Search

Background: Respiratory syncytial virus vaccines first recommended for use during 2023 were efficacious against lower respiratory tract disease in clinical trials. Limited real-world data regarding respiratory syncytial virus vaccine effectiveness are available. To inform vaccine policy and address gaps in evidence from the clinical trials, we aimed to assess the effectiveness against respiratory syncytial virus-associated hospitalisations and emergency department encounters among adults aged at least 60 years., Methods: We conducted a test-negative design analysis in an electronic health records-based network in eight states in the USA, including hospitalisations and emergency department encounters with respiratory syncytial virus-like illness among adults aged at least 60 years who underwent respiratory syncytial virus testing from Oct 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024. Respiratory syncytial virus vaccination status at the time of the encounter was derived from electronic health record documentation, state and city immunisation registries, and, for some sites, medical claims. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated by immunocompromise status, comparing the odds of vaccination among respiratory syncytial virus-positive case patients and respiratory syncytial virus-negative control patients, and adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, sex, calendar day, social vulnerability index, number of underlying non-respiratory medical conditions, presence of respiratory underlying medical conditions, and geographical region., Findings: Among 28 271 hospitalisations for respiratory syncytial virus-like illness among adults aged at least 60 years without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness was 80% (95% CI 71-85) against respiratory syncytial virus-associated hospitalisations, and vaccine effectiveness was 81% (52-92) against respiratory syncytial virus-associated critical illness (ICU admission or death, or both). Among 8435 hospitalisations for respiratory syncytial virus-like illness among adults with immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness was 73% (48-85) against associated hospitalisation. Among 36 521 emergency department encounters for respiratory syncytial virus-like illness among adults aged at least 60 years without an immunocompromising condition, vaccine effectiveness was 77% (70-83) against respiratory syncytial virus-associated emergency department encounters. Vaccine effectiveness estimates were similar by age group and product type., Interpretation: Respiratory syncytial virus vaccination was effective in preventing respiratory syncytial virus-associated hospitalisations and emergency department encounters among adults aged at least 60 years in the USA during the 2023-24 respiratory syncytial virus season, which was the first season after respiratory syncytial virus vaccine was approved., Funding: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NPK reports support for other work from Sanofi Pasteur, Merck, Pfizer, Seqirus, and GSK, unpaid expert panel membership for a planned hepatitis E phase 2 vaccine clinical trial among pregnant women in Pakistan, and unpaid membership on the Western States COVID-19 Scientific Safety Review Workgroup, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, and National Vaccine Advisory Committee Safety Subcommittee. SJG reports funding from the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Advancing Translation Sciences and National Institute of Mental Health. TCO reports consulting fees from Regenstrief Institute as a domain expert in patient matching in global health informatics, travel support from Regenstrief Institute and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research institute, and holds a patent (patent number PCT/US2018/047961). MBD, BED, and WFF report an additional CDC contract for the Vaccine Safety Datalink. TS reports unpaid participation as a member of the Advisory Committee on the Immunization Practices Influenza Vaccine Work Group, is chief of the Utah Adult Immunization Coalition, and is a member of the Utah Department of Health and Human Services Scientific Advisory Committee on Vaccines. OZ reports funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (grant number R01AI168373). NPK, JT, and KG report a CDC contract for VISION (contract number 75D30123C17595). SR reports funding from Biofire and GSK. MB reports speaker bureau participation for Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics. CEM reports funding from AstraZeneca, GSK, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Defense, and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, payment or honoraria for a lecture from Pri-Med, and leadership on the American Lung Association of Minnesota board, the Minnesota Department of Health Long COVID Advisory Committee, and on the Minnesota Department of Health Asthma Care Advisory Committee. JAW, PKM, SWB, SER, and EAKR report a CDC contract for VISION (contract number 75D30121D12779). KD, SAI, SJG, TCO, MBD, KN, BED, WFF, CR, KSA, and CEM report payments made to their institution by CDC via Westat. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Opioid use among pregnant women has more than quadrupled over the past 20 years; however, comorbid risk factors such as emotion dysregulation confound the developmental consequences of prenatal opioid use. Maternal respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) may help to disentangle the comorbid risk factors of prenatal emotion dysregulation and substance use and isolate their consequences on newborn neurobehavior., Methods: We examined maternal RSA in response to a mild, infant-related stress task in pregnant people (N = 192; 30 on medications for opioid use disorder) recruited from hospitals and a specialty prenatal clinic for substance use disorder., Results: Three latent profiles emerged based on maternal RSA reactivity. Mothers with RSA increasing (Profile 3; more nervous system dysregulation) had higher levels of emotion dysregulation than mothers with RSA decreasing (Profile 1; well-regulated nervous system responses) but were not more likely to use opioids. Additionally, RSA profiles were associated with newborn neurobehavior, including attention, regulation, handling, and arousal., Conclusions: Given the variability in opioid use across RSA profiles and profile associations with newborn neurodevelopment, future studies should examine protective factors in pregnant individuals using opioids who show more flexible RSA responses., Impact: Our study examined maternal psychophysiology and newborn outcomes in a unique population with high levels of emotion dysregulation and opioid use. Three profiles of maternal respiratory sinus arrythmia (RSA) reactivity were identified during pregnancy: decreasing, blunted, and increasing. The RSA increasing and blunted profiles were associated with higher emotion dysregulation than the decreasing profile. Most pregnant people on medications for opioid use disorder (65%) were grouped into the blunted profile, suggesting they might be more at risk for dysregulated RSA reactivity. Differences in RSA profiles were associated with newborn outcomes, with increasing and blunted RSA predicting more newborn neurobehavioral dysregulation., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the International Pediatric Research Foundation, Inc.)

In September 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended updated 2023-2024 (monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months to prevent COVID-19, including severe disease. As with past COVID-19 vaccines, additional doses may be considered for persons with immunocompromising conditions, who are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 and might have decreased response to vaccination. In this analysis, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was evaluated during September 2023-February 2024 using data from the VISION VE network. Among adults aged ≥18 years with immunocompromising conditions, VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 38% in the 7-59 days after receipt of an updated vaccine dose and 34% in the 60-119 days after receipt of an updated dose. Few persons (18%) in this high-risk study population had received updated COVID-19 vaccine. All persons aged ≥6 months should receive updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination; persons with immunocompromising conditions may get additional updated COVID-19 vaccine doses ≥2 months after the last recommended COVID-19 vaccine., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Brian E. Dixon reports institutional support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and royalties from Elsevier, Inc. for a book on health information technology and from Springer Nature for a book on health information technology. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Sanofi Pasteur, Merck, Pfizer, Seqiris, and GSK; uncompensated membership on an expert panel for a planned Hepatitis E Phase II vaccine clinical trial among pregnant women in Pakistan, sponsored by the International Vaccine Institute; unpaid membership on the Western States COVID-19 Scientific Safety Review Workgroup, the Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, and the National Vaccine Advisory Committee Safety Subcommittee. Charlene E. McEvoy reports grants or contracts from NIH, the Department of Defense, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Astra Zeneca, and GSK; payment or honorarium from Pri-Med for a lecture on incorporation of ACT and CAT into electronic health records to improve outcomes in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and uncompensated participation on the American Lung Association of Minnesota Board, the Minnesota Department of Health Long COVID Advisory Committee, and the Minnesota Department of Health Asthma Care Advisory Committee. Tamara Sheffield reports uncompensated membership on CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Influenza Vaccine Work Group, chairmanship of the Utah Adult Immunization Coalition vaccine quality improvement and advocacy group, and membership on the Utah Department of Health and Human Services Scientific Advisory Committee on Vaccines. Ousseny Zerbo reports a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Suchitra Rao reports grants from Biofire and GSK. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: Health disparities between Native Americans and white Americans persist due to a variety of factors, including colonization, poverty, and racism. Racist interpersonal interactions between nurses and other healthcare providers and tribal members may also contribute to reluctance among Native Americans to engage with Western healthcare systems. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to better understand the healthcare experiences of members of a state-recognized Gulf Coast tribe. Methods: In partnership with a community advisory board, 31 semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed utilizing a qualitative description approach. Results: All participants mentioned their preferences, views about, or experiences of using natural or traditional medicine approaches (referenced 65 times). Emergent themes include (a) preference for and use of traditional medicine; (b) resistance to western healthcare systems; (c) preference for holistic approaches to health; and (d) negative provider interpersonal interactions contributing to reluctance in seeking care. Conclusion: These findings suggest that integrating a holistic conceptualization of health and traditional medicine practices into Western healthcare settings would benefit Native Americans.

