Search

Background Descriptions of changes in invasive bacterial disease (IBD) epidemiology during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States are limited. Methods We investigated changes in the incidence of IBD due to Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, group A Streptococcus (GAS), and group B Streptococcus (GBS). We defined the COVID-19 pandemic period as 1 March to 31 December 2020. We compared observed IBD incidences during the pandemic to expected incidences, consistent with January 2014 to February 2020 trends. We conducted secondary analysis of a health care database to assess changes in testing by blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture during the pandemic. Results Compared with expected incidences, the observed incidences of IBD due to S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, GAS, and GBS were 58%, 60%, 28%, and 12% lower during the pandemic period of 2020, respectively. Declines from expected incidences corresponded closely with implementation of COVID-19–associated nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Significant declines were observed across all age and race groups, and surveillance sites for S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae. Blood and CSF culture testing rates during the pandemic were comparable to previous years. Conclusions NPIs likely contributed to the decline in IBD incidence in the United States in 2020; observed declines were unlikely to be driven by reductions in testing.

CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥18 years receive a single COVID-19 vaccine booster dose ≥2 months after receipt of an Ad.26.COV2.S (Janssen [JohnsonJohnson]) adenovirus vector-based primary series vaccine; a heterologous COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is preferred over a homologous (matching) Janssen vaccine for booster vaccination. This recommendation was made in light of the risks for rare but serious adverse events following receipt of a Janssen vaccine, including thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome and Guillain-Barré syndrome

Summary Background In the USA, COVID-19 vaccines became available in mid-December, 2020, with adults aged 65 years and older among the first groups prioritised for vaccination. We estimated the national-level impact of the initial phases of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme on COVID-19 cases, emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and deaths among adults aged 65 years and older. Methods We analysed population-based data reported to US federal agencies on COVID-19 cases, emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and deaths among adults aged 50 years and older during the period Nov 1, 2020, to April 10, 2021. We calculated the relative change in incidence among older age groups compared with a younger reference group for pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods, defined by the week when vaccination coverage in a given age group first exceeded coverage in the reference age group by at least 1%; time lags for immune response and time to outcome were incorporated. We assessed whether the ratio of these relative changes differed when comparing the pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods. Findings The ratio of relative changes comparing the change in the COVID-19 case incidence ratio over the post-vaccine versus pre-vaccine periods showed relative decreases of 53% (95% CI 50 to 55) and 62% (59 to 64) among adults aged 65 to 74 years and 75 years and older, respectively, compared with those aged 50 to 64 years. We found similar results for emergency department visits with relative decreases of 61% (52 to 68) for adults aged 65 to 74 years and 77% (71 to 78) for those aged 75 years and older compared with adults aged 50 to 64 years. Hospital admissions declined by 39% (29 to 48) among those aged 60 to 69 years, 60% (54 to 66) among those aged 70 to 79 years, and 68% (62 to 73), among those aged 80 years and older, compared with adults aged 50 to 59 years. COVID-19 deaths also declined (by 41%, 95% CI –14 to 69 among adults aged 65–74 years and by 30%, –47 to 66 among those aged ≥75 years, compared with adults aged 50 to 64 years), but the magnitude of the impact of vaccination roll-out on deaths was unclear. Interpretation The initial roll-out of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme was associated with reductions in COVID-19 cases, emergency department visits, and hospital admissions among older adults. Funding None.

Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) or COVID-19 vaccination can provide immunity and protection from subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and illness. CDC used data from the VISION Network* to examine hospitalizations in adults with COVID-19-like illness and compared the odds of receiving a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, and thus having laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, between unvaccinated patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection occurring 90-179 days before COVID-19-like illness hospitalization, and patients who were fully vaccinated with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine 90-179 days before hospitalization with no previous documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hospitalized adults aged ≥18 years with COVID-19-like illness were included if they had received testing at least twice: once associated with a COVID-19-like illness hospitalization during January-September 2021 and at least once earlier (since February 1, 2020, and ≥14 days before that hospitalization). Among COVID-19-like illness hospitalizations in persons whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90-179 days earlier, the odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (adjusted for sociodemographic and health characteristics) among unvaccinated, previously infected adults were higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with no previous documented infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 5.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.75-10.99). These findings suggest that among hospitalized adults with COVID-19-like illness whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90-179 days earlier, vaccine-induced immunity was more protective than infection-induced immunity against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

