Search

Background: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) are the 2 most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regularly publishes and updates STI Treatment Guidelines. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare treatment rates for CT and GC among public and private providers., Methods: Data from multiple sources, including electronic health records and Medicaid claims, were linked and integrated. Cases observed during 2016-2020 were defined based on positive laboratory results. We calculated descriptive statistics and odd ratios based on characteristics of providers and patients, stratifying by public versus private providers. Univariate logistic regression models were used to examine the factors associated with recommended treatment., Results: Overall, we found that 82.2% and 63.0% of initial CT and GC episodes, respectively, received Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recommended treatment. The public STI clinic treated more than 90% of CT and GC cases consistently across the 5-year period. Private providers were significantly less likely to treat first episodes for CT (79.6%) and GC (53.3%; P < 0.01). Other factors associated with a higher likelihood of recommended treatment included being male, being HIV positive, and identifying as Black or multiracial. Among GC cases, 10.8% received nonrecommended treatment; all CT cases with treatment occurred per guidelines., Conclusions: Although these treatment rates are higher than previous studies, there remain significant gaps in STI treatment that require intervention from public health., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest and Sources of Funding: None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under contract no. 75D301-21-Q-73974., (Copyright © 2024 American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The Indiana Sickle Cell Data Collection (IN-SCDC) program aims to provide timely, reliable, and locally relevant information on the sickle cell disease (SCD) population in Indiana to inform public health interventions, research, and policy development. We describe the development of the IN-SCDC program and report the prevalence and geographic distribution of people with SCD in Indiana using an integrated data collection approach., Methods: Using multiple integrated data sources and case definitions established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we classified cases of SCD in Indiana during 2015-2019. We calculated the prevalence and incidence of SCD and described characteristics of people with SCD., Results: We identified 1695 people living with SCD in Indiana during the study period. The median age of people living with SCD was 21 years, and 1474 (87.0%) were Black or African American. Most (n = 1596, 91%) resided in metropolitan counties. The age-adjusted prevalence of SCD was 24.7 cases per 100 000 people. The prevalence of SCD among Black or African American people was 209.3 per 100 000 people. The incidence was 1 in 2608 live births overall and 1 in 446 live births among Black or African American people. Eighty-six deaths were confirmed in this population during 2015-2019., Conclusions: Our results establish a baseline for the IN-SCDC program. Baseline and future surveillance program efforts will help accurately inform standards of care for treatments, identify gaps in coverage and access to care, and provide guidance for legislators and community-based organizations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Although psychiatric disorders have been associated with reduced immune responses to other vaccines, it remains unknown whether they influence COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE). This study evaluated risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and estimated mRNA VE stratified by psychiatric disorder status., Methods: In a retrospective cohort analysis of the VISION Network in four US states, the rate of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalization between December 2021 and August 2022 was compared across psychiatric diagnoses and by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination status using Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: Among 2,436,999 adults, 22.1% had ≥1 psychiatric disorder. The incidence of COVID-19-associated hospitalization was higher among patients with any versus no psychiatric disorder (394 vs. 156 per 100,000 person-years, p < 0.001). Any psychiatric disorder (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18-1.37) and mood (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.15-1.36), anxiety (aHR, 1.33, 95% CI, 1.22-1.45), and psychotic (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.14-1.74) disorders were each significant independent predictors of hospitalization. Among patients with any psychiatric disorder, aHRs for the association between vaccination and hospitalization were 0.35 (95% CI, 0.25-0.49) after a recent second dose, 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.11) after a recent third dose, and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.17-0.66) after a recent fourth dose, compared to unvaccinated patients. Corresponding VE estimates were 65%, 92%, and 67%, respectively, and were similar among patients with no psychiatric disorder (68%, 92%, and 79%)., Conclusion: Psychiatric disorders were associated with increased risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalization. However, mRNA vaccination provided similar protection regardless of psychiatric disorder status, highlighting its benefit for individuals with psychiatric disorders., (© 2024 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to develop with emerging variants, expanding population-level immunity, and advances in clinical care. We describe changes in the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 hospitalizations and risk factors for critical outcomes over time., Methods: We included adults aged ≥18 years from 10 states hospitalized with COVID-19 June 2021-March 2023. We evaluated changes in demographics, clinical characteristics, and critical outcomes (intensive care unit admission and/or death) and evaluated critical outcomes risk factors (risk ratios [RRs]), stratified by COVID-19 vaccination status., Results: A total of 60 488 COVID-19-associated hospitalizations were included in the analysis. Among those hospitalized, median age increased from 60 to 75 years, proportion vaccinated increased from 18.2% to 70.1%, and critical outcomes declined from 24.8% to 19.4% (all P < .001) between the Delta (June-December, 2021) and post-BA.4/BA.5 (September 2022-March 2023) periods. Hospitalization events with critical outcomes had a higher proportion of ≥4 categories of medical condition categories assessed (32.8%) compared to all hospitalizations (23.0%). Critical outcome risk factors were similar for unvaccinated and vaccinated populations; presence of ≥4 medical condition categories was most strongly associated with risk of critical outcomes regardless of vaccine status (unvaccinated: adjusted RR, 2.27 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.14-2.41]; vaccinated: adjusted RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.56-1.92]) across periods., Conclusions: The proportion of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who experienced critical outcomes decreased with time, and median patient age increased with time. Multimorbidity was most strongly associated with critical outcomes., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. M. G. reports additional grants or institutional contracts with the CDC Ambulatory US Flu/COVID Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) Network, Hospitalized Adult Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (HAIVEN) Adult Inpatient Flu/COVID VE, Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill Public Health Surveillance Network, and Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery and Health and Human Services Protect. C. M. reports an institutional grant or contract from AstraZeneca (AZD1222) for a COVID-19 vaccination trial. A. L. N. reports institutional research funding from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy and Vir Biotechnology for an unrelated influenza study. S. A. I. reports an additional pending contract with CDC (200-2012-53584, Vaccine Safety Datalink). G. V.-B. reports grants or contracts from CDC (Vaccine Safety Datalink) and Sanofi (Tdap Vaccine Safety). A. B. K. reports a subcontract through HealthPartners for VISION payment made to Children's Minnesota. B. E. D. reports a grant from the National Institutes of Health to evaluate Health Information Exchange (HIE) technologies, a grant from CDC to use HIE data for public health surveillance, an R21 grant from the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to evaluate HIE technologies, a grant from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to evaluate HIE technologies, royalties from Elsevier and Springer Nature for books on HIE and public health informatics, and consulting fees for advisory panel on human papillomavirus vaccination from Merck and Co. K. M. reports 2 additional contracts with CDC (Ambulatory US Flu VE Network and HAIVEN). N. P. K. has received grants from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi Pasteur. S. R. has received grant funds from GlaxoSmithKline. P. K. M., V. L., and E. B. report payments made to Westat via CDC (contract number 200-2019-F-06819). C. M., C. R., D. K., E. S., G. V.-B., J. A., J. Han., K. S. A., K. N., K. D., M. B., M. B. D., M. M., M. S. S., N. G., N. R. V., P. J. E., S. G., T. C. O., and W. F. F. report payments made to their institution by CDC via Westat. 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: 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.)