In September 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended updated 2023-2024 (monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months to prevent COVID-19, including severe disease. However, few estimates of updated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended illness are available. This analysis evaluated VE of an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during September 2023-January 2024 using a test-negative, case-control design with data from two CDC VE networks. VE against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 51% (95% CI = 47%-54%) during the first 7-59 days after an updated dose and 39% (95% CI = 33%-45%) during the 60-119 days after an updated dose. VE estimates against COVID-19-associated hospitalization from two CDC VE networks were 52% (95% CI = 47%-57%) and 43% (95% CI = 27%-56%), with a median interval from updated dose of 42 and 47 days, respectively. Updated COVID-19 vaccine provided increased protection against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults. These results support CDC recommendations for updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination. All persons aged ≥6 months should receive updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Steven Y. Chang reports consulting fees from PureTech Health and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, and participation on the data safety monitoring board for an unrelated, local study at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, outside the submitted work. Manjusha Gaglani reports serving as the Texas Pediatric Society, Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics co-chair of the ID and Immunization Committee, outside the submitted work. Adit A. Ginde reports support from Biomeme and Seastar, outside the submitted work. Carlos G. Grijalva reports other funding from Merck, contracts from Syneos Health and the Food and Drug Administration, and grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports grant funding from 4DMedical, Dompe Pharmaceuticals, Ely Lilly, and Roche Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Adam S. Lauring reports research support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Flu Lab, and consulting fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Christopher Mallow reports medical legal consulting, outside the submitted work. Emily T. Martin reports research funding from Merck, outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grant support from NIH, Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and funding to his institution from Bluejay Diagnostics and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Karthik Natarajan reports institutional support from NIH, Office of the Director, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Brian E. Dixon reports Institutional support from NIH, National Library of Medicine in the form of a T15 training grant in biomedical informatics, salary support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, royalties from Elsevier, Inc. for a book on health information technology and from Springer Nature for a book on health information technology. Nicola P. Klein reports support from GSK, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, and Seqirus for work unrelated to this report. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: Native American/American Indian (NA/AI) people have higher rates of chronic disease, including substance use and mental health disorders, compared to White Americans. Though pharmaceuticals can be helpful in addressing many chronic healthcare conditions, many people do not take medications as prescribed. NA/AI identity has been found to be associated with lower rates of medication adherence compared to White Americans. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to better understand NA/AI women's perceptions, beliefs, and experiences related to medication. Methods: Thirty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with NA/AI women from a state-recognized tribe located in the Gulf South. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative description approach. Results: Eighteen women discussed their experiences using medications when asked about their healthcare experiences. Participants identified the following themes in their discussion of medication: (a) Cost of Medication as a Barrier; (b) Negative Side Effects of Western Medication; (c) Fear of Resistance and Dependence; (d) Preference for Traditional Medicine or None; and (e) Lack of Communication around Medications from Providers. Conclusion: Our findings support the growing call for cultural safety within medical settings and integrating NA/AI conceptualizations of health and well-being and traditional practices into western healthcare settings to better support NA/AI people.

Test-negative-design COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies use symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals as cases and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals as controls to evaluate COVID-19 VE. To evaluate the potential bias introduced by the correlation of COVID-19 and influenza vaccination behaviors, we assessed changes in estimates of VE of bivalent vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters when considering influenza vaccination status or including or excluding influenza-positive controls using data from the multi-state VISION vaccine effectiveness network. Analyses included encounters during October 2022 - February 2023, a period of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza cocirculation. When considering influenza vaccination status or including or excluding influenza-positive controls, COVID-19 VE estimates were robust, with most VE estimates against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and ED/UC encounters changing less than 5 percentage points. Higher proportions of influenza-positive patients among controls, influenza vaccination coverage, or VE could impact these findings; the potential bias should continue to be assessed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy and from Vir Biotechnology for an unrelated influenza study.  Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GSK, Sanofi Pasteur, and Seqirus.  Manjusha Gaglani reports institutional funding from CDC for the Ambulatory US Flu/COVID VE Network and the HAIVEN Adult Inpatient Flu/COVID VE study and institutional subcontracts for the IVY-3 PHS project and RECOVER study.  All other authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objectives: Perinatal substance use is a growing concern across the United States. Universal screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is one systems-level approach to addressing perinatal substance use. The objective of this study is to assess early efforts to implement SBIRT in an outpatient obstetric clinic., Methods: The research team implemented universal screening with the 5 P's screening tool. Providers then engaged patients in a brief intervention and referred to a care manager who then worked with patients via tele-health to connect patients with needed services. Feasibility was measured through the collection of aggregate data describing frequency of universal screening and referral to treatment. The implementation team met bi-weekly to reflect on implementation barriers and facilitators., Results: In the first year of implementation, 48.5% of patients receiving care in the clinic completed the 5 P's screener at least once during the perinatal period. Screening occurred in a little over a quarter (26.5%) of eligible visits. Of the 463 patients that completed the 5 P's at least once during the perinatal period, 195 (42%) unique patients screened positive (answered yes to at least one question)., Conclusions for Practice: Early implementation efforts suggest this approach is feasible in this obstetric setting. Similar implementation studies should consider implementing universal screening for substance use and perinatal mood and anxiety disorders simultaneously; guide efforts using an implementation framework; invest resources in more intensive training and ongoing coaching for providers; and adopt strategies to track frequency and fidelity of brief intervention., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Immunocompromised (IC) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and are less protected by 1-2 COVID-19 vaccine doses than are immunocompetent (non-IC) persons. We compared vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended COVID-19 of 2-3 mRNA and 1-2 viral-vector vaccine doses between IC and non-IC adults., Methods: Using a test-negative design among eight VISION Network sites, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) events and hospitalizations from 26 August-25 December 2021 was estimated separately among IC and non-IC adults and among specific IC condition subgroups. Vaccination status was defined using number and timing of doses. VE for each status (versus unvaccinated) was adjusted for age, geography, time, prior positive test result, and local SARS-CoV-2 circulation., Results: We analyzed 8,848 ED/UC events and 18,843 hospitalizations among IC patients and 200,071 ED/UC events and 70,882 hospitalizations among non-IC patients. Among IC patients, 3-dose mRNA VE against ED/UC (73% [95% CI: 64-80]) and hospitalization (81% [95% CI: 76-86]) was lower than that among non-IC patients (ED/UC: 94% [95% CI: 93-94]; hospitalization: 96% [95% CI: 95-97]). Similar patterns were observed for viral-vector vaccines. Transplant recipients had lower VE than other IC subgroups., Conclusions: During B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance, IC adults received moderate protection against COVID-19-associated medical events from three mRNA doses, or one viral-vector dose plus a second dose of any product. However, protection was lower in IC versus non-IC patients, especially among transplant recipients, underscoring the need for additional protection among IC adults., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Charlene McEvoy reports institutional support from AstraZeneca for an AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine trial. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. Dr. Brian Dixon reports past consulting fees from Merck & Co. for serving on an advisory panel for HPV vaccination. Manjusha Gaglani reports past support from the CDC for the IVY-3 vaccine research. Kempapura Murthy reports past support from the CDC HAIVEN – Hospitalized Adult Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network. All other authors report no disclosures relevant to the current manuscript., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

