Effectiveness of BNT162b2 Vaccine for Preventing COVID-19-Related Hospitalizations: A Test-Negative Case-Control Study.

It is important to understand real-world BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE), especially among racial and ethnic minority groups. We performed a test-negative case-control study to measure BNT162b2 COVID-19 VE in the prevention of COVID-19-associated acute respiratory illness (ARI) hospitalizations at two Atlanta hospitals from May 2021-January 2023 and adjusted for potential confounders by multivariate analysis. Among 5139 eligible adults with ARI, 2763 (53.8%) were enrolled, and 1571 (64.5%) were included in the BNT162b2 analysis. The median age was 58 years (IQR, 44-68), 889 (56.6%) were female, 1034 (65.8%) were African American, 359 (22.9%) were White, 56 (3.6%) were Hispanic ethnicity, 645 (41.1%) were SARS-CoV-2-positive, 412 (26.2%) were vaccinated with a primary series, and 273 (17.4%) had received ≥1 booster of BNT162b2. The overall adjusted VE of the BNT162b2 primary series was 58.5% (95% CI 46.0, 68.1), while the adjusted VE of ≥1 booster was 78.9% (95% CI 70.0, 85.1). The adjusted overall VE of primary series for African American/Black individuals was 64.0% (95% CI 49.9, 74.1) and 82.7% (95% CI 71.9, 89.4) in those who received ≥1 booster. When analysis was limited to the period of Omicron predominance, overall VE of the primary series decreased with widened confidence intervals (24.5%, 95% CI -4.5, 45.4%), while VE of ≥1 booster was maintained at 60.9% (95% CI 42.0, 73.6). BNT162b2 primary series and booster vaccination provided protection against COVID-19-associated ARI hospitalization among a predominantly African American population.

Estimated Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 XBB Vaccine Against COVID-19.

Importance: Data describing the early additional protection afforded by the recently recommended BNT162b2 XBB vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech; 2023-2024 formulation) are limited. Objective: To estimate the association between receipt of the BNT162b2 XBB vaccine and medically attended COVID-19 outcomes among US adults 18 years and older. Design, Setting, and Participants: This test-negative case-control study was performed to estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 XBB vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters among adults in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system between October 10, 2023, and December 10, 2023. Cases were those presenting with an acute respiratory illness and who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test; controls had an acute respiratory illness but tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Exposure: The primary exposure was receipt of the BNT162b2 XBB vaccine compared with not receiving an XBB vaccine of any kind, regardless of prior COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection history. Receipt of prior (non-XBB) versions of COVID-19 vaccines was also compared with being unvaccinated to estimate remaining protection from older vaccines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Analyses for cases and controls were conducted separately for COVID-19 hospital admissions and ED/UC encounters. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% CIs were estimated from multivariable logistic regression models that were adjusted for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. Estimation of vaccine effectiveness was calculated as 1 - odds ratio × 100%. Results: Among 2854 cases and 15 345 controls (median [IQR] age, 56 [37-72] years; 10 658 [58.6%] female), adjusted estimation of effectiveness of the BNT162b2 XBB vaccine received a median of 34 days prior vs not having received an XBB vaccine of any kind was 62% (95% CI, 32%-79%) against COVID-19 hospitalization and 58% (95% CI, 48%-67%) for ED/UC visits. Compared with being unvaccinated, those who had received only older versions of COVID-19 vaccines did not show statistically significant reduced risk of COVID-19 outcomes, including hospital admission. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this case-control study reaffirm current recommendations for broad age-based use of annually updated COVID-19 vaccines given that (1) the BNT162b2 XBB vaccine provided statistically significant additional protection against a range of COVID-19 outcomes and (2) older versions of COVID-19 vaccines offered little, if any, long-term protection, including against hospital admission, regardless of the number or type of prior doses received.