Background: Understanding the usefulness of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses-particularly given varying disease incidence-is needed to support public health policy. We characterize the benefits of COVID-19 booster doses using number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department encounter., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of immunocompetent adults at five health systems in four U.S. states during SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 predominance (December 2021-February 2022). Included patients completed a primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccine series and were either eligible to or received a booster dose. NNV were estimated using hazard ratios for each outcome (hospitalization and emergency department encounters), with results stratified by three 25-day periods and site., Findings: 1,285,032 patients contributed 938 hospitalizations and 2076 emergency department encounters. 555,729 (43.2%) patients were aged 18-49 years, 363,299 (28.3%) 50-64 years, and 366,004 (28.5%) ≥65 years. Most patients were female (n = 765,728, 59.6%), White (n = 990,224, 77.1%), and non-Hispanic (n = 1,063,964, 82.8%). 37.2% of patients received a booster and 62.8% received only two doses. Median estimated NNV to prevent one hospitalization was 205 (range 44-615) and NNV was lower across study periods for adults aged ≥65 years (110, 46, and 88, respectively) and those with underlying medical conditions (163, 69, and 131, respectively). Median estimated NNV to prevent one emergency department encounter was 156 (range 75-592)., Interpretation: The number of patients needed to receive a booster dose was highly dependent on local disease incidence, outcome severity, and patient risk factors for moderate-to-severe disease., Funding: Funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention though contract 75D30120C07986 to Westat, Inc. and contract 75D30120C07765 to Kaiser Foundation Hospitals., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. M.G. reports additional contracts with CDC Ambulatory US Flu/COVID VE Network, HAIVEN Adult Inpatient Flu/COVID VE, IVY-3 PHS, and RECOVER. A.L.N. reports research funding from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy and Vir Biotechnology for an unrelated influenza study. S.A.I. reports an additional contract with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 200-2012-53584 (Vaccine Safety Datalink). A.K. reports a subcontract through HealthPartners for VISION payment made to Children’s Minnesota. B.E.D. reports a grant from NIH to evaluate HIE technologies, a grant from CDC to use HIE data for public health surveillance, an R21 grant from U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research Quality to evaluate HIE technologies, a grant from the U.S Department of Veterans Affairs to evaluate HIE technologies, royalties from Elsevier and Springer Nature for books on HIE and Public Health Informatics, and consulting fees for advisory panel on HPV vaccination from Merk and Co. K.M. reports two additional contracts with CDC: Ambulatory US Flu VE Network and HAIVEN Hospitalized Adult Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network. J.J.R., E.A.K.R., A.H., J.K., S.W.B., and M.M.D. report payments made to Westat via CDC Contract #200-2019-F-06819. B.F., E.H., E.S., K.N., K.D., C.R., C.S-A., M.B.D., T.C.O., N.G., J.N., J.A., N.R.V., and P.J.E. report payments made to their institution by CDC via Westat. 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: 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.)