On June 19, 2022, the original monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were approved as a primary series for children aged 6 months-4 years (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 6 months-5 years (Moderna) based on safety, immunobridging, and limited efficacy data from clinical trials. On December 9, 2022, CDC expanded recommendations for use of updated bivalent vaccines to children aged ≥6 months. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against emergency department or urgent care (ED/UC) encounters was evaluated within the VISION Network during July 4, 2022-June 17, 2023, among children with COVID-19-like illness aged 6 months-5 years. Among children aged 6 months-5 years who received molecular SARS-CoV-2 testing during August 1, 2022-June 17, 2023, VE of 2 monovalent Moderna doses against ED/UC encounters was 29% (95% CI = 12%-42%) ≥14 days after dose 2 (median = 100 days after dose 2; IQR = 63-155 days). Among children aged 6 months-4 years with a COVID-19-like illness who received molecular testing during September 19, 2022-June 17, 2023, VE of 3 monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech doses was 43% (95% CI = 17%-61%) ≥14 days after dose 3 (median = 75 days after dose 3; IQR = 40-139 days). Effectiveness of ≥1 bivalent dose, comparing children with at least a complete primary series and ≥1 bivalent dose to unvaccinated children, irrespective of vaccine manufacturer, was 80% (95% CI = 42%-96%) among children aged 6 months-5 years a median of 58 days (IQR = 32-83 days) after the dose. All children should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccines, including initiation of COVID-19 vaccination immediately when they are eligible., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GSK, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Sciences (now Sanofi Pasteur). Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy study and from Vir Biotechnology for an unrelated influenza study. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from GSK. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: Data assessing protection conferred from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta and Omicron predominance periods in the United States are limited., Methods: This cohort study included persons ≥18 years who had ≥1 health care encounter across 4 health systems and had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 before 26 August 2021. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection defined the exposure. Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the Delta and Omicron periods; protection was calculated as (1-HR)×100%., Results: Compared to unvaccinated and previously uninfected persons, during Delta predominance, protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was high for those 2- or 3-dose vaccinated and previously infected, 3-dose vaccinated alone, and prior infection alone (range, 91%-97%, with overlapping 95% confidence intervals [CIs]); during Omicron predominance, estimates were lower (range, 77%-90%). Protection against COVID-19-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters during Delta predominance was high for those exposure groups (range, 86%-93%); during Omicron predominance, protection remained high for those 3-dose vaccinated with or without a prior infection (76%; 95% CI = 67%-83% and 71%; 95% CI = 67%-73%, respectively)., Conclusions: COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC encounters regardless of variant. Staying up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination still provides protection against severe COVID-19 disease, regardless of prior infection., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. S. A. I., M. G., K. M., and B. E. D. report institutional support from Westat. A. L. N. reports institutional support from Pfizer for a study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy and from Vir Biotechnology for an influenza study, unrelated to the current work. K. M. reports institutional support from CDC for 2 influenza studies, unrelated to the current work. M. G. reports institutional support from CDC for 2 influenza studies and 2 COVID-19 studies, all unrelated to the current work. B. E. D. reports support from US National Institutes of Health, CDC, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Department of Veterans Affairs related to use and evaluation of health information exchange technologies; royalties from Elsevier and Springer Nature for books; and consulting fees from Merck and Co. for advisory panel on HPV vaccination. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination coverage remains lower in communities with higher social vulnerability. Factors such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure risk and access to healthcare are often correlated with social vulnerability and may therefore contribute to a relationship between vulnerability and observed vaccine effectiveness (VE). Understanding whether these factors impact VE could contribute to our understanding of real-world VE., Methods: We used electronic health record data from 7 health systems to assess vaccination coverage among patients with medically attended COVID-19-like illness. We then used a test-negative design to assess VE for 2- and 3-dose messenger RNA (mRNA) adult (≥18 years) vaccine recipients across Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) quartiles. SVI rankings were determined by geocoding patient addresses to census tracts; rankings were grouped into quartiles for analysis., Results: In July 2021, primary series vaccination coverage was higher in the least vulnerable quartile than in the most vulnerable quartile (56% vs 36%, respectively). In February 2022, booster dose coverage among persons who had completed a primary series was higher in the least vulnerable quartile than in the most vulnerable quartile (43% vs 30%). VE among 2-dose and 3-dose recipients during the Delta and Omicron BA.1 periods of predominance was similar across SVI quartiles., Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination coverage varied substantially by SVI. Differences in VE estimates by SVI were minimal across groups after adjusting for baseline patient factors. However, lower vaccination coverage among more socially vulnerable groups means that the burden of illness is still disproportionately borne by the most socially vulnerable populations., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. B. E. D. reported consulting fees for advisory panel on HPV vaccination from Merck & Co and book royalties from Elsevier (book on HIE) as well as Springer Nature (book on Public Health Informatics), and grant to evaluate HIE technologies from US National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant to use HIE data for public health surveillance from CDC, R21 grant to evaluate HIE technologies from US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, grant to evaluate HIE technologies from US Department of Veterans Affairs. G. V. B. reported grants or contracts from Sanofi for Tdap Vaccine Safety and from CDC for Vaccine Safety Datalink. A. I. N. received institutional support from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy and institutional research funding from Vir Biotechnology for unrelated influenza study. S. Rao received grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline. S. A. I. reports contract no. 200-2012-53584 (Vaccine Safety Datalink) from CDC. M. B. reports Columbia University is part of the VISION surveillance network and receives funding from Westat to support work done at Columbia as part of VISION. M. G. reports Ambulatory US Flu/COVID VE Network institutional grant, HAIVEN Adult Inpatient Flu/COVID VE institutional grant from CDC, IVY-3 PHS project institutional subcontract from CDC-Vanderbilt, and RECOVER study institutional subcontract from CDC-Abt. K. M. reports contracts or grants paid to institution from US CDC Ambulatory US Flu VE Network and US CDC HAIVEN—Hospitalized Adult Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)