Perceived Risk for Severe COVID-19 and Oral Antiviral Use Among Antiviral-Eligible US Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Oral antiviral medications are important tools for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, their uptake remains low for reasons that are not entirely understood. Our study aimed to assess the association between perceived risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and oral antiviral use among those who were eligible for treatment based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. METHODS: We surveyed 4034 non-institutionalized US adults in April 2023, and report findings from 934 antiviral-eligible participants with at least one confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection since December 1, 2021 and no current long COVID symptoms. Survey weights were used to yield nationally representative estimates. The primary exposure of interest was whether participants perceived themselves to be "at high risk for severe COVID-19." The primary outcome was use of a COVID-19 oral antiviral within 5 days of suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Only 18.5% of antiviral-eligible adults considered themselves to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 and 16.8% and 15.9% took oral antivirals at any time or within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, respectively. In contrast, 79.8% were aware of antiviral treatments for COVID-19. Perceived high-risk status was associated with being more likely to be aware (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.20]), to be prescribed (aPR 1.47 [95% CI 1.08-2.01]), and to take oral antivirals at any time (aPR 1.61 [95% CI 1.16-2.24]) or within 5 days of infection (aPR 1.72 [95% CI 1.23-2.40]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread awareness of the availability of COVID-19 oral antivirals, more than 80% of eligible US adults did not receive them. Our findings suggest that differences between perceived and actual risk for severe COVID-19 (based on current CDC guidelines) may partially explain this low uptake.

Effectiveness of Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir for the Prevention of COVID-19-Related Hospitalization and Mortality: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an oral antiviral drug used to treat mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients aged 12 years or older at high risk of progression to severe disease (eg, hospitalization and death). Despite being the preferred option for outpatient treatment in the majority of countries worldwide, NMV/r is currently underutilized in real-world clinical practice. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: As numerous real-world studies have described patient outcomes following treatment with NMV/r, this systematic literature review provides a comprehensive summary of evidence on NMV/r effectiveness against hospitalization and mortality further organized by clinically meaningful categories, such as acute versus longer-term follow-up, age, underlying health conditions, and vaccination status, to help inform health care decision making. DATA SOURCES: We searched Embase and PubMed (December 22, 2021-March 31, 2023) and congress abstracts (December 1, 2021-December 31, 2022) for reports describing NMV/r effectiveness. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: In total, 18 real-world studies met final selection criteria. The evidence showed that NMV/r significantly reduced postinfection risk of all-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality in both acute (≤30 days) (21%-92%) and longer-term (>30 days) (1%-61%) follow-up. The reduction in postinfection risk was higher when treatment was received within 5 days of symptom onset. Real-world effectiveness of NMV/r treatment was observed regardless of age, underlying high-risk conditions, and vaccination status. CONCLUSION: The systematic literature review findings demonstrated the effectiveness of NMV/r against hospitalization and mortality during the Omicron period among individuals at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 disease.

Predictors of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir receipt among COVID-19 patients in a large US health system.

A clear understanding of real-world uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 can inform treatment allocation strategies and improve interpretation of effectiveness studies. We used data from a large US healthcare system to describe nirmatrelvir-ritonavir dispenses among all SARS-CoV-2 positive patients aged ≥ 12 years meeting recommended National Institutes of Health treatment eligibility criteria for the study period between 1 January and 31 December, 2022. Overall, 10.9% (N = 34,791/319,900) of treatment eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir over the study period. Although uptake of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir increased over time, by the end of 2022, less than a quarter of treatment eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections had received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Across patient demographics, treatment was generally consistent with tiered treatment guidelines, with dispenses concentrated among patients aged ≥ 65 years (14,706/63,921; 23.0%), and with multiple comorbidities (10,989/54,431; 20.1%). However, neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status (upper third of neighborhood deprivation index [NDI]) had between 12% (95% CI: 7-18%) and 28% (25-32%) lower odds of treatment dispense over the time periods studied compared to the lower third of NDI distribution, even after accounting for demographic and clinical characteristics. A limited chart review (N = 40) confirmed that in some cases a decision not to treat was appropriate and aligned with national guidelines to use clinical judgement on a case-by-case basis. There is a need to enhance patient and provider awareness on the availability and benefits of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19 illness.