Abstract: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) are the 2 most common reported sexually transmitted infections in the United States. Current recommendations are to presumptively treat CT and/or GC in persons with symptoms or known contact. This review characterizes the literature around studies with presumptive treatment, including identifying rates of presumptive treatment and overtreatment and undertreatment rates. Of the 18 articles that met our inclusion criteria, 6 pertained to outpatient settings. In the outpatient setting, presumptive treatment rates, for both asymptomatic and symptomic patients, varied from 12% to 100%, and the percent positive of those presumptively treated ranged from 25% to 46%. Three studies also reported data on positive results in patients not presumptively treated, which ranged from 2% to 9%. Two studies reported median follow-up time for untreated, which was roughly 9 days. The remaining 12 articles pertained to the emergency setting where presumptive treatment rates, for both asymptomatic and symptomic patients, varied from 16% to 91%, the percent positive following presumptive treatment ranged from 14% to 59%. Positive results without presumptive treatment ranged from 4% to 52%. Two studies reported the percent positive without any treatment (6% and 32%, respectively) and one reported follow-up time for untreated infections (median, 4.8 days). Rates of presumptive treatment, as well as rates of overtreatment or undertreatment vary widely across studies and within care settings. Given the large variability in presumptive treatment, the focus on urban settings, and minimal focus on social determinants of health, additional studies are needed to guide treatment practices for CT and GC in outpatient and emergency settings., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: None declared., (Copyright © 2022 American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Like traditional cigarettes, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) contain nicotine, which is known to negatively influence sleep quality. Few studies, however, have examined the relation between e-cigarettes and sleep quality using population-based survey data because of the relatively recent appearance of these products on the market. This study investigated the relation between e-cigarette and cigarette use and sleep duration in Kentucky, a state with high rates of nicotine dependence and related chronic diseases., Methods: Data from two consecutive years of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey-2016 and 2017-were analyzed using χ 2 statistics and multivariable Poisson regression analyses to control for socioeconomic and demographic variables, the presence of other chronic diseases, and traditional cigarette use., Results: This study was conducted using responses from 18,907 Kentucky adults aged 18 years and older. Overall, almost 40% reported short (<7 hours) sleep duration. After adjusting for other covariates, including the presence of chronic diseases, those who had currently or formerly used both traditional and e-cigarettes had the highest risk of short sleep duration. Those who currently or formerly smoked only traditional cigarettes also had significantly higher risk, unlike those who had only used e-cigarettes., Conclusions: Survey respondents who used e-cigarettes were more likely to report short sleep duration, but only if they currently or formerly smoked traditional cigarettes. Those who used both products, regardless of whether current or former, were more likely to report short sleep duration than those who had used just one of these tobacco products.

