Absolute and Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Series of COVID-19 Vaccines (mRNA and Adenovirus Vector) Against COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the United States, December 2021-April 2022.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE. Results: A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary. Conclusions: Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

Comparison of test-negative and syndrome-negative controls in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness evaluations for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Test-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls. METHODS: Adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group. RESULTS: 5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64 years, VE was 93 % (95 % CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91 % (95 % CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: Despite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.

Treatment of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children: Understanding Differences in Results of Comparative Effectiveness Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Two cohort studies in patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) demonstrated contrasting results regarding the benefit of initial immunomodulatory treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) alone versus IVIG and glucocorticoids. We sought to determine whether application of different MIS-C definitions and differing disease severity between cohorts underlay discrepant results. METHODS: The Overcoming COVID-19 Public Health Surveillance Registry (OC-19) included patients meeting the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) MIS-C definition, whereas the Best Available Treatment Study (BATS) applied the World Health Organization (WHO) definition. We applied the WHO definition to the OC-19 cohort and the CDC definition to the BATS cohort and determined the proportion that did not meet the alternate definition. We compared illness severity indicators between cohorts. RESULTS: Of 349 OC-19 patients, 9.5% did not meet the WHO definition. Of 350 BATS patients, 10.3% did not meet the CDC definition. Most organ system involvement was similar between the cohorts, but more OC-19 patients had WHO-defined cardiac involvement (87.1% vs 79.4%, P = 0.008). OC-19 patients were more often admitted to intensive care (61.0% vs 44.8%, P < 0.001) and more often received vasopressors or inotropes (39.5% vs 22.9%, P < 0.001) before immunomodulatory treatment. CONCLUSION: Greater illness severity and cardiovascular involvement in the OC-19 cohort compared with the BATS cohort, and not use of different MIS-C case definitions, may have contributed to differing study conclusions about optimal initial treatment for MIS-C. Disease severity should be considered in future MIS-C study designs and treatment recommendations to identify patients who would benefit from aggressive immunomodulatory treatment.

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children - Initial Therapy and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of real-world effectiveness of immunomodulatory medications for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) may guide therapy. METHODS: We analyzed surveillance data on inpatients younger than 21 years of age who had MIS-C and were admitted to 1 of 58 U.S. hospitals between March 15 and October 31, 2020. The effectiveness of initial immunomodulatory therapy (day 0, indicating the first day any such therapy for MIS-C was given) with intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids, as compared with IVIG alone, was evaluated with propensity-score matching and inverse probability weighting, with adjustment for baseline MIS-C severity and demographic characteristics. The primary outcome was cardiovascular dysfunction (a composite of left ventricular dysfunction or shock resulting in the use of vasopressors) on or after day 2. Secondary outcomes included the components of the primary outcome, the receipt of adjunctive treatment (glucocorticoids in patients not already receiving glucocorticoids on day 0, a biologic, or a second dose of IVIG) on or after day 1, and persistent or recurrent fever on or after day 2. RESULTS: A total of 518 patients with MIS-C (median age, 8.7 years) received at least one immunomodulatory therapy; 75% had been previously healthy, and 9 died. In the propensity-score-matched analysis, initial treatment with IVIG plus glucocorticoids (103 patients) was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than IVIG alone (103 patients) (17% vs. 31%; risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.94). The risks of the components of the composite outcome were also lower among those who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids: left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.15), and shock resulting in vasopressor use in 13% and 24% (risk ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.00). The use of adjunctive therapy was lower among patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids than among those who received IVIG alone (34% vs. 70%; risk ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.65), but the risk of fever was unaffected (31% and 40%, respectively; risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.13). The inverse-probability-weighted analysis confirmed the results of the propensity-score-matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among children and adolescents with MIS-C, initial treatment with IVIG plus glucocorticoids was associated with a lower risk of new or persistent cardiovascular dysfunction than IVIG alone. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).