Oral COVID-19 Antiviral Uptake Among a Highly Vaccinated US Cohort of Adults With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Between December 2021 and October 2022.

Background: We described the oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) and molnupiravir (MOV) uptake among a subgroup of highly vaccinated adults in a US national prospective cohort who were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between 12/2021 and 10/2022. Methods: We estimate antiviral uptake within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as age- and gender-adjusted antiviral uptake prevalence ratios by antiviral eligibility (based on age and comorbidities), sociodemographic characteristics, and clinical characteristics including vaccination status and history of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID). Results: NMV/r uptake was 13.6% (95% CI, 11.9%-15.2%) among 1594 participants, and MOV uptake was 1.4% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.1%) among 1398 participants. NMV/r uptake increased over time (1.9%; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.9%; between 12/2021 and 3/2022; 16.5%; 95% CI, 13.0%-20.0%; between 4/2022 and 7/2022; and 25.3%; 95% CI, 21.6%-29.0%; between 8/2022 and 10/2022). Participants age ≥65 and those who had comorbidities for severe COVID-19 had higher NMV/r uptake. There was lower NMV/r uptake among non-Hispanic Black participants (7.2%; 95% CI, 2.4%-12.0%; relative to other racial/ethnic groups) and among individuals in the lowest income groups (10.6%; 95% CI, 7.3%-13.8%; relative to higher income groups). Among a subset of 278 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12/2021 who also had a history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with (vs without) a history of long COVID reported greater NMV/r uptake (22.0% vs 7.9%; P = .001). Among those prescribed NMV/r (n = 216), 137 (63%; 95% CI, 57%-70%) reported that NMV/r was helpful for reducing COVID-19 symptoms. Conclusions: Despite proven effectiveness against severe outcomes, COVID-19 antiviral uptake remains low among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the United States. Further outreach to providers and patients to improve awareness of COVID-19 oral antivirals and indications is needed.

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Utilization for the Treatment of Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 in the National Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data exist regarding real-world utilization of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. We identified predictors of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use among Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatients nationally. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who were eligible to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir between January and December of 2022, to identify factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use (i.e., demographics, medical history, prior medication and healthcare exposures, frailty, and other clinical characteristics) using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We included 309,755 outpatients with COVID-19 who were eligible for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, of whom 12.2% received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir uptake increased from 1.1% to 23.2% over the study period. Factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir receipt included receiving a COVID-19 booster vs. none (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.19 [95% confidence interval [CI] 2.12-2.26]), age ≥ 50 vs. 18-49 years (aORs > 1.5 for all age groups ≥ 50 years), having HIV (aOR 1.36 [1.22-1.51]), being non-frail vs. severely frail (aOR 1.22 [1.13-1.33]), and having rheumatoid arthritis (aOR 1.12 [1.04-1.21). Those with concomitant use of potentially interacting antiarrhythmics (aOR 0.35 [0.28-0.45]), anticoagulants/antiplatelets (aOR 0.42 [0.40-0.45]), and/or psychiatric/sedatives (aOR 0.84 [0.81-0.87]) were less likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increases over time, overall utilization of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was low. Predictors of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir utilization were consistent with known risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19, including older age and underlying medical conditions. Unvaccinated and undervaccinated patients and those receiving potentially interacting medications for cardiovascular or mental health conditions (antiarrhythmic, alpha-1 antagonist, anticoagulant/antiplatelet, sedative/hypnotic/psychiatric) were less likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Further education of prescribers and patients about nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment guidelines is needed to improve overall uptake and utilization in certain high-risk subpopulations.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 BA.4/5 Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Against Symptomatic COVID-19 Among Immunocompetent Individuals Testing at a Large US Retail Pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Data on the effectiveness of BA.4/5 bivalent vaccine stratified by age and prior infection are lacking. METHODS: This test-negative study used data from individuals ≥5 years of age testing for SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms (15 September 2022 to 31 January 2023) at a large national retail pharmacy chain. The exposure was receipt of 2-4 wild-type doses and a BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent vaccine (>2 months since last wild-type dose). The outcome was a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Absolute (vs unvaccinated) and relative (vs 2-4 wild-type doses) vaccine effectiveness (VE) were calculated as (1 - adjusted odds ratio from logistic regression) × 100. VE was stratified by age and self-reported prior infection. RESULTS: Overall, 307 885 SARS-CoV-2 tests were included (7916 aged 5-11, 16 329 aged 12-17, and 283 640 aged ≥18 years). SARS-CoV-2 positivity was 39%; 21% were unvaccinated, 70% received 2-4 wild-type doses with no bivalent vaccine, and 9% received a BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent dose. At a median of 1-2 months after BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent vaccination, depending on age group, absolute VE was 22%-60% and was significantly higher among those reporting prior infection (range, 55%-79%) than not (range, no protection to 50%). Relative VE was 31%-64%. CONCLUSIONS: BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent showed early additional protection against Omicron-related symptomatic COVID-19, with hybrid immunity offering greater protection.