Objectives: We assessed BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild to moderate and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children and adolescents through the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 period., Methods: Using VISION Network records from April 2021 to September 2022, we conducted a test-negative, case-control study assessing VE against COVID-19-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounters and hospitalizations using logistic regression, conditioned on month and site, adjusted for covariates., Results: We compared 9800 ED/UC cases with 70 232 controls, and 305 hospitalized cases with 2612 controls. During Delta, 2-dose VE against ED/UC encounters at 12 to 15 years was initially 93% (95% confidence interval 89 to 95), waning to 77% (69% to 84%) after ≥150 days. At ages 16 to 17, VE was initially 93% (86% to 97%), waning to 72% (63% to 79%) after ≥150 days. During Omicron, VE at ages 12 to 15 was initially 64% (44% to 77%), waning to 13% (3% to 23%) after ≥150 days; at ages 16 to 17 VE was 31% (10% to 47%) during days 60 to 149, waning to 7% (-8 to 20%) after 150 days. A monovalent booster increased VE to 54% (40% to 65%) at ages 12 to 15 and 46% (30% to 58%) at ages 16 to 17. At ages 5 to 11, 2-dose VE was 49% (33% to 61%) initially and 41% (29% to 51%) after 150 days. During Delta, VE against hospitalizations at ages 12 to 17 was high (>97%), and at ages 16 to 17 remained 98% (73% to 100%) beyond 150 days; during Omicron, hospitalizations were too infrequent to precisely estimate VE., Conclusions: BNT162b2 protected children and adolescents against mild to moderate and severe COVID-19. VE was lower during Omicron predominance including BA.4/BA.5, waned after dose 2 but increased after a monovalent booster. Children and adolescents should receive all recommended COVID-19 vaccinations., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: Due to platelet availability limitations, platelet units ABO mismatched to recipients are often transfused. However, since platelets express ABO antigens and are collected in plasma which may contain ABO isohemagglutinins, it remains controversial as to whether ABO non-identical platelet transfusions could potentially pose harm and/or have reduced efficacy., Study Design and Methods: The large 4-year publicly available Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study-III (REDS-III) database was used to investigate patient outcomes associated with ABO non-identical platelet transfusions. Outcomes included mortality, sepsis, and subsequent platelet transfusion requirements., Results: Following adjustment for possible confounding factors, no statistically significant association between ABO non-identical platelet transfusion and increased risk of mortality was observed in the overall cohort of 21,176 recipients. However, when analyzed by diagnostic category and recipient ABO group, associations with increased mortality for major mismatched transfusions were noted in two of eight subpopulations. Hematology/Oncology blood group A and B recipients (but not group O) showed a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 1.29 (95%CI: 1.03-1.62) and intracerebral hemorrhage group O recipients (but not groups A and B) showed a HR of 1.75 (95%CI: 1.10-2.80). Major mismatched transfusions were associated with increased odds of receiving additional platelet transfusion each post-transfusion day (through day 5) regardless of the recipient blood group., Discussion: We suggest that prospective studies are needed to determine if specific patient populations would benefit from receiving ABO identical platelet units. Our findings indicate that ABO-identical platelet products minimize patient exposure to additional platelet doses., (© 2023 AABB.)

Background: We assessed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination impact on illness severity among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, August 2021-March 2022., Methods: We evaluated differences in intensive care unit (ICU) admission, in-hospital death, and length of stay among vaccinated (2 or 3 mRNA vaccine doses) versus unvaccinated patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized for ≥24 hours with COVID-19-like illness and positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) molecular testing. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for ICU admission and death and subdistribution hazard ratios (SHR) for time to hospital discharge adjusted for age, geographic region, calendar time, and local virus circulation., Results: We included 27 149 SARS-CoV-2-positive hospitalizations. During both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, protection against ICU admission was strongest among 3-dose vaccinees compared with unvaccinated patients (Delta OR, 0.52 [95% CI, .28-.96]; Omicron OR, 0.69 [95% CI, .54-.87]). During both periods, risk of in-hospital death was lower among vaccinated compared with unvaccinated patients but ORs overlapped across vaccination strata. We observed SHR >1 across all vaccination strata in both periods indicating faster discharge for vaccinated patients., Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower rates of ICU admission and in-hospital death in both Delta and Omicron periods compared with being unvaccinated., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. N. P. K. reported receiving grants from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work. B. E. D. reported consulting fees for advisory panel on HPV vaccination from Merck & Co and book royalties from Elsevier as well as Springer Nature. A. L. N. received institutional support from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy and from Vir Biotechnology for an unrelated influenza study. S. R. received grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline. C. M. received institutional support from AstraZeneca for a COVID vaccine trial. G. V.-B. reported Sanofi for Tdap Vaccine Safety. M. G. reported receiving institutional support from CDC for the ambulatory US Flu/COVID VE network and HAIVEN adult inpatient flu/COVID VE network; from CDC-Vanderbilt for the IVY-3 PHS project and from CDC-Abt for the RECOVER study. All other authors declare no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2022.)

During June-October 2022, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 sublineage accounted for most of the sequenced viral genomes in the United States, with further Omicron sublineage diversification through November 2022.* Bivalent mRNA vaccines contain an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain component plus an updated component of the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages. On September 1, 2022, a single bivalent booster dose was recommended for adults who had completed a primary vaccination series (with or without subsequent booster doses), with the last dose administered ≥2 months earlier (1). During September 13-November 18, the VISION Network evaluated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a bivalent mRNA booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) compared with 1) no previous vaccination and 2) previous receipt of 2, 3, or 4 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years with an emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounter or hospitalization for a COVID-19-like illness. † VE of a bivalent booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 56% compared with no vaccination, 32% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 2-4 months earlier, and 50% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose ≥11 months earlier. VE of a bivalent booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was 59% compared with no vaccination, 42% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 5-7 months earlier, and 48% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose ≥11 months earlier. Bivalent vaccines administered after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses were effective in preventing medically attended COVID-19 compared with no vaccination and provided additional protection compared with past monovalent vaccination only, with relative protection increasing with time since receipt of the last monovalent dose. All eligible persons should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, including receiving a bivalent booster dose. Persons should also consider taking additional precautions to avoid respiratory illness this winter season, such as masking in public indoor spaces, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Nicola P. Klein received grants from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Pasteur. Allison L. Naleway received grants from Pfizer and Vir Biotechnology. Suchitra Rao received grants from GlaxoSmithKline. Charlene McEvoy received grants from AztraZeneca. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Importance: Recent SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant sublineages, including BA.4 and BA.5, may be associated with greater immune evasion and less protection against COVID-19 after vaccination., Objectives: To evaluate the estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 2, 3, or 4 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among immunocompetent adults during a period of BA.4 or BA.5 predominant circulation; and to evaluate the relative severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients across Omicron BA.1, BA.2 or BA.2.12.1, and BA.4 or BA.5 sublineage periods., Design, Setting, and Participants: This test-negative case-control study was conducted in 10 states with data from emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) encounters and hospitalizations from December 16, 2021, to August 20, 2022. Participants included adults with COVID-19-like illness and molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2. Data were analyzed from August 2 to September 21, 2022., Exposures: mRNA COVID-19 vaccination., Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were COVID-19 ED or UC encounters, hospitalizations, and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or in-hospital death. VE associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19 was estimated, stratified by care setting and vaccine doses (2, 3, or 4 doses vs 0 doses as the reference group). Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, demographic and clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared across sublineage periods., Results: During the BA.4 and BA.5 predominant period, there were 82 229 eligible ED and UC encounters among patients with COVID-19-like illness (median [IQR] age, 51 [33-70] years; 49 682 [60.4%] female patients), and 19 114 patients (23.2%) had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2; among 21 007 hospitalized patients (median [IQR] age, 71 [58-81] years; 11 209 [53.4%] female patients), 3583 (17.1 %) had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2. Estimated VE against hospitalization was 25% (95% CI, 17%-32%) for receipt of 2 vaccine doses at 150 days or more after receipt, 68% (95% CI, 50%-80%) for a third dose 7 to 119 days after receipt, and 36% (95% CI, 29%-42%) for a third dose 120 days or more (median [IQR], 235 [204-262] days) after receipt. Among patients aged 65 years or older who had received a fourth vaccine dose, VE was 66% (95% CI, 53%-75%) at 7 to 59 days after vaccination and 57% (95% CI, 44%-66%) at 60 days or more (median [IQR], 88 [75-105] days) after vaccination. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, ICU admission or in-hospital death occurred in 21.4% of patients during the BA.1 period vs 14.7% during the BA.4 and BA.5 period (standardized mean difference: 0.17)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study of COVID-19 vaccines and illness, VE associated with protection against medically attended COVID-19 illness was lower with increasing time since last dose; estimated VE was higher after receipt of 1 or 2 booster doses compared with a primary series alone.

