odds of case status was lower for fully-vaccinated (aOR = 0.25 [0.15-0.43]) participants compared to unvaccinated participants. Benefits of mask usage were greatest among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated participants, and in interactions involving non-household contacts or interactions occurring without physical contact. CONCLUSIONS: NPIs reduced the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection following high-risk exposure. Vaccine effectiveness was substantial for partially and fully vaccinated persons.