Estimated Effectiveness of Coadministration of the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 COVID-19 Vaccine With Influenza Vaccine.

Importance: No data comparing the estimated effectiveness of coadministering COVID-19 vaccines with seasonal influenza vaccine (SIV) in the community setting exist. Objective: To examine the comparative effectiveness associated with coadministering the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2-biv [Pfizer BioNTech]) and SIV vs giving each vaccine alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective comparative effectiveness study evaluated US adults aged 18 years or older enrolled in commercial health insurance or Medicare Advantage plans and vaccinated with BNT162b2-biv only, SIV only, or both on the same day between August 31, 2022, and January 30, 2023. Individuals with monovalent or another brand of mRNA bivalent COVID-19 vaccine were excluded. Exposure: Same-day coadministration of BNT162b2-biv and SIV; receipt of BNT162b2-biv only (for COVID-19-related outcomes) or SIV only (for influenza-related outcomes) were the comparator groups. For adults aged 65 years or older, only enhanced SIVs were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: COVID-19-related and influenza-related hospitalization, emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters, and outpatient visits. Results: Overall, 3 442 996 individuals (57.0% female; mean [SD] age, 65 [16.7] years) were included. A total of 627 735 individuals had BNT162b2-biv and SIV vaccine coadministered, 369 423 had BNT162b2-biv alone, and 2 445 838 had SIV alone. Among those aged 65 years or older (n = 2 210 493; mean [SD] age, 75 [6.7] years; 57.9% female), the coadministration group had a similar incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87-1.24) and slightly higher incidence of emergency department or urgent care encounters (AHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23) and outpatient visits (AHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11) compared with the BNT162b2-biv-only group. Among individuals aged 18 to 64 years (n = 1 232 503; mean [SD] age, 47 [13.1] years; 55.4% female), the incidence of COVID-19-related outcomes was slightly higher among those who received both vaccines vs BNT162b2-biv alone (AHR point estimate range, 1.14-1.57); however, fewer events overall in this age group resulted in wider CIs. Overall, compared with those who received SIV alone, the coadministration group had a slightly lower incidence of most influenza-related end points (AHR point estimates 0.83-0.93 for those aged ≥65 years vs 0.76-1.08 for those aged 18-64 years). Negative control outcomes suggested residual bias and calibration of COVID-19-related and influenza-related outcomes with negative controls moved all estimates closer to the null, with most CIs crossing 1.00. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, coadministration of BNT162b2-biv and SIV was associated with generally similar effectiveness in the community setting against COVID-19-related and SIV-related outcomes compared with giving each vaccine alone and may help improve uptake of both vaccines.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent mRNA vaccine against a range of COVID-19 outcomes in a large health system in the USA: a test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: XBB-related omicron sublineages have recently replaced BA.4/5 as the predominant omicron sublineages in the USA and other regions globally. Despite preliminary signs of immune evasion of XBB sublineages, few data exist describing the real-world effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, especially against XBB-related illness. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the Pfizer--BioNTech BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent vaccine against both BA.4/5-related and XBB-related disease in adults aged 18 years or older. METHODS: In this test-negative case-control study, we estimated the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent vaccine using data from electronic health records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system members aged 18 years or older who received at least two doses of the wild-type COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Participants sought care for acute respiratory infection between Aug 31, 2022, and April 15, 2023, and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 via PCR tests. Relative vaccine effectiveness (≥2 doses of wild-type mRNA vaccine plus a BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent booster vs ≥2 doses of a wild-type mRNA vaccine alone) and absolute vaccine effectiveness (vs unvaccinated individuals) was estimated against critical illness related to acute respiratory infection (intensive care unit [ICU] admission, mechanical ventilation, or inpatient death), hospital admission, emergency department or urgent care visits, and in-person outpatient encounters with odds ratios from logistic regression models adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. We stratified vaccine effectiveness estimates for hospital admission, emergency department or urgent care visits, and outpatient encounters by omicron sublineage (ie, likely BA.4/5-related vs likely XBB-related), time since bivalent booster receipt, age group, number of wild-type doses received, and immunocompromised status. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04848584). FINDINGS: Analyses were conducted for 123 419 encounters (24 246 COVID-19 cases and 99 173 test-negative controls), including 4131 episode of critical illness (a subset of hospital admissions), 14 529 hospital admissions, 63 566 emergency department or urgent care visits, and 45 324 outpatient visits. 20 555 infections were BA.4/5 related and 3691 were XBB related. In adjusted analyses, relative vaccine effectiveness for those who received the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent booster compared with those who received at least two doses of a wild-type mRNA vaccine alone was an additional 50% (95% CI 23-68) against critical illness, an additional 39% (28-49) against hospital admission, an additional 35% (30-40) against emergency department or urgent care visits, and an additional 28% (22-33) against outpatient encounters. Waning of the bivalent booster from 0-3 months to 4-7 months after vaccination was evident for outpatient outcomes but was not detected for critical illness, hospital admission, and emergency department or urgent care outcomes. The relative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent booster for XBB-related infections compared with BA.4/5-related infections was 56% (95% CI 12-78) versus 40% (27-50) for hospital admission; 34% (21-45) versus 36% (30-41) against emergency department or urgent care visits; and 29% (19-38) versus 27% (20-33) for outpatient encounters. INTERPRETATION: By mid-April, 2023, individuals previously vaccinated only with wild-type vaccines had little protection against COVID-19-including hospital admission. A BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent booster restored protection against a range of COVID-19 outcomes, including against XBB-related sublineages, with the most substantial protection observed against hospital admission and critical illness. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Receipt of BNT162b2 Vaccine and COVID-19 Ambulatory Visits in US Children Younger Than 5 Years.

