Search

Key Points Question What was the COVID-19 vaccination coverage and estimated mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) among US veterans in the first 3 months following vaccine rollout? Findings In this case-control study including 6 647 733 veterans, 23% of veterans received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccination during the first 3 months of vaccine rollout. VE against infection was estimated to be 95% for full vaccination; estimated VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization was 91%, and there were no COVID-19–related deaths among fully vaccinated veterans. Meaning These findings suggest that early vaccination rollout for veterans was efficient, and estimated VE was high for this diverse US population., This case-control study describes the scope of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccination rollout and estimates the association between vaccination and reductions in SARS-CoV-2 infections among veterans during the first 3 months of vaccine rollout., Importance Effectiveness of mRNA vaccinations in a diverse older population with high comorbidity is unknown. Objectives To describe the scope of the COVID-19 vaccination rollout among US veterans, and to estimate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) as measured by rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants This matched test–negative case-control study was conducted using SARS-CoV-2 test results at Veterans Health Administration sites from December 14, 2020, to March 14, 2021. Vaccine coverage was estimated for all veterans. VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19–related hospitalization and death were estimated using electronic health records from veterans who routinely sought care at a VHA facility and had a test result positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases) or negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls). Cases and controls were matched on time of test and geographic region. Data were analyzed from May to July 2021. Exposures Vaccination status, defined as unvaccinated, partially vaccinated (≥14 days after first dose until second dose), or fully vaccinated (≥14 days after second dose), at time of test. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome of interest was a positive result for SARS-CoV-2 on a polymerase chain reaction or antigen test. Secondary outcomes included COVID-19–related hospitalization and death, defined by discharge data and proximity of event to positive test result. VE was estimated from odds ratios for SARS-CoV-2 infection with 95% CIs. Results Among 6 647 733 veterans included (3 350 373 veterans [50%] aged ≥65 years; 6 014 798 [90%] men and 632 935 [10%] women; 461 645 Hispanic veterans of any race [7%], 1 102 471 non-Hispanic Black veterans [17%], and 4 361 621 non-Hispanic White veterans [66%]), 1 363 180 (21%) received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccination by March 7, 2021. In this period, during which the share of SARS-CoV-2 variants Alpha, Epsilon, and Iota had started to increase in the US, estimates of COVID-19 VE against infection, regardless of symptoms, was 95% (95% CI, 93%-96%) for full vaccination and 64% (95% CI, 59%-68%) for partial vaccination. Estimated VE against COVID-19–related hospitalization for full vaccination was 91% (95% CI 83%-95%); there were no deaths among veterans who were fully vaccinated. VE against infection was similar across subpopulations (non-Hispanic Black, 94% [95% CI, 88%-97%]; Hispanic [any race], 83% [95% CI, 45%-95%]; non-Hispanic White, 92% [95% CI 88%-94%]; rural, 94% [95% CI, 89%-96%]; urban, 93% 95% CI, 89%-95%]). Conclusions and Relevance For veterans of all racial and ethnic subgroups living in urban or rural areas, mRNA vaccination was associated with substantially decreased risk of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization, with no deaths among fully vaccinated veterans.

Using Medicare claims data on prescriptions of oseltamivir dispensed to people 65 years old and older, we present a descriptive analysis of patterns of influenza activity in the United States for 579 core-based statistical areas (CBSAs) from the 2010–2011 through the 2015–2016 influenza seasons. During this time, 1,010,819 beneficiaries received a prescription of oseltamivir, ranging from 45,888 in 2011–2012 to 380,745 in 2014–2015. For each season, the peak weekly number of prescriptions correlated with the total number of prescriptions (Pearson’s r ≥ 0.88). The variance in peak timing decreased with increasing severity (p

BACKGROUND Over 34 million residents of the United States aged 65 years and older are also Medicare prescription drug beneficiaries. Medical claims records for this age group potentially provide a wealth of data for better understanding influenza epidemiology. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate data on oseltamivir dispensing extracted from medical claims records as an indicator of influenza activity in the United States for the 2010-11 through 2014-15 influenza seasons. METHODS We used Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) medical claims data to evaluate the weekly number of therapeutic oseltamivir prescriptions dispensed following a rapid influenza diagnostic test among beneficiaries 65 years old and older as an indicator of influenza timing and intensity. We compared the temporal changes in this indicator to changes in the proportion of influenza-like illnesses among outpatient visits in the US Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet) by administrative regions defined by the US Department of Health and Human Services. Using the moving epidemic method, we determined intensity thresholds and categorized the severity of seasons for both CMS and ILINet data. RESULTS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services oseltamivir data and ILINet data were strongly correlated by administrative region (median Spearman's ρ = 0.78; interquartile range = 0.73-0.80). CMS oseltamivir data and ILINet data substantially agreed (Cohen's weighted κ = 0.62) as to the seasonal severity across administrative regions. CONCLUSIONS Our results support the use of oseltamivir dispensing in medical claims data as an indicator of US influenza activity.