On September 1, 2022, bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, composed of components from the SARS-CoV-2 ancestral and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strains, were recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to address reduced effectiveness of COVID-19 monovalent vaccines during SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant predominance (1). Initial recommendations included persons aged ≥12 years (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ≥18 years (Moderna) who had completed at least a primary series of any Food and Drug Administration-authorized or -approved monovalent vaccine ≥2 months earlier (1). On October 12, 2022, the recommendation was expanded to include children aged 5-11 years. At the time of recommendation, immunogenicity data were available from clinical trials of bivalent vaccines composed of ancestral and Omicron BA.1 strains; however, no clinical efficacy data were available. In this study, effectiveness of the bivalent (Omicron BA.4/BA.5-containing) booster formulation against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was examined using data from the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) national SARS-CoV-2 testing program.* During September 14-November 11, 2022, a total of 360,626 nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) performed at 9,995 retail pharmacies for adults aged ≥18 years, who reported symptoms consistent with COVID-19 at the time of testing and no immunocompromising conditions, were included in the analysis. Relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of a bivalent booster dose compared with that of ≥2 monovalent vaccine doses among persons for whom 2-3 months and ≥8 months had elapsed since last monovalent dose was 30% and 56% among persons aged 18-49 years, 31% and 48% among persons aged 50-64 years, and 28% and 43% among persons aged ≥65 years, respectively. Bivalent mRNA booster doses provide additional protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 in immunocompetent persons who previously received monovalent vaccine only, with relative benefits increasing with time since receipt of the most recent monovalent vaccine dose. Staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccination, including getting a bivalent booster dose when eligible, is critical to maximizing protection against COVID-19 (1).

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. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

Objective To evaluate if facility-level vaccination after an initial vaccination clinic was independently associated with COVID-19 incidence adjusted for other factors in January 2021 among nursing home residents. Design Ecological analysis of data from the CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) and from the CDC's Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. Setting and Participants CMS-certified nursing homes participating in both NHSN and the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. Methods A multivariable, random intercepts, negative binomial model was applied to contrast COVID-19 incidence rates among residents living in facilities with an initial vaccination clinic during the week ending January 3, 2021 (n = 2843), vs those living in facilities with no vaccination clinic reported up to and including the week ending January 10, 2021 (n = 3216). Model covariates included bed size, resident SARS-CoV-2 testing, staff with COVID-19, cumulative COVID-19 among residents, residents admitted with COVID-19, community county incidence, and county social vulnerability index (SVI). Results In December 2020 and January 2021, incidence of COVID-19 among nursing home residents declined to the lowest point since reporting began in May, diverged from the pattern in community cases, and began dropping before vaccination occurred. Comparing week 3 following an initial vaccination clinic vs week 2, the adjusted reduction in COVID-19 rate in vaccinated facilities was 27% greater than the reduction in facilities where vaccination clinics had not yet occurred (95% confidence interval: 14%-38%, P Conclusions and Implications Vaccination of residents contributed to the decline in COVID-19 incidence in nursing homes; however, other factors also contributed. The decline in COVID-19 was evident prior to widespread vaccination, highlighting the benefit of a multifaced approach to prevention including continued use of recommended screening, testing, and infection prevention practices as well as vaccination to keep residents in nursing homes safe.

Nursing home and long-term care facility residents live in congregate settings and are often elderly and frail, putting them at high risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and severe COVID-19-associated outcomes; therefore, this population was prioritized for early vaccination in the United States (1). Following rapid distribution and administration of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) under an Emergency Use Authorization by the Food and Drug Administration (2), observational studies among nursing home residents demonstrated vaccine effectiveness (VE) ranging from 53% to 92% against SARS-CoV-2 infection (3-6). However, concerns about the potential for waning vaccine-induced immunity and the recent emergence of the highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant† highlight the need to continue to monitor VE (7). Weekly data reported by the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare (CMS)-certified skilled nursing facilities or nursing homes to CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN)§ were analyzed to evaluate effectiveness of full vaccination (2 doses received ≥14 days earlier) with any of the two currently authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during the period soon after vaccine introduction and before the Delta variant was circulating (pre-Delta [March 1-May 9, 2021]), and when the Delta variant predominated¶ (Delta [June 21-August 1, 2021]). Using 17,407 weekly reports from 3,862 facilities from the pre-Delta period, adjusted effectiveness against infection for any mRNA vaccine was 74.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70.0%-78.8%). Analysis using 33,160 weekly reports from 11,581 facilities during an intermediate period (May 10-June 20) found that the adjusted effectiveness was 67.5% (95% CI = 60.1%-73.5%). Analysis using 85,593 weekly reports from 14,917 facilities during the Delta period found that the adjusted effectiveness was 53.1% (95% CI = 49.1%-56.7%). Effectiveness estimates were similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. These findings indicate that mRNA vaccines provide protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection among nursing home residents; however, VE was lower after the Delta variant became the predominant circulating strain in the United States. This analysis assessed VE against any infection, without being able to distinguish between asymptomatic and symptomatic presentations. Additional evaluations are needed to understand protection against severe disease in nursing home residents over time. Because nursing home residents might remain at some risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection despite vaccination, multiple COVID-19 prevention strategies, including infection control, testing, and vaccination of nursing home staff members, residents, and visitors, are critical. An additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine might be considered for nursing home and long-term care facility residents to optimize a protective immune response.

