Effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Outpatient Visits and Hospitalizations Among American Indian and Alaska Native Persons, January-November 2021: A Test-Negative Case-Control Analysis Using Surveillance Data.

Background: Despite the disproportionate morbidity and mortality experienced by American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) persons during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, few studies have reported vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates among these communities. Methods: We conducted a test-negative case-control analysis among AI/AN persons aged ≥12 years presenting for care from January 1, 2021, through November 30, 2021, to evaluate the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against COVID-19-associated outpatient visits and hospitalizations. Cases and controls were patients with ≥1 symptom consistent with COVID-19-like illness; cases were defined as those test-positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and controls were defined as those test-negative for SARS-CoV-2. We used unconditional multivariable logistic regression to estimate VE, defined as 1 minus the adjusted odds ratio for vaccination among cases vs controls. Results: The analysis included 207 cases and 267 test-negative controls. Forty-four percent of cases and 78% of controls received 2 doses of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine. VE point estimates for 2 doses of mRNA vaccine were higher for hospitalized participants (94.6%; 95% CI, 88.0-97.6) than outpatient participants (86.5%; 95% CI, 63.0-95.0), but confidence intervals overlapped. Conclusions: Among AI/AN persons, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were highly effective in preventing COVID-associated outpatient visits and hospitalizations. Maintaining high vaccine coverage, including booster doses, will reduce the burden of disease in this population.

COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing in the US, 2020.

Importance: Contact tracing is a multistep process to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Gaps in the process result in missed opportunities to prevent COVID-19. Objective: To quantify proportions of cases and their contacts reached by public health authorities and the amount of time needed to reach them and to compare the risk of a positive COVID-19 test result between contacts and the general public during 4-week assessment periods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study took place at 13 health departments and 1 Indian Health Service Unit in 11 states and 1 tribal nation. Participants included all individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and their named contacts. Local COVID-19 surveillance data were used to determine the numbers of persons reported to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were interviewed and named contacts between June and October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: For contacts, the numbers who were identified, notified of their exposure, and agreed to monitoring were calculated. The median time from index case specimen collection to contact notification was calculated, as were numbers of named contacts subsequently notified of their exposure and monitored. The prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among named and tested contacts was compared with that jurisdiction's general population during the same 4 weeks. Results: The total number of cases reported was 74 185. Of these, 43 931 (59%) were interviewed, and 24 705 (33%) named any contacts. Among the 74 839 named contacts, 53 314 (71%) were notified of their exposure, and 34 345 (46%) agreed to monitoring. A mean of 0.7 contacts were reached by telephone by public health authorities, and only 0.5 contacts per case were monitored. In general, health departments reporting large case counts during the assessment (≥5000) conducted smaller proportions of case interviews and contact notifications. In 9 locations, the median time from specimen collection to contact notification was 6 days or less. In 6 of 8 locations with population comparison data, positive test prevalence was higher among named contacts than the general population. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US local COVID-19 surveillance data, testing named contacts was a high-yield activity for case finding. However, this assessment suggests that contact tracing had suboptimal impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, largely because 2 of 3 cases were either not reached for interview or named no contacts when interviewed. These findings are relevant to decisions regarding the allocation of public health resources among the various prevention strategies and for the prioritization of case investigations and contact tracing efforts.