This study examines the association of the receipt of wild-type BNT162b2 vaccine with medically attended COVID-19 outcomes among children younger than 5 years in the US.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infective exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on clinical outcomes in a prospective cohort study of hospitalised adults.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) triggered by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), have worse outcomes than AECOPD caused by other infectious agents or non-infective AECOPD (NI-COPD). DESIGN: A two-hospital prospective cohort study of adults hospitalised with acute respiratory disease. We compared outcomes with AECOPD and a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 816), AECOPD triggered by other infections (n = 3038) and NI-COPD (n = 994). We used multivariable modelling to adjust for potential confounders and assessed variation by seasons associated with different SARS-CoV-2 variants. SETTING: Bristol UK, August 2020-May 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 y) hospitalised with AECOPD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We determined the risk of positive pressure support, longer hospital admission and mortality following hospitalisation with AECOPD due to non-SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with SARS-CoV-2 AECOPD and NI-COPD. RESULTS: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 AECOPD, in comparison to non-SARS-CoV-2 infective AECOPD or NI-COPD, more frequently required positive pressure support (18.5% and 7.5% vs. 11.7%, respectively), longer hospital stays (median [interquartile range, IQR]: 7 [3-15] and 5 [2-10] vs. 4 [2-9] days, respectively) and had higher 30-day mortality (16.9% and 11.1% vs. 5.9%, respectively) (all p < 0.001). In adjusted analyses, SARS-CoV-2 AECOPD was associated with a 55% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 24-93), 26% (95% CI: 15-37) and 35% (95% CI: 10-65) increase in the risk of positive pressure support, hospitalisation length and 30-day mortality, respectively, relative to non-SARS-CoV-2 infective AECOPD. The difference in risk remained similar during periods of wild-type, Alpha and Delta SARS-CoV-2 strain dominance, but diminished during Omicron dominance. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2-related AECOPD had worse patient outcomes compared with non-SARS-CoV-2 AECOPD or NI-AECOPD, although the difference in risks was less pronounced during Omicron dominance.

BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 against symptomatic Omicron infection following a mass vaccination campaign in southern Brazil: A prospective test-negative design study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against Omicron in Latin America is limited. We estimated BNT162b2 effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 in Brazil when Omicron was predominant. METHODS: This prospective test-negative, case-control study was conducted in Toledo, Brazil, following a mass COVID-19 vaccination with BNT162b2. Patients were included if they were aged ≥12 years, sought care for acute respiratory symptoms in the public health system between November 3, 2021 and June 20, 2022, and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR. In the primary analysis, we determined the effectiveness of two doses of BNT162b2 against symptomatic COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 4,574 were enrolled; of these, 1,758 patients (586 cases and 1,172 controls) were included in the primary analysis. Mean age was 27.7 years, 53.8 % were women, and 90.1 % had a Charlson comorbidity index of zero. Omicron accounted for >97 % of all identified SARS-CoV-2 variants, with BA.1 and BA.2 accounting for 84.3 % and 12.6 %, respectively. Overall adjusted estimate of two-dose vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 was 46.7 % (95 %CI, 19.9 %-64.6 %) after a median time between the second dose and the beginning of COVID-19 symptoms of 94 days (IQR, 60-139 days). Effectiveness waned from 77.7 % at 7-29 days after receipt of a second dose to <30 % (non-significant) after ≥120 days. CONCLUSION: In a relatively young and healthy Brazilian population, two doses of BNT162b2 provided protection against symptomatic Omicron infection. However, this protection waned significantly over time, underscoring the need for boosting with variant-adapted vaccines in this population prior to waves of disease activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05052307 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05052307).

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.

Seasonal trends in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and mortality in the United States and Europe.

Determining whether SARS-CoV-2 exhibits seasonality like other respiratory viruses is critical for public health planning. We evaluated whether COVID-19 rates follow a seasonal pattern using time series models. We used time series decomposition to extract the annual seasonal component of COVID-19 case, hospitalization, and mortality rates from March 2020 through December 2022 for the United States and Europe. Models were adjusted for a country-specific stringency index to account for confounding by various interventions. Despite year-round disease activity, we identified seasonal spikes in COVID-19 from approximately November through April for all outcomes and in all countries. Our results support employing annual preventative measures against SARS-CoV-2, such as administering seasonal booster vaccines in a similar timeframe as those in place for influenza. Whether certain high-risk individuals may need more than one COVID-19 vaccine booster dose each year will depend on factors like vaccine durability against severe illness and levels of year-round disease activity.

BNT162b2 Against COVID-19-Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Visits Among Children 5-11 Years of Age: A Test Negative Design.

In a 1:1 matched test-negative design among 5- to 11-year-olds in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system (n = 3984), BNT162b2 effectiveness against the omicron-related emergency department or urgent care encounters was 60% [95%CI: 47-69] <3 months post-dose-two and 28% [8-43] after ≥3 months. A booster improved protection to 77% [53-88].

Analysis of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Among Immunocompromised Individuals in a Large US Health System.