BACKGROUND: Globally, neonatal mortality accounts for almost half of all deaths in children younger than 5 years. Aetiological agents of neonatal infection are difficult to identify because the clinical signs are non-specific. Using data from the Aetiology of Neonatal Infections in south Asia (ANISA) cohort, we aimed to describe the spectrum of infectious aetiologies of acute neonatal illness categorised post-hoc using the 2015 WHO case definitions of critical illness, clinical severe infection, and fast breathing only. METHODS: Eligible infants were aged 0-59 days with possible serious bacterial infection and healthy infants enrolled in the ANISA study in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. We applied a partial latent class Bayesian model to estimate the prevalence of 27 pathogens detectable on PCR, pathogens detected by blood culture only, and illness not attributed to any infectious aetiology. Infants with at least one clinical specimen available were included in the analysis. We assessed the prevalence of these aetiologies according to WHO's case definitions of critically ill, clinical severe infection, and infants with late onset, isolated fast breathing. For the clinical severe definition, we compared the prevalence of signs by bacterial versus viral aetiology. FINDINGS: There were 934 infants (992 episodes) in the critically ill category, 3769 (4000 episodes) in the clinical severe infection category, and 738 (771 episodes) in the late-onset isolated fast breathing category. We estimated the proportion of illness attributable to bacterial infection was 32·7% in infants in the critically ill group, 15·6% in the clinical severe infection group, and 8·8% among infants with late-onset isolated fast breathing group. An infectious aetiology was not identified in 58-82% of infants in these categories. Among 4000 episodes of clinical severe infection, those with bacterial versus viral attribution had higher proportions of hypothermia, movement only when stimulated, convulsions, and poor feeding. INTERPRETATION: Our modelled results generally support the revised WHO case definitions, although a revision of the most severe case definition could be considered. Clinical criteria do not clearly differentiate between young infants with and without infectious aetiologies. Our results highlight the need for improved point-of-care diagnostics, and further study into neonatal deaths and episodes with no identified aetiology, to ensure antibiotic stewardship and targeted interventions. FUNDING: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

ObjectiveTo determine the difference in rate of weight gain from birth to 5 years based on exposure to maternal group B streptococcal (GBS) intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP).DesignRetrospective cohort study of 13 804 infants.SettingTwo perinatal centres and a primary paediatric care network in Philadelphia.ParticipantsTerm infants born 2007–2012, followed longitudinally from birth to 5 years of age.ExposuresGBS IAP defined as penicillin, ampicillin, cefazolin, clindamycin or vancomycin administered ≥4 hours prior to delivery to the mother. Reference infants were defined as born to mothers without (vaginal delivery) or with other (caesarean delivery) intrapartum antibiotic exposure.OutcomesDifference in rate of weight change from birth to 5 years was assessed using longitudinal rate regression. Analysis was a priori stratified by delivery mode and adjusted for relevant covariates.ResultsGBS IAP was administered to mothers of 2444/13 804 (17.7%) children. GBS IAP-exposed children had a significantly elevated rate of weight gain in the first 5 years among vaginally-born (adjusted rate difference 1.44% (95% CI 0.3% to 2.6%)) and caesarean-born (3.52% (95% CI 1.9% to 5.2%)) children. At 5 years, the rate differences equated to an additional 0.24 kg among vaginally-born children and 0.60 kg among caesarean-born children.ConclusionGBS-specific IAP was associated with a modest increase in rate of early childhood weight gain. GBS IAP is an effective intervention to prevent perinatal GBS disease-associated morbidity and mortality. However, these findings highlight the need to better understand effects of intrapartum antibiotic exposure on childhood growth and support efforts to develop alternate prevention strategies.

