Influenza vaccine effectiveness among outpatients in the US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network by study site 2011‐2016

BackgroundInfluenza vaccination is recommended for all US residents aged ≥6 months. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) varies by age, circulating influenza strains, and the presence of high‐risk medical conditions. We examined site‐specific VE in the US Influenza VE Network, which evaluates annual influenza VE at ambulatory clinics in geographically diverse sites.MethodsAnalyses were conducted on 27 180 outpatients ≥6 months old presenting with an acute respiratory infection (ARI) with cough of ≤7‐day duration during the 2011‐2016 influenza seasons. A test‐negative design was used with vaccination status defined as receipt of ≥1 dose of any influenza vaccine according to medical records, registries, and/or self‐report. Influenza infection was determined by reverse‐transcription polymerase chain reaction. VE estimates were calculated using odds ratios from multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, time from illness onset to enrollment, high‐risk conditions, calendar time, and vaccination status‐site interaction.ResultsFor all sites combined, VE was statistically significant every season against all influenza and against the predominant circulating strains (VE = 19%‐50%) Few differences among four sites in the US Flu VE Network were evident in five seasons. However, in 2015‐16, overall VE in one site was 24% (95% CI = −4%‐44%), while VE in two other sites was significantly higher (61%, 95% CI = 49%‐71%; P = .002, and 53%, 95% CI = 33,67; P = .034).ConclusionWith few exceptions, site‐specific VE estimates aligned with each other and overall VE estimates. Observed VE may reflect inherent differences in community characteristics of the sites and highlights the importance of diverse settings for studying influenza vaccine effectiveness.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155981/1/irv12741_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155981/2/irv12741.pd

COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and uptake in a national prospective cohort of essential workers

INTRODUCTION: In a multi-center prospective cohort of essential workers, we assessed knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) by vaccine intention, prior SARS-CoV-2 positivity, and occupation, and their impact on vaccine uptake over time. METHODS: Initiated in July 2020, the HEROES-RECOVER cohort provided socio-demographics and COVID-19 vaccination data. Using two follow-up surveys approximately three months apart, COVID-19 vaccine KAP, intention, and receipt was collected; the first survey categorized participants as reluctant, reachable, or endorser. RESULTS: A total of 4,803 participants were included in the analysis. Most (70%) were vaccine endorsers, 16% were reachable, and 14% were reluctant. By May 2021, 77% had received at least one vaccine dose. KAP responses strongly predicted vaccine uptake, particularly positive attitudes about safety (aOR = 5.46, 95% CI: 1.4-20.8) and effectiveness (aOR = 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3-19.1). Participants' with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were 22% less likely to believe the COVID-19 vaccine was effective compared with uninfected participants (aOR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.96). This was even more pronounced in first responders compared with other occupations, with first responders 42% less likely to believe in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (aOR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.40-0.84). Between administrations of the two surveys, 25% of reluctant, 56% reachable, and 83% of endorser groups received the COVID-19 vaccine. The reachable group had large increases in positive responses for questions about vaccine safety (10% of vaccinated, 34% of unvaccinated), and vaccine effectiveness (12% of vaccinated, 27% of unvaccinated). DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrates attitudes associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake and a positive shift in attitudes over time. First responders, despite potential high exposure to SARS-CoV-2, and participants with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection were more vaccine reluctant. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine can shift over time. Targeting messages about the vaccine's safety and effectiveness in reducing SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and illness severity may increase vaccine uptake for reluctant and reachable participants

Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis to predict influenza in primary care patients

