Search

Whether SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccines confer exposure-dependent ("leaky") protection against infection remains unknown. We examined the effect of prior infection, vaccination, and hybrid immunity on infection risk among residents of Connecticut correctional facilities during periods of predominant Omicron and Delta transmission. Residents with cell, cellblock, and no documented exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infected residents were matched by facility and date. During the Omicron period, prior infection, vaccination, and hybrid immunity reduced the infection risk of residents without a documented exposure (HR: 0.36 [0.25–0.54]; 0.57 [0.42–0.78]; 0.24 [0.15–0.39]; respectively) and with cellblock exposures (0.61 [0.49–0.75]; 0.69 [0.58–0.83]; 0.41 [0.31–0.55]; respectively) but not with cell exposures (0.89 [0.58–1.35]; 0.96 [0.64–1.46]; 0.80 [0.46–1.39]; respectively). Associations were similar during the Delta period and when analyses were restricted to tested residents. Although associations may not have been thoroughly adjusted due to dataset limitations, the findings suggest that prior infection and vaccination may be leaky, highlighting the potential benefits of pairing vaccination with non-pharmaceutical interventions in crowded settings. Measuring an individual's level of exposure to COVID-19 is challenging, and it is therefore unclear whether high exposure may impact immunity. Here, the authors investigate this question using data from a correctional facility in Connecticut, USA, by comparing rates of infection in people who share cells, cellblocks, and with no known exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diagnosis codes are used to study SARS-CoV2 infections and COVID-19 hospitalizations in administrative and electronic health record (EHR) data. Using EHR data (April 2020–March 2021) at the Yale-New Haven Health System and the three hospital systems of the Mayo Clinic, computable phenotype definitions based on ICD-10 diagnosis of COVID-19 (U07.1) were evaluated against positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen tests. We included 69,423 patients at Yale and 75,748 at Mayo Clinic with either a diagnosis code or a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. The precision and recall of a COVID-19 diagnosis for a positive test were 68.8% and 83.3%, respectively, at Yale, with higher precision (95%) and lower recall (63.5%) at Mayo Clinic, varying between 59.2% in Rochester to 97.3% in Arizona. For hospitalizations with a principal COVID-19 diagnosis, 94.8% at Yale and 80.5% at Mayo Clinic had an associated positive laboratory test, with secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 identifying additional patients. These patients had a twofold higher inhospital mortality than based on principal diagnosis. Standardization of coding practices is needed before the use of diagnosis codes in clinical research and epidemiological surveillance of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The digital transformation of medical data provides opportunities to perform digital population health surveillance and identify people inadequately managed in usual care. We leveraged the electronic health records of a large health system to identify patients with markedly elevated blood pressure and characterize their follow-up care pattern. Methods and Results We included 373 861 patients aged 18 to 85 years, who had at least 1 outpatient encounter in the Yale New Haven Health System between January 2013 and December 2017. We described the prevalence and follow-up pattern of patients with at least 1 systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥100 mm Hg and patients with at least 1 SBP ≥180 mm Hg or DBP ≥120 mm Hg. Of 373 861 patients included, 56 909 (15.2%) had at least 1 SBP ≥160 mm Hg or DBP ≥100 mm Hg, and 10 476 (2.8%) had at least 1 SBP ≥180 mm Hg or DBP ≥120 mm Hg. Among patients with SBP ≥160 mm Hg or DBP ≥100 mm Hg, only 28.3% had a follow visit within 1 month (time window of follow-up recommended by the guideline) and 19.9% subsequently achieved control targets (SBP <130 mm Hg and DBP <80 mm Hg) within 6 months. Follow-up rate at 1 month and control rate at 6 months for patients with SBP ≥180 mm Hg or DBP ≥120 mm Hg was 31.9% and 17.2%. Conclusions Digital population health surveillance with an electronic health record identified a large number of patients with markedly elevated blood pressure and inadequate follow-up. Many of these patients subsequently failed to achieve control targets.