Psittacosis is typically a mild febrile respiratory illness caused by infection with the bacterium Chlamydia psittaci and usually transmitted to humans by infected birds (1). On average, 11 psittacosis cases per year were reported in the United States during 2000-2017. During August-October 2018, the largest U.S. psittacosis outbreak in 30 years (82 cases identified*) occurred in two poultry slaughter plants, one each in Virginia and Georgia, that shared source farms (2). CDC used C. psittaci real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to test 54 human specimens from this outbreak. This was the largest number of human specimens from a single outbreak ever tested for C. psittaci using real-time PCR, which is faster and more sensitive than commercially available serologic tests. This represented a rare opportunity to assess the utility of multiple specimen types for real-time PCR detection of C. psittaci. C. psittaci was detected more frequently in lower respiratory specimens (59% [10 of 17]) and stool (four of five) than in upper respiratory specimens (7% [two of 28]). Among six patients with sputum and nasopharyngeal swabs tested, C. psittaci was detected only in sputum in five patients. Cycle threshold (Ct) values suggested bacterial load was higher in lower respiratory specimens than in nasopharyngeal swabs. These findings support prioritizing lower respiratory specimens for real-time PCR detection of C. psittaci. Stool specimens might also have utility for diagnosis of psittacosis.

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), particularly those in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), have experienced disproportionately high levels of COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality and were prioritized for early COVID-19 vaccination (1,2). However, this group was not included in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, and limited postauthorization vaccine effectiveness (VE) data are available for this critical population (3). It is not known how well COVID-19 vaccines protect SNF residents, who typically are more medically frail, are older, and have more underlying medical conditions than the general population (1). In addition, immunogenicity of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was found to be lower in adults aged 65-85 years than in younger adults (4). Through the CDC Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program, SNF residents and staff members in Connecticut began receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on December 18, 2020 (5). Administration of the vaccine was conducted during several on-site pharmacy clinics. In late January 2021, the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH) identified two SNFs experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks among residents and staff members that occurred after each facility's first vaccination clinic. CT DPH, in partnership with CDC, performed electronic chart review in these facilities to obtain information on resident vaccination status and infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Partial vaccination, defined as the period from >14 days after the first dose through 7 days after the second dose, had an estimated effectiveness of 63% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 33%-79%) against SARS-CoV-2 infection (regardless of symptoms) among residents within these SNFs. This is similar to estimated effectiveness for a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adults across a range of age groups in noncongregate settings (6) and suggests that to optimize vaccine impact among this population, high coverage with the complete 2-dose series should be recommended for SNF residents and staff members.

Background: Group B streptococcus (GBS) colonisation during pregnancy can lead to invasive GBS disease (iGBS) in infants, including meningitis or sepsis, with a high mortality risk. Other outcomes include stillbirths, maternal infections, and prematurity. There are data gaps, notably regarding neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI), especially after iGBS sepsis, which have limited previous global estimates. In this study, we aimed to address this gap using newly available multicountry datasets. Methods: We collated and meta-analysed summary data, primarily identified in a series of systematic reviews published in 2017 but also from recent studies on NDI and stillbirths, using Bayesian hierarchical models, and estimated the burden for 183 countries in 2020 regarding: maternal GBS colonisation, iGBS cases and deaths in infants younger than 3 months, children surviving iGBS affected by NDI, and maternal iGBS cases. We analysed the proportion of stillbirths with GBS and applied this to the UN-estimated stillbirth risk per country. Excess preterm births associated with maternal GBS colonisation were calculated using meta-analysis and national preterm birth rates. Findings: Data from the seven systematic reviews, published in 2017, that informed the previous burden estimation (a total of 515 data points) were combined with new data (17 data points) from large multicountry studies on neurodevelopmental impairment (two studies) and stillbirths (one study). A posterior median of 19·7 million (95% posterior interval 17·9–21·9) pregnant women were estimated to have rectovaginal colonisation with GBS in 2020. 231 800 (114 100–455 000) early-onset and 162 200 (70 200–394 400) late-onset infant iGBS cases were estimated to have occurred. In an analysis assuming a higher case fatality rate in the absence of a skilled birth attendant, 91 900 (44 800–187 800) iGBS infant deaths were estimated; in an analysis without this assumption, 58 300 (26 500–125 800) infant deaths from iGBS were estimated. 37 100 children who recovered from iGBS (14 600–96 200) were predicted to develop moderate or severe NDI. 40 500 (21 500–66 200) maternal iGBS cases and 46 200 (20 300–111 300) GBS stillbirths were predicted in 2020. GBS colonisation was also estimated to be potentially associated with considerable numbers of preterm births. Interpretation: Our analysis provides a comprehensive assessment of the pregnancy-related GBS burden. The Bayesian approach enabled coherent propagation of uncertainty, which is considerable, notably regarding GBS-associated preterm births. Our findings on both the acute and long-term consequences of iGBS have public health implications for understanding the value of investment in maternal GBS immunisation and other preventive strategies. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Background Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) reduces a newborn’s risk of group B streptococcal infection (GBS) but may lead to an increased childhood body mass index (BMI). Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of infants (n = 223 431) born 2007–2015 in an integrated healthcare system. For vaginal delivery, we compared children exposed to GBS-IAP and to any other type or duration of intrapartum antibiotics to no antibiotic exposure. For cesarean delivery, we compared children exposed to GBS-IAP to those exposed to all other intrapartum antibiotics, including surgical prophylaxis. BMI over 5 years was compared using nonlinear multivariate models with B-spline functions, stratified by delivery mode and adjusted for demographics, maternal factors, breastfeeding, and childhood antibiotic exposure. Results In vaginal deliveries, GBS-IAP was associated with higher BMI from 0.5 to 5.0 years of age compared to no antibiotics (P Conclusions GBS-IAP was associated with a small but sustained increase in BMI starting at very early age. This association highlights the need to better understand the effects of perinatal antibiotic exposure on childhood health.