Summary Background A high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine was licensed in 2009 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of serological criteria. We sought to establish whether high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine was more effective for prevention of influenza-related visits and hospital admissions in US Medicare beneficiaries than was standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we identified Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older who received high-dose or standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccines from community pharmacies that offered both vaccines during the 2012–13 influenza season. Outcomes were defined with billing codes on Medicare claims. The primary outcome was probable influenza infection, defined by receipt of a rapid influenza test followed by dispensing of the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir. The secondary outcome was a hospital or emergency department visit, listing a Medicare billing code for influenza. We estimated relative vaccine effectiveness by comparing outcome rates in Medicare beneficiaries during periods of high influenza circulation. Univariate and multivariate Poisson regression models were used for analyses. Findings Between Aug 1, 2012 and Jan 31, 2013, we studied 929 730 recipients of high-dose vaccine and 1 615 545 recipients of standard-dose vaccine. Participants enrolled in each cohort were well balanced with respect to age and presence of underlying medical disorders. The high-dose vaccine (1·30 outcomes per 10 000 person-weeks) was 22% (95% CI 15–29) more effective than the standard-dose vaccine (1·01 outcomes per 10 000 person-weeks) for prevention of probable influenza infections (rapid influenza test followed by oseltamivir treatment) and 22% (95% CI 16–27%) more effective for prevention of influenza hospital admissions (0·86 outcomes per 10 000 person-weeks in the high-dose cohort vs 1·10 outcomes per 10 000 person-weeks in the standard-dose cohort). Interpretation Our retrospective cohort study in US Medicare beneficiaries shows that, in people 65 years of age and older, high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine was significantly more effective than standard-dose vaccine in prevention of influenza-related medical encounters. Additionally, the large population in our study enabled us to show, for the first time, a significant reduction in influenza-related hospital admissions in high-dose compared to standard-dose vaccine recipients, an outcome not shown in randomised studies. These results provide important new information to be considered by policy makers recommending influenza vaccinations for elderly people. Funding FDA and the office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation.

Corynebacterium pseudodiphtheriticum has rarely been reported to cause disease in humans, despite its common presence in the flora of the upper respiratory tract. We report here a case of exudative pharyngitis with pseudomembrane possibly caused by C. pseudodiphtheriticum in a 4-year-old girl. The case initially triggered clinical and laboratory suspicion of diphtheria. Because C. pseudodiphtheriticum can be easily confused with Corynebacterium diphtheriae in Gram stain, clarification of its role in the pathogenesis of exudative pharyngitis in otherwise healthy persons is of public health importance. Simple and rapid screening tests to differentiate C. pseudodiphtheriticum from C. diphtheriae should be performed to prevent unnecessary concern in the community and unnecessary outbreak control measures.

In a PLOS Medicine Review, Felicity Cutts and colleagues describe the challenges facing the estimation of vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries using surveys and recommend ways to improve the measurement of this important public health indicator., Vaccination coverage is an important public health indicator that is measured using administrative reports and/or surveys. The measurement of vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries using surveys is susceptible to numerous challenges. These challenges include selection bias and information bias, which cannot be solved by increasing the sample size, and the precision of the coverage estimate, which is determined by the survey sample size and sampling method. Selection bias can result from an inaccurate sampling frame or inappropriate field procedures and, since populations likely to be missed in a vaccination coverage survey are also likely to be missed by vaccination teams, most often inflates coverage estimates. Importantly, the large multi-purpose household surveys that are often used to measure vaccination coverage have invested substantial effort to reduce selection bias. Information bias occurs when a child's vaccination status is misclassified due to mistakes on his or her vaccination record, in data transcription, in the way survey questions are presented, or in the guardian's recall of vaccination for children without a written record. There has been substantial reliance on the guardian's recall in recent surveys, and, worryingly, information bias may become more likely in the future as immunization schedules become more complex and variable. Finally, some surveys assess immunity directly using serological assays. Sero-surveys are important for assessing public health risk, but currently are unable to validate coverage estimates directly. To improve vaccination coverage estimates based on surveys, we recommend that recording tools and practices should be improved and that surveys should incorporate best practices for design, implementation, and analysis.

Objectives. We implemented active surveillance for Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) following seasonal or H1N1 influenza vaccination among the Medicare population during the 2009-2010 influenza season. Methods. We used weekly Medicare claims data to monitor vaccinations and subsequent hospitalizations with principal diagnosis code for GBS within 42 days. Group sequential testing assessed whether the observed GBS rate exceeded a critical limit based on the expected rate from 5 previous years adjusted for claims delay. We evaluated the lag between date of service and date of claims availability and used it for adjustment. Results. By July 30, 2010 (after 26 interim surveillance tests), 14.0 million seasonal and 3.3 million H1N1 vaccinations had accrued. Taking into account claims delay appropriately lowered the critical limit during early monitoring. The observed GBS rate was below the critical limit throughout the surveillance. Conclusions. Medicare data contributed rapid safety monitoring among millions of 2009–2010 influenza vaccine recipients. Adjustment for claims delay facilitates early detection of potential safety issues. Although limited by lack of medical record review to confirm cases, this claims-based surveillance did not indicate a statistically significant elevated GBS rate following seasonal or H1N1 influenza vaccination.