Background: Electronic health record (EHR) data provide a unique opportunity to study the epidemiology of COVID-19, clinical outcomes of the infection, comparative effectiveness of therapies, and vaccine effectiveness but require a well-defined computable phenotype of COVID-19-like illness (CLI)., Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of pathogen-specific and other acute respiratory illness (ARI) International Statistical Classification of Diseases-9 and -10 codes in identifying COVID-19 cases in emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) and inpatient settings., Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using EHR, claims, and laboratory information system data of ED or UC and inpatient encounters from 4 health systems in the United States. Patients who were aged ≥18 years, had an ED or UC or inpatient encounter for an ARI, and underwent a SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, were included. We evaluated various CLI definitions using combinations of International Statistical Classification of Diseases-10 codes as follows: COVID-19-specific codes; CLI definition used in VISION network studies; ARI signs, symptoms, and diagnosis codes only; signs and symptoms of ARI only; and random forest model definitions. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of each CLI definition using a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test as the reference standard. We evaluated the performance of each CLI definition for distinct hospitalization and ED or UC cohorts., Results: Among 90,952 hospitalizations and 137,067 ED or UC visits, 5627 (6.19%) and 9866 (7.20%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, respectively. COVID-19-specific codes had high sensitivity (91.6%) and specificity (99.6%) in identifying patients with SARS-CoV-2 positivity among hospitalized patients. The VISION CLI definition maintained high sensitivity (95.8%) but lowered specificity (45.5%). By contrast, signs and symptoms of ARI had low sensitivity and positive predictive value (28.9% and 11.8%, respectively) but higher specificity and negative predictive value (85.3% and 94.7%, respectively). ARI diagnoses, signs, and symptoms alone had low predictive performance. All CLI definitions had lower sensitivity for ED or UC encounters. Random forest approaches identified distinct CLI definitions with high performance for hospital encounters and moderate performance for ED or UC encounters., Conclusions: COVID-19-specific codes have high sensitivity and specificity in identifying adults with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Separate combinations of COVID-19-specific codes and ARI codes enhance the utility of CLI definitions in studies using EHR data in hospital and ED or UC settings., (©Suchitra Rao, Catherine Bozio, Kristen Butterfield, Sue Reynolds, Sarah E Reese, Sarah Ball, Andrea Steffens, Maria Demarco, Charlene McEvoy, Mark Thompson, Elizabeth Rowley, Rachael M Porter, Rebecca V Fink, Stephanie A Irving, Allison Naleway. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 17.01.2023.)

During June-October 2022, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 sublineage accounted for most of the sequenced viral genomes in the United States, with further Omicron sublineage diversification through November 2022.* Bivalent mRNA vaccines contain an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain component plus an updated component of the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages. On September 1, 2022, a single bivalent booster dose was recommended for adults who had completed a primary vaccination series (with or without subsequent booster doses), with the last dose administered ≥2 months earlier (1). During September 13-November 18, the VISION Network evaluated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a bivalent mRNA booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) compared with 1) no previous vaccination and 2) previous receipt of 2, 3, or 4 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years with an emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) encounter or hospitalization for a COVID-19-like illness. † VE of a bivalent booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 56% compared with no vaccination, 31% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 2-4 months earlier, and 50% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose ≥11 months earlier. VE of a bivalent booster dose (after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses) against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was 57% compared with no vaccination, 38% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose 5-7 months earlier, and 45% compared with monovalent vaccination only with last dose ≥11 months earlier. Bivalent vaccines administered after 2, 3, or 4 monovalent doses were effective in preventing medically attended COVID-19 compared with no vaccination and provided additional protection compared with past monovalent vaccination only, with relative protection increasing with time since receipt of the last monovalent dose. All eligible persons should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, including receiving a bivalent booster dose. Persons should also consider taking additional precautions to avoid respiratory illness this winter season, such as masking in public indoor spaces, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Nicola P. Klein received grants from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Pasteur. Allison L. Naleway received grants from Pfizer and Vir Biotechnology. Suchitra Rao received grants from GlaxoSmithKline. Charlene McEvoy received grants from AztraZeneca. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Persons with moderate-to-severe immunocompromising conditions might have reduced protection after COVID-19 vaccination, compared with persons without immunocompromising conditions (1-3). On August 13, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that adults with immunocompromising conditions receive an expanded primary series of 3 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. ACIP followed with recommendations on September 23, 2021, for a fourth (booster) dose and on September 1, 2022, for a new bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster dose, containing components of the BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages of the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant (4). Data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) of monovalent COVID-19 vaccines among persons with immunocompromising conditions since the emergence of the Omicron variant in December 2021 are limited. In the multistate VISION Network, § monovalent 2-, 3-, and 4-dose mRNA VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization were estimated among adults with immunocompromising conditions ¶ hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness,** using a test-negative design comparing odds of previous vaccination among persons with a positive or negative molecular test result (case-patients and control-patients) for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). During December 16, 2021-August 20, 2022, among SARS-CoV-2 test-positive case-patients, 1,815 (36.3%), 1,387 (27.7%), 1,552 (31.0%), and 251 (5.0%) received 0, 2, 3, and 4 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses, respectively. Among test-negative control-patients during this period, 6,928 (23.7%), 7,411 (25.4%), 12,734 (43.6%), and 2,142 (7.3%) received these respective doses. Overall, VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization among adults with immunocompromising conditions hospitalized for COVID-like illness during Omicron predominance was 36% ≥14 days after dose 2, 69% 7-89 days after dose 3, and 44% ≥90 days after dose 3. Restricting the analysis to later periods when Omicron sublineages BA.2/BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 were predominant and 3-dose recipients were eligible to receive a fourth dose, VE was 32% ≥90 days after dose 3 and 43% ≥7 days after dose 4. Protection offered by vaccination among persons with immunocompromising conditions during Omicron predominance was moderate even after a 3-dose monovalent primary series or booster dose. Given the incomplete protection against hospitalization afforded by monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, persons with immunocompromising conditions might benefit from updated bivalent vaccine booster doses that target recently circulating Omicron sublineages, in line with ACIP recommendations. Further, additional protective recommendations for persons with immunocompromising conditions, including the use of prophylactic antibody therapy, early access to and use of antivirals, and enhanced nonpharmaceutical interventions such as well-fitting masks or respirators, should also be considered., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Brian E. Dixon reported grant support from the National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; personal fees from Elsevier and Springer Nature; and consulting fees from Merck. Nicola P. Klein reported institutional grant support from Pfizer, Inc., Merck, GSK, and Sanofi Pasteur. Allison L. Naleway reported institutional support from Pfizer, Inc. and Vir Biotechnology. Suchitra Rao reported grant support from GSK. Charlene McEvoy reported institutional support from AstraZeneca. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Objective: To estimate the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against moderate and severe covid-19 in adults by time since second, third, or fourth doses, and by age and immunocompromised status., Design: Test negative case-control study., Setting: Hospitals, emergency departments, and urgent care clinics in 10 US states, 17 January 2021 to 12 July 2022., Participants: 893 461 adults (≥18 years) admitted to one of 261 hospitals or to one of 272 emergency department or 119 urgent care centers for covid-like illness tested for SARS-CoV-2., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome was waning of vaccine effectiveness with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine during the omicron and delta periods, and the period before delta was dominant using logistic regression conditioned on calendar week and geographic area while adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, local virus circulation, immunocompromised status, and likelihood of being vaccinated., Results: 45 903 people admitted to hospital with covid-19 (cases) were compared with 213 103 people with covid-like illness who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls), and 103 287 people admitted to emergency department or urgent care with covid-19 (cases) were compared with 531 168 people with covid-like illness who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. In the omicron period, vaccine effectiveness against covid-19 requiring admission to hospital was 89% (95% confidence interval 88% to 90%) within two months after dose 3 but waned to 66% (63% to 68%) by four to five months. Vaccine effectiveness of three doses against emergency department or urgent care visits was 83% (82% to 84%) initially but waned to 46% (44% to 49%) by four to five months. Waning was evident in all subgroups, including young adults and individuals who were not immunocompromised; although waning was morein people who were immunocompromised. Vaccine effectiveness increased among most groups after a fourth dose in whom this booster was recommended., Conclusions: Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against moderate and severe covid-19 waned with time after vaccination. The findings support recommendations for a booster dose after a primary series and consideration of additional booster doses., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: NPK reports institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Sciences (now Sanofi Pasteur) for unrelated studies and institutional support from Pfizer for a covid-19 vaccine trial. CM received institutional support from AstraZeneca for a covid-19 vaccine trial. ALN received institutional support from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy. SR received grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. Authors declare no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This paper develops methods to test for associations between two variables with clustered data using a U -Statistic approach with a second-order approximation to the variance of the parameter estimate for the test statistic. The tests that are presented are for clustered versions of: Pearsons χ 2 test, the Spearman rank correlation and Kendall's τ for continuous data or ordinal data and for alternative measures of Kendall's τ that allow for ties in the data. Shih and Fay use the U -Statistic approach but only consider a first-order approximation. The first-order approximation has inflated significance level in scenarios with small sample sizes. We derive the test statistics using the second-order approximations aiming to improve the type I error rates. The method applies to data where clusters have the same number of measurements for each variable or where one of the variables may be measured once per cluster while the other variable may be measured multiple times. We evaluate the performance of the test statistics through simulation with small sample sizes. The methods are all available in the R package cluscor.

The Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was first identified in the United States in November 2021, with the BA.1 sublineage (including BA.1.1) causing the largest surge in COVID-19 cases to date. Omicron sublineages BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 emerged later and by late April 2022, accounted for most cases.* Estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) can be reduced by newly emerging variants or sublineages that evade vaccine-induced immunity (1), protection from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated persons (2), or increasing time since vaccination (3). Real-world data comparing VE during the periods when the BA.1 and BA.2/BA.2.12.1 predominated (BA.1 period and BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period, respectively) are limited. The VISION network † examined 214,487 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and 58,782 hospitalizations with a COVID-19-like illness § diagnosis among 10 states during December 18, 2021-June 10, 2022, to evaluate VE of 2, 3, and 4 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) compared with no vaccination among adults without immunocompromising conditions. VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization 7-119 days and ≥120 days after receipt of dose 3 was 92% (95% CI = 91%-93%) and 85% (95% CI = 81%-89%), respectively, during the BA.1 period, compared with 69% (95% CI = 58%-76%) and 52% (95% CI = 44%-59%), respectively, during the BA.2/BA.2.12.1 period. Patterns were similar for ED/UC encounters. Among adults aged ≥50 years, VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization ≥120 days after receipt of dose 3 was 55% (95% CI = 46%-62%) and ≥7 days (median = 27 days) after a fourth dose was 80% (95% CI = 71%-85%) during BA.2/BA.2.12.1 predominance. Immunocompetent persons should receive recommended COVID-19 booster doses to prevent moderate to severe COVID-19, including a first booster dose for all eligible persons and second booster dose for adults aged ≥50 years at least 4 months after an initial booster dose. Booster doses should be obtained immediately when persons become eligible. ¶ ., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Stephanie A. Irving reports institutional support from Westat. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science, unrelated to the current work, and institutional support from Pfizer for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer for a study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy, unrelated to the current work. Charlene McEvoy reports institutional support from AstraZeneca for an AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine trial. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Importance: Successful treatment of opioid misuse among people with chronic pain has proven elusive. Guidelines recommend nonopioid therapies, but the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions for opioid misuse is uncertain., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE) for the reduction of opioid misuse and chronic pain., Design, Setting, and Participants: This interviewer-blinded randomized clinical trial enrolled patients from primary care clinics in Utah between January 4, 2016, and January 16, 2020. The study included 250 adults with chronic pain receiving long-term opioid therapy who were misusing opioid medications., Interventions: Treatment with MORE (comprising training in mindfulness, reappraisal, and savoring positive experiences) or supportive group psychotherapy (control condition) across 8 weekly 2-hour group sessions., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were (1) opioid misuse assessed by the Drug Misuse Index (self-report, interview, and urine screen) and (2) pain severity and pain-related functional interference, assessed by subscale scores on the Brief Pain Inventory through 9 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes were opioid dose, emotional distress, and ecological momentary assessments of opioid craving. The minimum intervention dose was defined as 4 or more completed sessions of MORE or supportive group psychotherapy., Results: Among 250 participants (159 women [63.6%]; mean [SD] age, 51.8 [11.9] years), 129 were randomized to the MORE group and 121 to the supportive psychotherapy group. Overall, 17 participants (6.8%) were Hispanic or Latino, 218 (87.2%) were White, and 15 (6.0%) were of other races and/or ethnicities (2 American Indian, 3 Asian, 1 Black, 2 Pacific Islander, and 7 did not specify). At baseline, the mean duration of pain was 14.7 years (range, 1-60 years), and the mean (SD) morphine-equivalent opioid dose was 101.0 (266.3) mg (IQR, 16.0-90.0 mg). A total of 203 participants (81.2%) received the minimum intervention dose (mean [SD], 5.7 [2.2] sessions); at 9 months, 92 of 250 participants (36.8%) discontinued the study. The overall odds ratio for reduction in opioid misuse through the 9-month follow-up period in the MORE group compared with the supportive psychotherapy group was 2.06 (95% CI, 1.17-3.61; P = .01). At 9 months, 36 of 80 participants (45.0%) in the MORE group were no longer misusing opioids compared with 19 of 78 participants (24.4%) in the supportive psychotherapy group. Mixed models demonstrated that MORE was superior to supportive psychotherapy through 9 months of follow-up for pain severity (between-group effect: 0.49; 95% CI, 0.17-0.81; P = .003) and pain-related functional interference (between-group effect: 1.07; 95% CI, 0.64-1.50; P < .001). Participants in the MORE group reduced their opioid dose to a greater extent than those in the supportive psychotherapy group. The MORE group also had lower emotional distress and opioid craving., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, among adult participants in a primary care setting, the MORE intervention led to sustained improvements in opioid misuse and chronic pain symptoms and reductions in opioid dosing, emotional distress, and opioid craving compared with supportive group psychotherapy. Despite attrition caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the vulnerability of the sample, MORE appeared to be efficacious for reducing opioid misuse among adults with chronic pain., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02602535.

CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥12 years receive a booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine ≥5 months after completion of a primary mRNA vaccination series and that immunocompromised persons receive a third primary dose.* Waning of vaccine protection after 2 doses of mRNA vaccine has been observed during the period of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance † (1-5), but little is known about durability of protection after 3 doses during periods of Delta or SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant predominance. A test-negative case-control study design using data from eight VISION Network sites § examined vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits and hospitalizations among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years at various time points after receipt of a second or third vaccine dose during two periods: Delta variant predominance and Omicron variant predominance (i.e., periods when each variant accounted for ≥50% of sequenced isolates). ¶ Persons categorized as having received 3 doses included those who received a third dose in a primary series or a booster dose after a 2 dose primary series (including the reduced-dosage Moderna booster). The VISION Network analyzed 241,204 ED/UC encounters** and 93,408 hospitalizations across 10 states during August 26, 2021-January 22, 2022. VE after receipt of both 2 and 3 doses was lower during the Omicron-predominant than during the Delta-predominant period at all time points evaluated. During both periods, VE after receipt of a third dose was higher than that after a second dose; however, VE waned with increasing time since vaccination. During the Omicron period, VE against ED/UC visits was 87% during the first 2 months after a third dose and decreased to 66% among those vaccinated 4-5 months earlier; VE against hospitalizations was 91% during the first 2 months following a third dose and decreased to 78% ≥4 months after a third dose. For both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, VE was generally higher for protection against hospitalizations than against ED/UC visits. All eligible persons should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations to best protect against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and ED/UC visits., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Sciences (now Sanofi Pasteur) for unrelated studies and institutional support from Pfizer for a COVID-19 vaccine trial. Charlene McEvoy reports institutional support from AstraZeneca for a COVID-19 vaccine trial. Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy. Suchitra Rao reports grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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. † A third dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine increases neutralizing antibody levels (4), and three recent studies from Israel have shown improved effectiveness of a third dose in preventing COVID-19 associated with infections with the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant (5-7). Yet, data are limited on the real-world effectiveness of third doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in the United States, especially since the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant became predominant in mid-December 2021. The VISION Network § examined VE by analyzing 222,772 encounters from 383 emergency departments (EDs) and urgent care (UC) clinics and 87,904 hospitalizations from 259 hospitals among adults aged ≥18 years across 10 states from August 26, 2021 ¶ to January 5, 2022. Analyses were stratified by the period before and after the Omicron variant became the predominant strain (>50% of sequenced viruses) at each study site. During the period of Delta predominance across study sites in the United States (August-mid-December 2021), VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated ED and UC encounters was 86% 14-179 days after dose 2, 76% ≥180 days after dose 2, and 94% ≥14 days after dose 3. Estimates of VE for the same intervals after vaccination during Omicron variant predominance were 52%, 38%, and 82%, respectively. During the period of Delta variant predominance, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was 90% 14-179 days after dose 2, 81% ≥180 days after dose 2, and 94% ≥14 days after dose 3. During Omicron variant predominance, VE estimates for the same intervals after vaccination were 81%, 57%, and 90%, respectively. The highest estimates of VE against COVID-19-associated ED and UC encounters or hospitalizations during both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods were among adults who received a third dose of mRNA vaccine. All unvaccinated persons should get vaccinated as soon as possible. All adults who have received mRNA vaccines during their primary COVID-19 vaccination series should receive a third dose when eligible, and eligible persons should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Stephanie A. Irving reports institutional support from Westat. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Scient (unrelated to the current work), and institutional support from Pfizer for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer for a study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy (unrelated to the current work). Charlene McEvoy reports institutional support from AztraZeneca for an AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine trial. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

BACKGROUNDRBC transfusion effectiveness varies due to donor, component, and recipient factors. Prior studies identified characteristics associated with variation in hemoglobin increments following transfusion. We extended these observations, examining donor genetic and nongenetic factors affecting transfusion effectiveness.METHODSThis is a multicenter retrospective study of 46,705 patients and 102,043 evaluable RBC transfusions from 2013 to 2016 across 12 hospitals. Transfusion effectiveness was defined as hemoglobin, bilirubin, or creatinine increments following single RBC unit transfusion. Models incorporated a subset of donors with data on single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with osmotic and oxidative hemolysis in vitro. Mixed modeling accounting for repeated transfusion episodes identified predictors of transfusion effectiveness.RESULTSBlood donor (sex, Rh status, fingerstick hemoglobin, smoking), component (storage duration, γ irradiation, leukoreduction, apheresis collection, storage solution), and recipient (sex, BMI, race and ethnicity, age) characteristics were associated with hemoglobin and bilirubin, but not creatinine, increments following RBC transfusions. Increased storage duration was associated with increased bilirubin and decreased hemoglobin increments, suggestive of in vivo hemolysis following transfusion. Donor G6PD deficiency and polymorphisms in SEC14L4, HBA2, and MYO9B genes were associated with decreased hemoglobin increments. Donor G6PD deficiency and polymorphisms in SEC14L4 were associated with increased transfusion requirements in the subsequent 48 hours.CONCLUSIONDonor genetic and other factors, such as RBC storage duration, affect transfusion effectiveness as defined by decreased hemoglobin or increased bilirubin increments. Addressing these factors will provide a precision medicine approach to improve patient outcomes, particularly for chronically transfused RBC recipients, who would most benefit from more effective transfusion products.FUNDINGFunding was provided by HHSN 75N92019D00032, HHSN 75N92019D00034, 75N92019D00035, HHSN 75N92019D00036, and HHSN 75N92019D00037; R01HL126130; and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).

Background: Among children, sex-specific differences in disease prevalence, age of onset, and susceptibility have been observed in health conditions including asthma, immune response, metabolic health, some pediatric and adult cancers, and psychiatric disorders. Epigenetic modifications such as DNA methylation may play a role in the sexual differences observed in diseases and other physiological traits., Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of the association of sex and cord blood DNA methylation at over 450,000 CpG sites in 8438 newborns from 17 cohorts participating in the Pregnancy And Childhood Epigenetics (PACE) Consortium. We also examined associations of child sex with DNA methylation in older children ages 5.5-10 years from 8 cohorts (n = 4268)., Results: In newborn blood, sex was associated at Bonferroni level significance with differences in DNA methylation at 46,979 autosomal CpG sites (p < 1.3 × 10 -7 ) after adjusting for white blood cell proportions and batch. Most of those sites had lower methylation levels in males than in females. Of the differentially methylated CpG sites identified in newborn blood, 68% (31,727) met look-up level significance (p < 1.1 × 10 -6 ) in older children and had methylation differences in the same direction., Conclusions: This is a large-scale meta-analysis examining sex differences in DNA methylation in newborns and older children. Expanding upon previous studies, we replicated previous findings and identified additional autosomal sites with sex-specific differences in DNA methylation. Differentially methylated sites were enriched in genes involved in cancer, psychiatric disorders, and cardiovascular phenotypes., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Stephanie A. Irving reports support from Westat to Kaiser Permanente Northwest Center for Health Research. Nicola P. Klein reports support from Pfizer to Kaiser Permanente, Northern California for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, and institutional support from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Pasteur outside the current study. Charlene McEvoy reports support from AstraZeneca to HealthPartners Institute for COVID-19 vaccine trials. Allison L. Naleway reports Pfizer Research funding to Kaiser Permanente Northwest for unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy. Suchitra Rao reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Immunocompromised persons, defined as those with suppressed humoral or cellular immunity resulting from health conditions or medications, account for approximately 3% of the U.S. adult population (1). Immunocompromised adults are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes (2) and might not acquire the same level of protection from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as do immunocompetent adults (3,4). To evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE) among immunocompromised adults, data from the VISION Network* on hospitalizations among persons aged ≥18 years with COVID-19-like illness from 187 hospitals in nine states during January 17-September 5, 2021 were analyzed. Using selected discharge diagnoses, † VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization conferred by completing a 2-dose series of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine ≥14 days before the index hospitalization date § (i.e., being fully vaccinated) was evaluated using a test-negative design comparing 20,101 immunocompromised adults (10,564 [53%] of whom were fully vaccinated) and 69,116 immunocompetent adults (29,456 [43%] of whom were fully vaccinated). VE of 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was lower among immunocompromised patients (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-80%) than among immunocompetent patients (90%; 95% CI = 89%-91%). This difference persisted irrespective of mRNA vaccine product, age group, and timing of hospitalization relative to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance in the state of hospitalization. VE varied across immunocompromising condition subgroups, ranging from 59% (organ or stem cell transplant recipients) to 81% (persons with a rheumatologic or inflammatory disorder). Immunocompromised persons benefit from mRNA COVID-19 vaccination but are less protected from severe COVID-19 outcomes than are immunocompetent persons, and VE varies among immunocompromised subgroups. Immunocompromised persons receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should receive 3 doses and a booster, consistent with CDC recommendations (5), practice nonpharmaceutical interventions, and, if infected, be monitored closely and considered early for proven therapies that can prevent severe outcomes., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Anupam B. Kharbanda reports institutional support through HealthPartners to Children’s Minnesota for VISION. Charlene McEvoy reports institutional support from AstraZeneca for the AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine trial. Jill Ferdinands reports travel support from Institute for Influenza Epidemiology, funded in part by Sanofi Pasteur. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials and institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Sciences (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A growing body of neurobiological and psychological research sheds light on the mechanisms underlying the development and maintenance of opioid use disorder and its relation to parenting behavior. Perinatal opioid use is associated with risks for women and children, including increased risk of child maltreatment. Drawing from extant data, here we provide an integrated mechanistic model of perinatal opioid use, parenting behavior, infant attachment, and child well-being to inform the development and adaptation of behavioral interventions for opioid-exposed mother-infant dyads. The model posits that recurrent perinatal opioid use may lead to increased stress sensitivity and reward dysregulation for some mothers, resulting in decreased perceived salience of infant cues, disengaged parenting behavior, disrupted infant attachment, and decreased child well-being. We conclude with a discussion of Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement as a means of addressing mechanisms undergirding perinatal opioid use, parenting, and attachment, presenting evidence on the efficacy and therapeutic mechanisms of mindfulness. As perinatal opioid use increases in the United States, empirically informed models can be used to guide treatment development research and address this growing concern., Competing Interests: EG is the Director of the Center on Mindfulness and Integrative Health Intervention Development. The Center provides Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE), mindfulness-based therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy in the context of research trails for no cost to research participants; however, EG has received honoraria ad payment for delivering seminars, lectures, and teaching engagements (related to training clinicians in MORE and mindfulness) sponsored by institutions of higher education, government agencies, academic teaching and receives royalties from the sale of books related to MORE. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 Reese, Conradt, Riquino and Garland.)

