Search

Background The benefit of primary and booster vaccination in people who experienced a prior Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. The objective of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of primary (two-dose series) and booster (third dose) mRNA vaccination against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with a prior documented infection. Methods and findings We conducted a test-negative case-control study of reverse transcription PCRs (RT-PCRs) analyzed with the TaqPath (Thermo Fisher Scientific) assay and recorded in the Yale New Haven Health system from November 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Overall, 11,307 cases (positive TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs with S-gene target failure [SGTF]) and 130,041 controls (negative TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs) were included (median age: cases: 35 years, controls: 39 years). Among cases and controls, 5.9% and 8.1% had a documented prior infection (positive SARS-CoV-2 test record [greater than or equal to]90 days prior to the included test), respectively. We estimated the effectiveness of primary and booster vaccination relative to SGTF-defined Omicron (lineage BA.1) variant infection using a logistic regression adjusted for date of test, age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, comorbidities, social venerability index, municipality, and healthcare utilization. The effectiveness of primary vaccination 14 to 149 days after the second dose was 41.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 14.1% to 59.4%, p 0.006) and 27.1% (95% CI: 18.7% to 34.6%, p < 0.001) for people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. The effectiveness of booster vaccination ([greater than or equal to]14 days after booster dose) was 47.1% (95% CI: 22.4% to 63.9%, p 0.001) and 54.1% (95% CI: 49.2% to 58.4%, p < 0.001) in people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. To test whether booster vaccination reduced the risk of infection beyond that of the primary series, we compared the odds of infection among boosted ([greater than or equal to]14 days after booster dose) and booster-eligible people ([greater than or equal to]150 days after second dose). The odds ratio (OR) comparing boosted and booster-eligible people with a documented prior infection was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.54 to 1.16, p 0.222), whereas the OR comparing boosted and booster-eligible people without a documented prior infection was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.59, p < 0.001). This study's limitations include the risk of residual confounding, the use of data from a single system, and the reliance on TaqPath analyzed RT-PCR results. Conclusions In this study, we observed that primary vaccination provided significant but limited protection against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with and without a documented prior infection. While booster vaccination was associated with additional protection against Omicron BA.1 infection in people without a documented prior infection, it was not found to be associated with additional protection among people with a documented prior infection. These findings support primary vaccination in people regardless of documented prior infection status but suggest that infection history may impact the relative benefit of booster doses., Author(s): Margaret L. Lind 1,*, Alexander J. Robertson 1, Julio Silva 2, Frederick Warner 3,4, Andreas C. Coppi 3,4, Nathan Price 3,4, Chelsea Duckwall 1, Peri Sosensky 1, Erendira C. [...]

The ongoing coronavirus disease outbreak demonstrates the need for novel applications of real-time data to produce timely information about incident cases. Using health information technology (HIT) and real-world data, we sought to produce an interface that could, in near real time, identify patients presenting with suspected respiratory tract infection and enable monitoring of test results related to specific pathogens, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This tool was built upon our computational health platform, which provides access to near real-time data from disparate HIT sources across our health system. This combination of technology allowed us to rapidly prototype, iterate, and deploy a platform to support a cohesive organizational response to a rapidly evolving outbreak. Platforms that allow for agile analytics are needed to keep pace with evolving needs within the health care system.

Background The current acute kidney injury (AKI) risk prediction model for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) employed regression techniques. This study aimed to evaluate whether models using machine learning techniques could significantly improve AKI risk prediction after PCI. Methods and findings We used the same cohort and candidate variables used to develop the current NCDR CathPCI Registry AKI model, including 947,091 patients who underwent PCI procedures between June 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011. The mean age of these patients was 64.8 years, and 32.8% were women, with a total of 69,826 (7.4%) AKI events. We replicated the current AKI model as the baseline model and compared it with a series of new models. Temporal validation was performed using data from 970,869 patients undergoing PCIs between July 1, 2016, and March 31, 2017, with a mean age of 65.7 years; 31.9% were women, and 72,954 (7.5%) had AKI events. Each model was derived by implementing one of two strategies for preprocessing candidate variables (preselecting and transforming candidate variables or using all candidate variables in their original forms), one of three variable-selection methods (stepwise backward selection, lasso regularization, or permutation-based selection), and one of two methods to model the relationship between variables and outcome (logistic regression or gradient descent boosting). The cohort was divided into different training (70%) and test (30%) sets using 100 different random splits, and the performance of the models was evaluated internally in the test sets. The best model, according to the internal evaluation, was derived by using all available candidate variables in their original form, permutation-based variable selection, and gradient descent boosting. Compared with the baseline model that uses 11 variables, the best model used 13 variables and achieved a significantly better area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.752 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.749-0.754) versus 0.711 (95% CI 0.708-0.714), a significantly better Brier score of 0.0617 (95% CI 0.0615-0.0618) versus 0.0636 (95% CI 0.0634-0.0638), and a better calibration slope of observed versus predicted rate of 1.008 (95% CI 0.988-1.028) versus 1.036 (95% CI 1.015-1.056). The best model also had a significantly wider predictive range (25.3% versus 21.6%, p < 0.001) and was more accurate in stratifying AKI risk for patients. Evaluated on a more contemporary CathPCI cohort (July 1, 2015-March 31, 2017), the best model consistently achieved significantly better performance than the baseline model in AUC (0.785 versus 0.753), Brier score (0.0610 versus 0.0627), calibration slope (1.003 versus 1.062), and predictive range (29.4% versus 26.2%). The current study does not address implementation for risk calculation at the point of care, and potential challenges include the availability and accessibility of the predictors. Conclusions Machine learning techniques and data-driven approaches resulted in improved prediction of AKI risk after PCI. The results support the potential of these techniques for improving risk prediction models and identification of patients who may benefit from risk-mitigation strategies., Author(s): Chenxi Huang 1, Karthik Murugiah 2, Shiwani Mahajan 1, Shu-Xia Li 1, Sanket S. Dhruva 3,4, Julian S. Haimovich 5, Yongfei Wang 1, Wade L. Schulz 1,6, Jeffrey M. [...]

Introduction: Biomedical and translational research often relies on the evaluation of patients or specimens that meet specific clinical or laboratory criteria. The typical approach used to identify biospecimens is a manual, retrospective process that exists outside the clinical workflow. This often makes biospecimen collection cost prohibitive and prevents the collection of analytes with short stability times. Emerging data architectures offer novel approaches to enhance specimen-identification practices. To this end, we present a new tool that can be deployed in a real-time environment to automate the identification and notification of available biospecimens for biomedical research. Methods: Real-time clinical and laboratory data from Cloverleaf (Infor, NY, NY) were acquired within our computational health platform, which is built on open-source applications. Study-specific filters were developed in NiFi (Apache Software Foundation, Wakefield, MA, USA) to identify the study-appropriate specimens in real time. Specimen metadata were stored in Elasticsearch (Elastic N. V., Mountain View, CA, USA) for visualization and automated alerting. Results: Between June 2018 and December 2018, we identified 2992 unique specimens belonging to 2815 unique patients, split between two different use cases. Based on laboratory policy for specimen retention and study-specific stability requirements, secure E-mail notifications were sent to investigators to automatically notify of availability. The assessment of throughput on commodity hardware demonstrates the ability to scale to approximately 2000 results per second. Conclusion: This work demonstrates that real-world clinical data can be analyzed in real time to increase the efficiency of biospecimen identification with minimal overhead for the clinical laboratory. Future work will integrate additional data types, including the analysis of unstructured data, to enable more complex cases and biospecimen identification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]