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.

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.)

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

Objectives: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has increased steadily in the United States, but little research has examined its prevalence in states comprising Appalachia, a rural region known for high rates of tobacco use. This study assessed lifetime and current e-cigarette use among adults by sociodemographic characteristics, geographic region, and cigarette smoking in Kentucky, with a focus on the Appalachian region., Methods: We used data from the 2016-2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys to calculate the prevalence of lifetime and current e-cigarette use, and we used weighted multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine the relative influence of other factors., Results: Among adults in Kentucky, 5.8% (95% CI, 5.2%-6.4%) were current e-cigarette users and 27.0% (95% CI, 25.9%-28.0%) were lifetime users, compared with state medians of 4.6% (95% CI, 4.0%-5.1%) and 21.4% (95% CI, 19.4%-23.5%) for the United States. Multivariable regression models showed similar patterns for all regions: higher prevalence odds of current e-cigarette use among adults aged 18-24, current conventional smokers, and adults unable to work. Generally, Appalachian residents of Kentucky did not have significantly higher rates of lifetime or current e-cigarette use as compared with other non-Appalachian residents of Kentucky. Hispanic residents of Appalachian Kentucky, however, had higher rates of e-cigarette use than Hispanic residents of other regions of Kentucky., Conclusions: Rates of e-cigarette use were higher in Kentucky than in the United States but were not further elevated in Kentucky's Appalachian region. High rates of e-cigarette use among Hispanic residents of Appalachia indicate a need to focus future interventions in the region.

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.

CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥18 years receive a single COVID-19 vaccine booster dose ≥2 months after receipt of an Ad.26.COV2.S (Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) adenovirus vector-based primary series vaccine; a heterologous COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is preferred over a homologous (matching) Janssen vaccine for booster vaccination. This recommendation was made in light of the risks for rare but serious adverse events following receipt of a Janssen vaccine, including thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome and Guillain-Barré syndrome † (1), and clinical trial data indicating similar or higher neutralizing antibody response following heterologous boosting compared with homologous boosting (2). Data on real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) of different booster strategies following a primary Janssen vaccine dose are limited, particularly during the period of Omicron variant predominance. The VISION Network § determined real-world VE of 1 Janssen vaccine dose and 2 alternative booster dose strategies: 1) a homologous booster (i.e., 2 Janssen doses) and 2) a heterologous mRNA booster (i.e., 1 Janssen dose/1 mRNA dose). In addition, VE of these booster strategies was compared with VE of a homologous booster following mRNA primary series vaccination (i.e., 3 mRNA doses). The study examined 80,287 emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits ¶ and 25,244 hospitalizations across 10 states during December 16, 2021-March 7, 2022, when Omicron was the predominant circulating variant.** VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 24% after 1 Janssen dose, 54% after 2 Janssen doses, 79% after 1 Janssen/1 mRNA dose, and 83% after 3 mRNA doses. VE for the same vaccination strategies against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations were 31%, 67%, 78%, and 90%, respectively. All booster strategies provided higher protection than a single Janssen dose against ED/UC visits and hospitalizations during Omicron variant predominance. Vaccination with 1 Janssen/1 mRNA dose provided higher protection than did 2 Janssen doses against COVID-19-associated ED/UC visits and was comparable to protection provided by 3 mRNA doses during the first 120 days after a booster dose. However, 3 mRNA doses provided higher protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations than did other booster strategies during the same time interval since booster dose. All adults who have received mRNA vaccines for their COVID-19 primary series vaccination should receive an mRNA booster dose when eligible. Adults who received a primary Janssen vaccine dose should preferentially receive a heterologous mRNA vaccine booster dose ≥2 months later, or a homologous Janssen vaccine booster dose if mRNA vaccine is contraindicated or unavailable. Further investigation of the durability of protection afforded by different booster strategies is warranted., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Manjusha Gaglani reports support from Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) for the Baylor Scott & White Health respiratory syncytial virus observational cohort study and uncompensated service as co-chair of the Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee of the Texas Pediatric Society, Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. 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 COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer for an unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy and research funding from Vir Biotechnology. Suchitra Rao reports grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