Background: As the rate of opioid use in pregnancy escalates, there are a growing number of women diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) and their newborns being cared for in inpatient settings., Purpose: In this study, we sought to better understand the experiences of nurses and nursing assistants working with women diagnosed with OUD and their newborns. By identifying the needs of nurses and nursing assistants, the findings from this study may contribute to reductions in stigma and improved patient care., Methods: Nurses and nursing assistants were recruited from a postpartum unit at a large urban hospital in Utah. Participants (n = 30) attended up to 4 semistructured focus groups. We utilized Braun and Clarke's 6-phase approach to thematic analysis to analyze transcribed interviews., Findings/results: Themes identified during the data analysis process included negative feelings and reactions toward patients; preferential concern for the newborn over maternal well-being; and identification of organizational and training needs to overcome these challenges., Implications for Practice: These findings identify strategies for addressing challenges faced by nurses and nursing assistants in caring for women diagnosed with OUD and their newborns., Implications for Research: Future research should examine the effectiveness of approaches to reduce behaviors influenced by stigma among nurses and nursing assistants working with women diagnosed with OUD and their newborns, as well as employee and patient satisfaction, and long-term health outcomes., Competing Interests: No conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 by the National Association of Neonatal Nurses.)

Rationale and Objective: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) published a set of minimum technical standards (MTS) to improve image quality and reduce variability in multiparametric prostate MRI. The effect of PIRADSv2 MTS on image quality has not been validated. We aimed to determine whether adherence to PI-RADSv2 MTS improves study adequacy and perceived quality., Materials and Methods: Sixty-two prostate MRI examinations including T2 weighted (T2W) and diffusion weighted image (DWI) consecutively referred to our center from 62 different institutions within a 12-month period (September 2017 to September 2018) were included. Six readers assessed images as adequate or inadequate for use in PCa detection and a numerical image quality ranking was given using a 1-5 scale. The PI-RADSv2 MTS were synthesized into sets of seven and 10 rules for T2W and DWI, respectively. Image adherence was assessed using Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) metadata. Statistical analysis of survey results and image adherence was performed based on reader quality scoring (Kendall Rank tau-b) and reader adequate scoring (Wilcoxon test for association) for T2 and DWI quality assessment., Results: Out of 62 images, 52 (83%) T2W and 38 (61%) DWIs were rated to be adequate by a majority of readers. Reader adequacy scores showed no significant association with adherence to PI-RADSv2. There was a weak (tau-b = 0.22) but significant (p value = 0.01) correlation between adherence to PIRADSv2 MTS and image quality for T2W. Studies following all PI-RADSv2 T2W rules achieved a higher median average quality score (3.58 for 7/7 vs. 3.0 for <7/7, p = 0.012). No statistical relationship with PI-RADSv2 MTS adherence and DWI quality was found., Conclusion: Among 62 sites performing prostate MRI, few were considered of high quality, but the majority were considered adequate. DWI showed considerably lower rates of adequate studies in the sample. Adherence to PI-RADSv2 MTS did not increase the likelihood of having a qualitatively adequate T2W or DWI., (Copyright © 2020 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Prostate cancer recurrence is found in up to 40% of men with prior definitive (total prostatectomy or whole-prostate radiation) treatment. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET agents such as 2-(3-{1-carboxy-5-[(6-[18F]fluoro-pyridine 3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid ( 18 F-DCFPyL) may improve detection of recurrence compared with multiparametric MRI; however, histopathologic validation is lacking. Purpose To determine the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 18 F-DCFPyL PET/CT based on histologic analysis and to compare with pelvic multiparametric MRI in men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Men were prospectively recruited after prostatectomy and/or radiation therapy with rising prostate-specific antigen level (median, 2.27 ng/mL; range, 0.2-27.45 ng/mL) and a negative result at conventional imaging (bone scan and/or CT). Participants underwent 18 F-DCFPyL PET/CT imaging and 3.0-T pelvic multiparametric MRI. Statistical analysis included Wald and modified χ 2 tests. Results A total of 323 lesions were visualized in 77 men by using 18 F-DCFPyL or multiparametric MRI, with imaging detection concordance of 25% (82 of 323) when including all lesions in the MRI field of view and 53% (52 of 99) when only assessing prostate bed lesions. 18 F-DCFPyL depicted more pelvic lymph nodes than did MRI (128 vs 23 nodes). Histologic validation was obtained in 80 locations with sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of 69% (25 of 36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 51%, 88%), 91% (40 of 44; 95% CI: 74%, 98%), and 86% (25 of 29; 95% CI: 73%, 97%) for 18 F-DCFPyL and 69% (24 of 35; 95% CI: 50%, 86%), 74% (31 of 42; 95% CI: 42%, 89%), and 69% (24 of 35; 95% CI: 50%, 88%) for multiparametric MRI ( P = .95, P = .14, and P = .07, respectively). In the prostate bed, sensitivity, specificity, and PPV were 57% (13 of 23; 95% CI: 32%, 81%), 86% (18 of 21; 95% CI: 73%, 100%), and 81% (13 of 16; 95% CI: 59%, 100%) for 18 F-DCFPyL and 83% (19 of 23; 95% CI: 59%, 100%), 52% (11 of 21; 95% CI: 29%, 74%), and 66% (19 of 29; 95% CI: 44%, 86%) for multiparametric MRI ( P = .19, P = .02, and P = .17, respectively). The addition of 18 F-DCFPyL to multiparametric MRI improved PPV by 38% overall ( P = .02) and by 30% ( P = .09) in the prostate bed. Conclusion Findings with 2-(3-{1-carboxy-5-[(6-[18F]fluoro-pyridine 3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl}-ureido)-pentanedioic acid ( 18 F-DCFPyL) were histologically validated and demonstrated high specificity and positive predictive value. In the pelvis, 18 F-DCFPyL depicted more lymph nodes and improved positive predictive value and specificity when added to multiparametric MRI. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Zukotynski and Rowe in this issue.