Importance: Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk for severe outcomes due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Given the varying and complex nature of COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, it is important to understand COVID-19 vaccine uptake in this vulnerable population. Objective: To assess mRNA COVID-19 vaccine uptake and factors associated with uptake among immunocompromised individuals from December 14, 2020, through August 6, 2022. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted with patients of Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), an integrated health care system in the US. The study included patients aged 18 years or older who were immunocompromised (individuals with an immunocompromising condition or patients who received immunosuppressive medications in the year prior to December 14, 2020) and still met criteria for being immunocompromised 1 year later. Exposures: Age, sex, self-identified race and ethnicity, prior positive COVID-19 test result, immunocompromising condition, immunomodulating medication, comorbidities, health care utilization, and neighborhood median income. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were the number of doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine received and the factors associated with receipt of at least 4 doses, estimated by hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% Wald CIs via Cox proportional hazards regression. Statistical analyses were conducted between August 9 and 23, 2022. Results: Overall, 42 697 immunocompromised individuals met the study eligibility criteria. Among these, 18 789 (44.0%) were aged 65 years or older; 20 061 (47.0%) were women and 22 635 (53.0%) were men. With regard to race and ethnicity, 4295 participants (10.1%) identified as Asian or Pacific Islander, 5174 (12.1%) as Black, 14 289 (33.5%) as Hispanic, and 17 902 (41.9%) as White. As of the end of the study period and after accounting for participant censoring due to death or disenrollment from the KPSC health plan, 78.0% of immunocompromised individuals had received a third dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Only 41.0% had received a fourth dose, which corresponds to a primary series and a monovalent booster dose for immunocompromised individuals. Uptake of a fifth dose was only 0.9% following the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation to receive a second monovalent booster (ie, fifth dose). Adults aged 65 years or older (HR, 3.95 [95% CI, 3.70-4.22]) were more likely to receive at least 4 doses compared with those aged 18 to 44 years or 45 to 64 years (2.52 [2.36-2.69]). Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black adults (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.74-0.80] and 0.82 [0.78-0.87], respectively, compared with non-Hispanic White adults), individuals with prior documented SARS-CoV-2 infection (0.71 [0.62-0.81] compared with those without), and individuals receiving high-dose corticosteroids (0.88 [0.81-0.95] compared with those who were not) were less likely to receive at least 4 doses. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that adherence to CDC mRNA monovalent COVID-19 booster dose recommendations among immunocompromised individuals was low. Given the increased risk for severe COVID-19 in this vulnerable population and the well-established additional protection afforded by booster doses, targeted and tailored efforts to ensure that immunocompromised individuals remain up to date with COVID-19 booster dose recommendations are warranted.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Severity and Risk of Subsequent Cardiovascular Events.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relationship between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity and subsequent risk of experiencing a cardiovascular event (CVE) after COVID-19 recovery. We evaluated this relationship in a large cohort of United States adults. METHODS: Using a claims database, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between 1 April 2020 and 31 May 2021. We evaluated the association between COVID-19 severity and risk of CVE >30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis using inverse probability of treatment-weighted competing risks regression. Severity was based on level of care required for COVID-19 treatment: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, non-ICU hospitalization, or outpatient care only. RESULTS: A total of 1 357 518 COVID-19 patients were included (2% ICU, 3% non-ICU hospitalization, and 95% outpatient only). Compared to outpatients, there was an increased risk of any CVE for patients requiring ICU admission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.80 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.71-1.89]) or non-ICU hospitalization (aHR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.24-1.33]). Risk of subsequent hospitalization for CVE was even higher (aHRs, 3.47 [95% CI, 3.20-3.76] for ICU and 1.96 [95% CI, 1.85-2.09] for non-ICU hospitalized vs outpatient only). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients hospitalized or requiring critical care had a significantly higher risk of experiencing and being hospitalized for post-COVID-19 CVE than patients with milder COVID-19 who were managed solely in the outpatient setting, even after adjusting for differences between these groups. These findings underscore the continued importance of preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from progressing to severe illness to reduce potential long-term cardiovascular complications.