In April 2021, we assessed mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the context of a COVID-19 outbreak in a skilled nursing facility. Among 28 cases, genomic sequencing was performed on 4 specimens on 4 different patients, and all were classified by sequence analysis as the Beta (B.1.351) variant. Adjusted VE among residents was 65% (95% confidence interval: 25–84%). These findings underscore the importance of vaccination for prevention of COVID-19 in skilled nursing facilities.

Estimates of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) have declined in recent months (1,2) because of waning vaccine induced immunity over time,* possible increased immune evasion by SARS-CoV-2 variants (3), or a combination of these and other factors. CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥12 years receive a third dose (booster) of an mRNA vaccine ≥5 months after receipt of the second mRNA vaccine dose and that immunocompromised individuals receive a third primary dose.

Background Prisons and jails are high-risk settings for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccines may substantially reduce these risks, but evidence is needed on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness for incarcerated people, who are confined in large, risky congregate settings. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study to estimate effectiveness of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna), against confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections among incarcerated people in California prisons from 22 December 2020 through 1 March 2021. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided daily data for all prison residents including demographic, clinical, and carceral characteristics, as well as COVID-19 testing, vaccination, and outcomes. We estimated vaccine effectiveness using multivariable Cox models with time-varying covariates, adjusted for resident characteristics and infection rates across prisons. Results Among 60 707 cohort members, 49% received at least 1 BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 dose during the study period. Estimated vaccine effectiveness was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64%–82%) from day 14 after first dose until receipt of second dose and 97% (95% CI, 88%–99%) from day 14 after second dose. Effectiveness was similar among the subset of residents who were medically vulnerable: 74% (95% CI, 62%–82%) and 92% (95% CI, 74%–98%) from 14 days after first and second doses, respectively. Conclusions Consistent with results from randomized trials and observational studies in other populations, mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections among incarcerated people. Prioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination, redoubling efforts to boost vaccination, and continuing other ongoing mitigation practices are essential in preventing COVID-19 in this disproportionately affected population.

Background The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting. Methods We conducted a test-negative case–control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19–like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose). Results The study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer–BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (

Evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) are important to monitor as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are introduced in the general population. Research staff enrolled symptomatic participants seeking outpatient medical care for COVID-19–like illness or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing from a multisite network. VE was evaluated using the test-negative design. Among 236 SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test-positive and 576 test-negative participants aged ≥16 years, the VE of messenger RNA vaccines against COVID-19 was 91% (95% confidence interval, 83%–95%) for full vaccination and 75% (55%–87%) for partial vaccination. Vaccination was associated with prevention of most COVID-19 cases among people seeking outpatient medical care., With the test-negative design used to evaluate protection from messenger RNA vaccines, vaccine effectiveness against coronavirus disease 2019 among outpatients aged ≥16 years was 91% (95% confidence interval, 83%–95%) for full vaccination and 75% (55%–87%) for partial vaccination.

BackgroundPrisons and jails are high-risk settings for COVID-19 transmission, morbidity, and mortality. COVID-19 vaccines may substantially reduce these risks, but evidence is needed of their effectiveness for incarcerated people, who are confined in large, risky congregate settings.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study to estimate effectiveness of mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna), against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections among incarcerated people in California prisons from December 22, 2020 through March 1, 2021. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided daily data for all prison residents including demographic, clinical, and carceral characteristics, as well as COVID-19 testing, vaccination status, and outcomes. We estimated vaccine effectiveness using multivariable Cox models with time-varying covariates that adjusted for resident characteristics and infection rates across prisons.FindingsAmong 60,707 residents in the cohort, 49% received at least one BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 dose during the study period. Estimated vaccine effectiveness was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64−82%) from day 14 after first dose until receipt of second dose and 97% (95% CI, 88−99%) from day 14 after second dose. Effectiveness was similar among the subset of residents who were medically vulnerable (74% [95% CI, 62−82%] and 92% [95% CI, 74−98%] from 14 days after first and second doses, respectively), as well as among the subset of residents who received the mRNA-1273 vaccine (71% [95% CI, 58−80%] and 96% [95% CI, 67−99%]).ConclusionsConsistent with results from randomized trials and observational studies in other populations, mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections among incarcerated people. Prioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination, redoubling efforts to boost vaccination and continuing other ongoing mitigation practices are essential in preventing COVID-19 in this disproportionately affected population.FundingHorowitz Family Foundation, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Science Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Advanced Micro Devices.

Clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized for emergency use in the United States (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) indicate that these vaccines have high efficacy against symptomatic disease, including moderate to severe illness (1-3). In addition to clinical trials, real-world assessments of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness are critical in guiding vaccine policy and building vaccine confidence, particularly among populations at higher risk for more severe illness from COVID-19, including older adults. To determine the real-world effectiveness of the three currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines among persons aged ≥65 years during February 1-April 30, 2021, data on 7,280 patients from the COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) were analyzed with vaccination coverage data from state immunization information systems (IISs) for the COVID-NET catchment area (approximately 4.8 million persons). Among adults aged 65-74 years, effectiveness of full vaccination in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI]=94%-98%) for Pfizer-BioNTech, 96% (95% CI=95%-98%) for Moderna, and 84% (95% CI=64%-93%) for Janssen vaccine products. Effectiveness of full vaccination in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥75 years was 91% (95% CI=87%-94%) for Pfizer-BioNTech, 96% (95% CI=93%-98%) for Moderna, and 85% (95% CI=72%-92%) for Janssen vaccine products. COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized in the United States are highly effective in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalizations in older adults. In light of real-world data demonstrating high effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among older adults, efforts to increase vaccination coverage in this age group are critical to reducing the risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization.

ImportancePregnant people are at high risk for severe COVID-19 but were excluded from mRNA vaccine trials; data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) are needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the estimated effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against medically attended COVID-19 among pregnant people during Delta and Omicron predominance.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis test-negative, case-control study was conducted from June 2021 to June 2022 in a network of 306 hospitals and 164 emergency department and urgent care (ED/UC) facilities across 10 US states, including 4517 ED/UC encounters and 975 hospitalizations among pregnant people with COVID-19–like illness (CLI) who underwent SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing.ExposuresTwo doses (14-149 and ≥150 days prior) and 3 doses (7-119 and ≥120 days prior) of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (≥1 dose received during pregnancy) vs unvaccinated.Main Outcomes and MeasuresEstimated VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated ED/UC encounter or hospitalization, based on the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for prior vaccination; VE was calculated as (1 − aOR) × 100%.ResultsAmong 4517 eligible CLI-associated ED/UC encounters and 975 hospitalizations, 885 (19.6%) and 334 (34.3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive, respectively; the median (IQR) patient age was 28 (24-32) years and 31 (26-35) years, 537 (12.0%) and 118 (12.0%) were non-Hispanic Black and 1189 (26.0%) and 240 (25.0%) were Hispanic. During Delta predominance, the estimated VE against COVID-19–associated ED/UC encounters was 84% (95% CI, 69% to 92%) for 2 doses within 14 to 149 days, 75% (95% CI, 5% to 93%) for 2 doses 150 or more days prior, and 81% (95% CI, 30% to 95%) for 3 doses 7 to 119 days prior; estimated VE against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 99% (95% CI, 96% to 100%), 96% (95% CI, 86% to 99%), and 97% (95% CI, 79% to 100%), respectively. During Omicron predominance, for ED/UC encounters, the estimated VE of 2 doses within 14 to 149 days, 2 doses 150 or more days, 3 doses within 7 to 119 days, and 3 doses 120 or more days prior was 3% (95% CI, −49% to 37%), 42% (95% CI, −16% to 72%), 79% (95% CI, 59% to 89%), and −124% (95% CI, −414% to 2%), respectively; for hospitalization, estimated VE was 86% (95% CI, 41% to 97%), 64% (95% CI, −102% to 93%), 86% (95% CI, 28% to 97%), and −53% (95% CI, −1254% to 83%), respectively.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, maternal mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, including booster dose, was associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19. VE estimates were higher against COVID-19–associated hospitalization than ED/UC visits and lower against the Omicron variant than the Delta variant. Protection waned over time, particularly during Omicron predominance.

Evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) are important to monitor as COVID-19 vaccines are introduced in the general population. Research staff enrolled symptomatic participants seeking outpatient medical care for COVID-19-like illness or SARS-CoV-2 testing from a multisite network. VE was evaluated using the test-negative design. Among 236 SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test-positive and 576 test-negative participants aged ≥16 years, VE of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 was 91% (95% CI: 83-95) for full vaccination and 75% (95% CI: 55-87) for partial vaccination. Vaccination was associated with prevention of most COVID-19 cases among people seeking outpatient medical care.

Recent studies have provided key information about SARS-CoV-2 vaccines’ efficacy and effectiveness (VE). One important question that remains is whether the protection conferred by vaccines wanes over time. However, estimates over time are subject to bias from differential depletion of susceptibles between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Here we examine the extent to which biases occur under different scenarios and assess whether serologic testing has the potential to correct this bias. By identifying non-vaccine antibodies, these tests could identify individuals with prior infection. We find in scenarios with high baseline VE, differential depletion of susceptibles creates minimal bias in VE estimates, suggesting that any observed declines are likely not due to spurious waning alone. However, if baseline VE is lower, the bias for leaky vaccines (that reduce individual probability of infection given contact) is larger and should be corrected by excluding individuals with past infection if the mechanism is known to be leaky. Conducting analyses both unadjusted and adjusted for past infection could give lower and upper bounds for the true VE. Studies of VE should therefore enroll individuals regardless of prior infection history but also collect information, ideally through serologic testing, on this critical variable.

BackgroundAs SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage increases in the United States (US), there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe Covid-19 and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes.MethodsIn a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11 - May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent Covid-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with Covid-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.ResultsAmong 1210 participants, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.8% were Hispanic, and 20.6% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 was most common variant (59.7% of sequenced viruses). Full vaccination (receipt of two vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 45/590 (7.6%) cases and 215/620 (34.7%) controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 86.9% (95% CI: 80.4 to 91.2%). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.3%; 95% CI: 78.9 to 99.7%). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough Covid hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (59.2%; 95% CI: 11.9 to 81.1%) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI: 85.5 to 94.7%).ConclusionDuring March–May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Background As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination coverage increases in the United States, there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. Methods In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11–May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Results Among 1212 participants, including 593 cases and 619 controls, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.9% were Hispanic, and 21.0% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B0.1.1.7 (Alpha) was the most common variant (67.9% of viruses with lineage determined). Full vaccination (receipt of 2 vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 8.2% of cases and 36.4% of controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 87.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7–91.3). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18–49 years (97.4%; 95% CI, 79.3–9.7). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough COVID hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (62.9%; 95% CI,20.8–82.6) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI, 85.6–94.8). Conclusion During March–May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