Abstract Background The use of neuraminidase-inhibiting anti-viral medication to treat influenza is relatively infrequent. Rapid, cost-effective methods for diagnosing influenza are needed to enable appropriate prescribing. Multi-viral respiratory panels using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays to diagnose influenza are accurate but expensive and more time-consuming than low sensitivity rapid influenza tests. Influenza clinical decision algorithms are both rapid and inexpensive, but most are based on regression analyses that do not account for higher order interactions. This study used classification and regression trees (CART) modeling to estimate probabilities of influenza. Methods Eligible enrollees ≥ 5 years old (n = 4,173) who presented at ambulatory centers for treatment of acute respiratory illness (≤7 days) with cough or fever in 2011–2012, provided nasal and pharyngeal swabs for PCR testing for influenza, information on demographics, symptoms, personal characteristics and self-reported influenza vaccination status. Results Antiviral medication was prescribed for just 15 % of those with PCR-confirmed influenza. An algorithm that included fever, cough, and fatigue had sensitivity of 84 %, specificity of 48 %, positive predictive value (PPV) of 23 % and negative predictive value (NPV) of 94 % for the development sample. Conclusions The CART algorithm has good sensitivity and high NPV, but low PPV for identifying influenza among outpatients ≥5 years. Thus, it is good at identifying a group who do not need testing or antivirals and had fair to good predictive performance for influenza. Further testing of the algorithm in other influenza seasons would help to optimize decisions for lab testing or treatment.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134640/1/12879_2016_Article_1839.pd

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 among symptomatic persons aged ≥12 years with reported contact with COVID-19 cases, February-September 2021

BACKGROUND: Individuals in contact with persons with COVID-19 are at high risk of developing COVID-19; protection offered by COVID-19 vaccines in the context of known exposure is poorly understood. METHODS: Symptomatic outpatients aged ≥12 years reporting acute onset of COVID-19-like illness and tested for SARS-CoV-2 between February 1 and September 30, 2021 were enrolled. Participants were stratified by self-report of having known contact with a COVID-19 case in the 14 days prior to illness onset. Vaccine effectiveness was evaluated using the test-negative study design and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 2229 participants, 283/451 (63%) of those reporting contact and 331/1778 (19%) without known contact tested SARS-CoV-2-positive. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49%-83%) among fully vaccinated participants reporting a known contact versus 80% (95% CI, 72%-86%) among those with no known contact (p-value for interaction = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to growing evidence of the benefits of vaccinations in preventing COVID-19 and support vaccination recommendations and the importance of efforts to increase vaccination coverage

Safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of an inactivated influenza vaccine in healthy adults: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial over two influenza seasons

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Seasonal influenza imposes a substantial personal morbidity and societal cost burden. Vaccination is the major strategy for influenza prevention; however, because antigenically drifted influenza A and B viruses circulate annually, influenza vaccines must be updated to provide protection against the predicted prevalent strains for the next influenza season. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a trivalent inactivated split virion influenza vaccine (TIV) in healthy adults over two influenza seasons in the US.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The primary endpoint of this double-blind, randomized study was the average efficacy of TIV versus placebo for the prevention of vaccine-matched, culture-confirmed influenza (VMCCI) across the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 influenza seasons. Secondary endpoints included the prevention of laboratory-confirmed (defined by culture and/or serology) influenza, as well as safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and consistency between three consecutive vaccine lots. Participants were assessed actively during both influenza seasons, and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected for viral culture from individuals with influenza-like illness. Blood specimens were obtained for serology one month after vaccination and at the end of each influenza season's surveillance period.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Although the point estimate for efficacy in the prevention of all laboratory-confirmed influenza was 63.2% (97.5% confidence interval [CI] lower bound of 48.2%), the point estimate for the primary endpoint, efficacy of TIV against VMCCI across both influenza seasons, was 46.3% with a 97.5% CI lower bound of 9.8%. This did not satisfy the pre-specified success criterion of a one-sided 97.5% CI lower bound of >35% for vaccine efficacy. The VMCCI attack rates were very low overall at 0.6% and 1.2% in the TIV and placebo groups, respectively. Apart from a mismatch for influenza B virus lineage in 2005-2006, there was a good match between TIV and the circulating strains. TIV was highly immunogenic, and immune responses were consistent between three different TIV lots. The most common reactogenicity events and spontaneous adverse events were associated with the injection site, and were mild in severity.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite a good immune response, and an average efficacy over two influenza seasons against laboratory-confirmed influenza of 63.2%, the pre-specified target (lower one-sided 97.5% confidence bound for efficacy > 35%) for the primary efficacy endpoint, the prevention of VMCCI, was not met. However, the results should be interpreted with caution in view of the very low attack rates we observed at the study sites in the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, which corresponded to relatively mild influenza seasons in the US. Overall, the results showed that TIV has an acceptable safety profile and offered clinical benefit that exceeded risk.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00216242</p

Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines in Ambulatory and Inpatient Care Settings

BACKGROUND There are limited data on the effectiveness of the vaccines against symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) currently authorized in the United States with respect to hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or ambulatory care in an emergency department or urgent care clinic. METHODS We conducted a study involving adults (≥50 years of age) with Covid-19–like illness who underwent molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed 41,552 admissions to 187 hospitals and 21,522 visits to 221 emergency departments or urgent care clinics during the period from January 1 through June 22, 2021, in multiple states. The patients’ vaccination status was documented in electronic health records and immunization registries. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated patients with those among unvaccinated patients. Vaccine effectiveness was adjusted with weights based on propensity-for-vaccination scores and according to age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1, 2021, to the index date for each medical visit), and local virus circulation. RESULTS The effectiveness of full messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination (≥14 days after the second dose) was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87 to 91) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization, 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93) against infection leading to an ICU admission, and 91% (95% CI, 89 to 93) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. The effectiveness of full vaccination with respect to a Covid-19–associated hospitalization or emergency department or urgent care clinic visit was similar with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines and ranged from 81% to 95% among adults 85 years of age or older, persons with chronic medical conditions, and Black or Hispanic adults. The effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was 68% (95% CI, 50 to 79) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization and 73% (95% CI, 59 to 82) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS Covid-19 vaccines in the United States were highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. This vaccine effectiveness extended to populations that are disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We conducted a study involving adults (≥50 years of age) with Covid-19-like illness who underwent molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed 41,552 admissions to 187 hospitals and 21,522 visits to 221 emergency departments or urgent care clinics during the period from January 1 through June 22, 2021, in multiple states. The patients' vaccination status was documented in electronic health records and immunization registries. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated patients with those among unvaccinated patients. Vaccine effectiveness was adjusted with weights based on propensity-for-vaccination scores and according to age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1, 2021, to the index date for each medical visit), and local virus circulation. Results: The effectiveness of full messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination (≥14 days after the second dose) was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87 to 91) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization, 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93) against infection leading to an ICU admission, and 91% (95% CI, 89 to 93) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. The effectiveness of full vaccination with respect to a Covid-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department or urgent care clinic visit was similar with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines and ranged from 81% to 95% among adults 85 years of age or older, persons with chronic medical conditions, and Black or Hispanic adults. The effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was 68% (95% CI, 50 to 79) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization and 73% (95% CI, 59 to 82) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. Conclusions: Covid-19 vaccines in the United States were highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. This vaccine effectiveness extended to populations that are disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19–Like Illness with Infection-Induced or mRNA Vaccine-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Immunity — Nine States, January–September 2021

What is already known about this topic? Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness. What is added by this report? Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99). What are the implications for public health practice? All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2

Effectiveness of 2-Dose Vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Against COVID-19–Associated Hospitalizations Among Immunocompromised Adults — Nine States, January–September 2021

What is already known about this topic? Studies suggest that immunocompromised persons who receive COVID-19 vaccination might not develop high neutralizing antibody titers or be as protected against severe COVID-19 outcomes as are immunocompetent persons. What is added by this report? Effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalization was lower (77%) among immunocompromised adults than among immunocompetent adults (90%). Vaccine effectiveness varied considerably among immunocompromised patient subgroups. What are the implications for public health practice? Immunocompromised persons benefit from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination but are less protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes than are immunocompetent persons. Immunocompromised persons receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should receive 3 doses and a booster, consistent with CDC recommendations, practice nonpharmaceutical interventions, and, if infected, be monitored closely and considered early for proven therapies that can prevent severe outcomes