Estimated global public health and economic impact of COVID-19 vaccines in the pre-omicron era using real-world empirical data.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available describing the global impact of COVID-19 vaccines. This study estimated the global public health and economic impact of COVID-19 vaccines before the emergence of the Omicron variant. METHODS: A static model covering 215 countries/territories compared the direct effects of COVID-19 vaccination to no vaccination during 13 December 2020-30 September 2021. After adjusting for underreporting of cases and deaths, base case analyses estimated total cases and deaths averted, and direct outpatient and productivity costs saved through averted health outcomes. Sensitivity analyses applied alternative model assumptions. RESULTS: COVID-19 vaccines prevented an estimated median (IQR) of 151.7 (133.7-226.1) million cases and 620.5 (411.1-698.1) thousand deaths globally through September 2021. In sensitivity analysis applying an alternative underreporting assumption, median deaths averted were 2.1 million. Estimated direct outpatient cost savings were $21.2 ($18.9-30.9) billion and indirect savings of avoided productivity loss were $135.1 ($121.1-206.4) billion, yielding a total cost savings of $155 billion globally through averted infections. CONCLUSIONS: Using a conservative modeling approach that considered direct effects only, we estimated that COVID-19 vaccines have averted millions of infections and deaths, generating billions of cost savings worldwide, which underscore the continued importance of vaccination in public health response to COVID-19.

Effectiveness and durability of BNT162b2 vaccine against hospital and emergency department admissions due to SARS-CoV-2 omicron sub-lineages BA.1 and BA.2 in a large health system in the USA: a test-negative, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529 BA.1) lineage was first detected in November, 2021, and is associated with reduced vaccine effectiveness. By March, 2022, BA.1 had been replaced by sub-lineage BA.2 in the USA. As new variants evolve, vaccine performance must be continually assessed. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and durability of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) against hospital and emergency department admissions for BA.1 and BA.2. METHODS: In this test-negative, case-control study, we sourced data from the electronic health records of adult (aged ≥18 years) members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), which is a health-care system in the USA, who were admitted to one of 15 KPSC hospitals or emergency departments (without subsequent hospitalisation) between Dec 27, 2021, and June 4, 2022, with an acute respiratory infection and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Omicron sub-lineage was determined by use of sequencing, spike gene target failure, and the predominance of variants in certain time periods. Our main outcome was the effectiveness of two or three doses of BNT162b2 in preventing emergency department or hospital admission. Variant-specific vaccine effectiveness was evaluated by comparing the odds ratios from logistic regression models of vaccination between test-positive cases and test-negative controls, adjusting for the month of admission, age, sex, race and ethnicity, body-mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, previous influenza or pneumococcal vaccines, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also assessed effectiveness by the time since vaccination. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04848584, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Of 65 813 total admissions during the study period, we included 16 994 in our analyses, of which 7435 were due to BA.1, 1056 were due to BA.2, and 8503 were not due to SARS-CoV-2. In adjusted analyses, two-dose vaccine effectiveness was 40% (95% CI 27 to 50) for hospitalisation and 29% (18 to 38) for emergency department admission against BA.1 and 56% (31 to 72) for hospitalisation and 16% (-5 to 33) for emergency department admission against BA.2. Three-dose vaccine effectiveness was 79% (74 to 83) for hospitalisation and 72% (67 to 77) for emergency department admission against BA.1 and 71% (55 to 81) for hospitalisation and 21% (1 to 37) for emergency department admission against BA.2. Less than 3 months after the third dose, vaccine effectiveness was 80% (74 to 84) for hospitalisation and 74% (69 to 78) for emergency department admission against BA.1. Vaccine effectiveness 3 months or more after the third dose was 76% (69 to 82) against BA.1-related hospitalisation and 65% (56 to 73) against BA.1-related emergency department admission. Against BA.2, vaccine effectiveness was 74% (47 to 87) for hospitalisation and 59% (40 to 72) for emergency department admission at less than 3 months after the third dose and 70% (53 to 81) for hospitalisation and 5% (-21 to 25) for emergency department admission at 3 months or more after the third dose. INTERPRETATION: Two doses of BNT162b2 provided only partial protection against BA.1-related and BA.2-related hospital and emergency department admission, which underscores the need for booster doses against omicron. Although three doses offered high levels of protection (≥70%) against hospitalisation, variant-adapted vaccines are probably needed to improve protection against less severe endpoints, like emergency department admission, especially for BA.2. FUNDING: Pfizer.