Search

In response to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the All of Us Research Program longitudinal cohort study developed the COVID-19 Participant Experience (COPE) survey to better understand the pandemic experiences and health impacts of COVID-19 on diverse populations within the United States. Six survey versions were deployed between May 2020 and March 2021, covering mental health, loneliness, activity, substance use, and discrimination, as well as COVID-19 symptoms, testing, treatment, and vaccination. A total of 104,910 All of Us Research Program participants, of whom over 73% were from communities traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research, completed 275,201 surveys; 9,693 completed all 6 surveys. Response rates varied widely among demographic groups and were lower among participants from certain racial and ethnic minority populations, participants with low income or educational attainment, and participants with a Spanish language preference. Survey modifications improved participant response rates between the first and last surveys (13.9% to 16.1%, P  < 0.001). This paper describes a data set with longitudinal COVID-19 survey data in a large, diverse population that will enable researchers to address important questions related to the pandemic, a data set that is of additional scientific value when combined with the program's other data sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are highly efficacious at preventing symptomatic infection, severe disease, and death. Most of the evidence that COVID-19 vaccines also reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is based on retrospective, observational studies. Specifically, an increasing number of studies are evaluating vaccine effectiveness against the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 using data available in existing health-care databases or contact-tracing databases. Since these types of databases were designed for clinical diagnosis or management of COVID-19, they are limited in their ability to provide accurate information on infection, infection timing, and transmission events. We highlight challenges with using existing databases to identify transmission units and confirm potential SARS-CoV-2 transmission events. We discuss the impact of common diagnostic testing strategies, including event-prompted and infrequent testing, and illustrate their potential biases in estimating vaccine effectiveness against the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2. We articulate the need for prospective observational studies of vaccine effectiveness against the SARS-CoV-2 secondary attack rate, and we provide design and reporting considerations for studies using retrospective databases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has underscored the importance of observational studies of real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) to help answer urgent public health questions. One approach to rapidly answering questions about real-world VE relies on linking data from a population-based registry of vaccinations with a population-based registry of health outcomes. Here we consider some potential sources of bias in linked registry studies, including incomplete reporting to the registries, errors in linking individuals between registries, and errors in the assumed population size of the catchment area of the registries. We show that the direction of the bias resulting from one source of error by itself is predictable. However, if multiple sources of error are present, the direction of the bias can be either upward or downward. The biases can be so strong as to make harmful vaccines appear effective. We provide explicit formulas with which to quantify and adjust for multiple biases in estimates of VE which could be used in sensitivity analyses. While this work was motivated by COVID-19 vaccine questions, the results are generally applicable to studies that link population-based exposure registries with population-based case registries to estimate relative risks of exposures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The worldwide shortage of vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection while the pandemic still remains uncontrolled has led many countries to the dilemma of whether or not to vaccinate previously infected persons. Understanding the level of protection conferred by previous infection compared with that of vaccination is important for policy-making. We analyzed an updated individual-level database of the entire population of Israel to assess the protection provided by both prior infection and vaccination in preventing subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe disease, and death due to COVID-19. Outcome data were collected from December 20, 2020, to March 20, 2021. Vaccination was highly protective, with overall estimated effectiveness of 94.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 94.3, 94.7) for documented infection, 95.8% (95% CI: 95.2, 96.2) for hospitalization, 96.3% (95% CI: 95.7, 96.9) for severe illness, and 96.0% (95% CI: 94.9, 96.9) for death. Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection provided by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was 94.8% (95% CI: 94.4, 95.1) for documented infection, 94.1% (95% CI: 91.9, 95.7) for hospitalization, and 96.4% (95% CI: 92.5, 98.3) for severe illness. Our results should be considered by policy-makers when deciding whether or not to prioritize vaccination of previously infected adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this brief communication, we discuss the confusion of mortality with fatality in the interpretation of evidence in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and how this confusion affects the translation of science into policy and practice. We discuss how this confusion has influenced COVID-19 policy in France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and discuss the implications for decision-making about COVID-19 vaccine distribution. We also discuss how this confusion is an example of a more general statistical fallacy we term the "Missing Link Fallacy." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been reported to have a short-term effect on the menstrual cycle, delaying the onset of the next menses. However, the analytical methods that have been used to study this are subject to a statistical phenomenon called "length-biased sampling" that calls the results into question. Those data are important and should be reanalyzed in an unbiased way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]