BACKGROUND: Group B Streptococcus (GBS) disease is a leading cause of neonatal death, but its long-term effects have not been studied after early childhood. The aim of this study was to assess long-term mortality, neurodevelopmental impairments (NDIs), and economic outcomes after infant invasive GBS (iGBS) disease up to adolescence in Denmark and the Netherlands.METHODS: For this cohort study, children with iGBS disease were identified in Denmark and the Netherlands using national medical and administrative databases and culture results that confirmed their diagnoses. Exposed children were defined as having a history of iGBS disease (sepsis, meningitis, or pneumonia) by the age of 89 days. For each exposed child, ten unexposed children were randomly selected and matched by sex, year and month of birth, and gestational age. Mortality data were analysed with the use of Cox proportional hazards models. NDI data up to adolescence were captured from discharge diagnoses in the National Patient Registry (Denmark) and special educational support records (the Netherlands). Health care use and household income were also compared between the exposed and unexposed cohorts.FINDINGS: 2258 children-1561 in Denmark (born from Jan 1, 1997 to Dec 31, 2017) and 697 in the Netherlands (born from Jan 1, 2000 to Dec 31, 2017)-were identified to have iGBS disease and followed up for a median of 14 years (IQR 7-18) in Denmark and 9 years (6-11) in the Netherlands. 366 children had meningitis, 1763 had sepsis, and 129 had pneumonia (in Denmark only). These children were matched with 22 462 children with no history of iGBS disease. iGBS meningitis was associated with an increased mortality at age 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio 4·08 [95% CI 1·78-9·35] for Denmark and 6·73 [3·76-12·06] for the Netherlands). Any iGBS disease was associated with an increased risk of NDI at 10 years of age, both in Denmark (risk ratio 1·77 [95% CI 1·44-2·18]) and the Netherlands (2·28 [1·64-3·17]). A history of iGBS disease was associated with more frequent outpatient clinic visits (incidence rate ratio 1·93 [95% CI 1·79-2·09], pINTERPRETATION: iGBS disease, especially meningitis, was associated with increased mortality and a higher risk of NDIs in later childhood. This previously unquantified burden underlines the case for a maternal GBS vaccine, and the need to track and provide care for affected survivors of iGBS disease.FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.TRANSLATIONS: For the Dutch and Danish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Phase 3 randomized-controlled trials have provided promising results of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, ranging from 50 to 95% against symptomatic disease as the primary endpoints, resulting in emergency use authorization/listing for several vaccines. However, given the short duration of follow-up during the clinical trials, strict eligibility criteria, emerging variants of concern, and the changing epidemiology of the pandemic, many questions still remain unanswered regarding vaccine performance. Post-introduction vaccine effectiveness evaluations can help us to understand the vaccine's effect on reducing infection and disease when used in real-world conditions. They can also address important questions that were either not studied or were incompletely studied in the trials and that will inform evolving vaccine policy, including assessment of the duration of effectiveness; effectiveness in key subpopulations, such as the very old or immunocompromised; against severe disease and death due to COVID-19; against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern; and with different vaccination schedules, such as number of doses and varying dosing intervals. WHO convened an expert panel to develop interim best practice guidance for COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness evaluations. We present a summary of the interim guidance, including discussion of different study designs, priority outcomes to evaluate, potential biases, existing surveillance platforms that can be used, and recommendations for reporting results.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care personnel (HCP) have been at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, through patient interactions and community exposure (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended prioritization of HCP for COVID-19 vaccination to maintain provision of critical services and reduce spread of infection in health care settings (2). Early distribution of two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) to HCP allowed assessment of the effectiveness of these vaccines in a real-world setting. A test-negative case-control study is underway to evaluate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness among HCP at 33 U.S. sites across 25 U.S. states. Interim analyses indicated that the VE of a single dose (measured 14 days after the first dose through 6 days after the second dose) was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-87%), adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions. The adjusted VE of 2 doses (measured ≥7 days after the second dose) was 94% (95% CI = 87%-97%). VE of partial (1-dose) and complete (2-dose) vaccination in this population is comparable to that reported from clinical trials and recent observational studies, supporting the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic disease in adults, with strong 2-dose protection.

Efficacy of 2 doses of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) against COVID-19 was high in pediatric trials conducted before the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant emerged. Among adults, estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 2 BNT162b2 doses against symptomatic Omicron infection was reduced compared with prior variants, waned rapidly, and increased with a booster.To evaluate the association of symptomatic infection with prior vaccination with BNT162b2 to estimate VE among children and adolescents during Omicron variant predominance.A test-negative, case-control analysis was conducted using data from 6897 pharmacy-based, drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing sites across the US from a single pharmacy chain in the Increasing Community Access to Testing platform. This analysis included 74 208 tests from children 5 to 11 years of age and 47 744 tests from adolescents 12 to 15 years of age with COVID-19-like illness who underwent SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing from December 26, 2021, to February 21, 2022.Two BNT162b2 doses 2 weeks or more before SARS-CoV-2 testing vs no vaccination for children; 2 or 3 doses 2 weeks or more before testing vs no vaccination for adolescents (who are recommended to receive a booster dose).Symptomatic infection. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for the association of prior vaccination and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was used to estimate VE: VE = (1 - OR) × 100%.A total of 30 999 test-positive cases and 43 209 test-negative controls were included from children 5 to 11 years of age, as well as 22 273 test-positive cases and 25 471 test-negative controls from adolescents 12 to 15 years of age. The median age among those with included tests was 10 years (IQR, 7-13); 61 189 (50.2%) were female, 75 758 (70.1%) were White, and 29 034 (25.7%) were Hispanic/Latino. At 2 to 4 weeks after dose 2, among children, the adjusted OR was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.35-0.45; estimated VE, 60.1% [95% CI, 54.7%-64.8%]) and among adolescents, the OR was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.29-0.56; estimated VE, 59.5% [95% CI, 44.3%-70.6%]). During month 2 after dose 2, among children, the OR was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.76; estimated VE, 28.9% [95% CI, 24.5%-33.1%]) and among adolescents, the OR was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.76-0.92; estimated VE, 16.6% [95% CI, 8.1%-24.3%]). Among adolescents, the booster dose OR 2 to 6.5 weeks after the dose was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.24-0.35; estimated VE, 71.1% [95% CI, 65.5%-75.7%]).Among children and adolescents, estimated VE for 2 doses of BNT162b2 against symptomatic infection was modest and decreased rapidly. Among adolescents, the estimated effectiveness increased after a booster dose.