The efficacy of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 exceeded 90% in clinical trials that included children and adolescents aged 5-11, 12-15, and 16-17 years (1-3). Limited real-world data on 2-dose mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in persons aged 12-17 years (referred to as adolescents in this report) have also indicated high levels of protection against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-associated hospitalization (4-6); however, data on VE against the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant and duration of protection are limited. Pfizer-BioNTech VE data are not available for children aged 5-11 years. In partnership with CDC, the VISION Network* examined 39,217 emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) encounters and 1,699 hospitalizations † among persons aged 5-17 years with COVID-19-like illness across 10 states during April 9, 2021-January 29, 2022, § to estimate VE using a case-control test-negative design. Among children aged 5-11 years, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated ED and UC encounters 14-67 days after dose 2 (the longest interval after dose 2 in this age group) was 46%. Among adolescents aged 12-15 and 16-17 years, VE 14-149 days after dose 2 was 83% and 76%, respectively; VE ≥150 days after dose 2 was 38% and 46%, respectively. Among adolescents aged 16-17 years, VE increased to 86% ≥7 days after dose 3 (booster dose). VE against COVID-19-associated ED and UC encounters was substantially lower during the Omicron predominant period than the B.1.617.2 (Delta) predominant period among adolescents aged 12-17 years, with no significant protection ≥150 days after dose 2 during Omicron predominance. However, in adolescents aged 16-17 years, VE during the Omicron predominant period increased to 81% ≥7 days after a third booster dose. During the full study period, including pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron predominant periods, VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalization among children aged 5-11 years was 74% 14-67 days after dose 2, with wide CIs that included zero. Among adolescents aged 12-15 and 16-17 years, VE 14-149 days after dose 2 was 92% and 94%, respectively; VE ≥150 days after dose 2 was 73% and 88%, respectively. All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, including a booster dose for those aged 12-17 years., 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 and Elizabeth A. Rowley report institutional support from Westat. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Scient (now Sanofi Pasteur) for unrelated studies, and institutional support from Pfizer for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Allison L. Naleway reports institutional support from Pfizer for unrelated study of meningococcal B vaccine safety during pregnancy. Suchitra Rao reports grants from GSK and Biofire Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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.

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.

Background: There are limited data on the effectiveness of the vaccines against symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) currently authorized in the United States with respect to hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or ambulatory care in an emergency department or urgent care clinic., Methods: We conducted a study involving adults (≥50 years of age) with Covid-19-like illness who underwent molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed 41,552 admissions to 187 hospitals and 21,522 visits to 221 emergency departments or urgent care clinics during the period from January 1 through June 22, 2021, in multiple states. The patients' vaccination status was documented in electronic health records and immunization registries. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated patients with those among unvaccinated patients. Vaccine effectiveness was adjusted with weights based on propensity-for-vaccination scores and according to age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1, 2021, to the index date for each medical visit), and local virus circulation., Results: The effectiveness of full messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination (≥14 days after the second dose) was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87 to 91) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization, 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93) against infection leading to an ICU admission, and 91% (95% CI, 89 to 93) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. The effectiveness of full vaccination with respect to a Covid-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department or urgent care clinic visit was similar with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines and ranged from 81% to 95% among adults 85 years of age or older, persons with chronic medical conditions, and Black or Hispanic adults. The effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was 68% (95% CI, 50 to 79) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization and 73% (95% CI, 59 to 82) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit., Conclusions: Covid-19 vaccines in the United States were highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. This vaccine effectiveness extended to populations that are disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)