COVID-19 vaccination is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 complications, but uptake has been low. Our objective in this study was to compare the importance of factors reported to influence the decision to receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine among health care personnel (HCP) tested for SARS-CoV-2 between October 2022 and April 2023 in a 20-hospital vaccine effectiveness study in the United States (n = 1656). Compared with those who had not received the booster, the factors most likely to be reported to be important were concerns about contracting COVID-19 (84.0% of those who had received the bivalent booster vs. 47.5% of those who had not, difference 36.6% points (PP), 95% confidence interval [CI] 32.1 to 41.1%), spreading infection to family members (89.2% vs. 62.8%, difference 26.3 PP, 95% CI 22.3 to 30.4%), and spreading infection to colleagues at work (85.5% vs. 59.4%, difference 26.1 PP, 95% CI 21.7 to 30.5%). HCP who had received the booster more frequently cited the primary literature (61.7% vs. 31.8%, difference 29.9 PP, 95% CI 24.6 to 35.2%) and employer recommendations (48.3% vs. 29.8%, difference 18.5 PP, 95% CI 13.2 to 23.9%) as influencing their decision. This analysis provides insight into factors for targeting future vaccine messaging.

BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA vaccines were recommended since September 2022. However, coverage with a recent vaccine dose has been limited, and there are few robust estimates of bivalent VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against COVID-19 among eligible U.S. healthcare personnel who had previously received monovalent mRNA vaccine doses. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study in 22 U.S. states, and enrolled healthcare personnel with COVID-19 (case-participants) or without COVID-19 (control-participants) during September 2022-May 2023. Participants were considered eligible for a bivalent mRNA dose if they had received 2-4 monovalent (ancestral-strain) mRNA vaccine doses, and were ≥67 days after the most recent vaccine dose. We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA dose using conditional logistic regression, accounting for matching by region and four-week calendar period. We adjusted estimates for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, underlying health conditions, community COVID-19 exposure, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and days since the last monovalent mRNA dose. RESULTS: Among 3,647 healthcare personnel, 1,528 were included as case-participants and 2,119 as control-participants. Participants received their last monovalent mRNA dose a median of 404 days previously; 1,234 (33.8%) also received a bivalent mRNA dose a median of 93 days previously. Overall, VE of a bivalent dose was 34.1% (95% CI, 22.6%-43.9%) against COVID-19 and was similar by product, days since last monovalent dose, number of prior doses, age group, and presence of underlying health conditions. However, VE declined from 54.8% (95% CI, 40.7%-65.6%) after 7-59 days to 21.6% (95% CI 5.6%-34.9%) after ≥60 days. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines initially conferred approximately 55% protection against COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare personnel. However, protection waned after two months. These findings indicate moderate initial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by remaining up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. METHODS: We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates. RESULTS: Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants. CONCLUSIONS: A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

Importance: Although COVID-19 vaccines protect against infection and severe disease, the role of vaccination in preventing prolonged symptoms in those with subsequent infection is unclear. Objective(s): To determine differences in symptoms stratified by prior vaccination reported by healthcare personnel (HCP) 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19, and whether there were differences in timing of return to work. Design(s): Nested cohort study within a multicenter vaccine effectiveness study. HCP with COVID-19 between December 2020 and August 2021 were followed up 6 weeks after illness onset. Setting(s): Health systems in 12 U.S. states. Participant(s): HCP participating in a vaccine effectiveness study were eligible for inclusion if they had confirmed COVID-19 with either verified mRNA vaccination (symptom onset =14 days after two doses) or no prior COVID-19 vaccination. Among 681 eligible participants, 419 (61%) completed a follow-up survey approximately 6 weeks after illness onset. Exposures: Two doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared with no COVID-19 vaccine. Main Outcomes and Measures: Presence of symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 illness and days to return to work after COVID-19 illness. Result(s): Among 419 HCP with confirmed COVID-19, 298 (71%) reported one or more COVID-like symptoms 6 weeks after illness onset, with a lower prevalence among vaccinated participants (60.6%) compared with unvaccinated participants (60.6% vs. 79.1%; aRR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.84). Vaccinated HCP returned to work a median 2.0 days (95% CI 1.0-3.0) sooner than unvaccinated HCP (aHR 1.37; 95% CI, 1.04-1.79). Conclusion(s): A history of two doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine among HCP with COVID-19 illness was associated with decreased risk of COVID-like symptoms at 6 weeks and earlier to return to work. Vaccination is associated with improved recovery from COVID-19, in addition to preventing symptomatic infection. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinician screening practices for prior hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, knowledge of future risks associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, barriers and facilitators to referrals for cardiovascular disease risk evaluation in women with prior hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and variation by clinician- and practice-level characteristics. METHODS: We used data from Fall DocStyles 2020, a cross-sectional, web-based panel survey of currently practicing U.S. clinicians. Of 2,231 primary care physicians, obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns), nurse practitioners, and physician assistants invited to participate, 67.3% (n=1,502) completed the survey. We calculated the prevalence of screening, knowledge of future risks, and barriers and facilitators to referrals, and assessed differences by clinician type using 2 tests. We evaluated associations between clinician- and practice-level characteristics and not screening using a multivariable log-binomial model. RESULTS: Overall, 73.6% of clinicians screened patients for a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; ob-gyns reported the highest rate of screening (94.8%). Overall, 24.8% of clinicians correctly identified all cardiovascular risks associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy listed in the survey. Lack of patient follow-through (51.5%) and patient refusal (33.6%) were the most frequently cited barriers to referral. More referral options (42.9%), patient education materials (36.2%), and professional guidelines (34.1%) were the most frequently cited resources needed to facilitate referrals. In the multivariable model, primary care physicians and nurse practitioners, as well as physician assistants, were more likely than ob-gyns to report not screening (adjusted prevalence ratio 5.54, 95% CI 3.24-9.50, and adjusted prevalence ratio 7.42, 95% CI 4.27-12.88, respectively). Clinicians seeing fewer than 80 patients per week (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.81, 95% CI 1.43-2.28) were more likely to not screen relative to those seeing 110 or more patients per week. CONCLUSION: Three quarters of clinicians reported screening for a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; however, only one out of four clinicians correctly identified all of the cardiovascular risks associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy listed in the survey.

BACKGROUND: The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose). RESULTS: The study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (<50 years or ≥50 years), race and ethnic group, presence of underlying conditions, and level of patient contact. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower during weeks 9 through 14 than during weeks 3 through 8 after receipt of the second dose, but confidence intervals overlapped widely. CONCLUSIONS: The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 in health care personnel, including those at risk for severe Covid-19 and those in racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In adults, lower vitamin D has been associated with increased albuminuria. This association has not been extensively studied in youth with or without type 1 diabetes. METHODS: We examined the cross-sectional association between vitamin D and albuminuria (urine albumin to creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g) in 8,789 participants of the National Health and Nutrition Survey 2001-2006 (NHANES), who were 6-19 years old. Further, we examined the association between vitamin D and albuminuria in 938 participants from the SEARCH Nutritional Ancillary Study (SNAS), a longitudinal cohort of youth with type 1 diabetes. RESULTS: Of the NHANES participants, 5.3, 19.5, and 53.7% had vitamin D levels <30, 50 and 80 nmol/L, respectively. Albuminuria was present in 12.8% and was more common in younger children, females, non-Hispanic whites, non-obese children, and children with hypertension. After adjustments, there was no association between vitamin D and albuminuria. Among the SNAS participants with type 1 diabetes, we also found no association between baseline vitamin D and subsequent albuminuria in unadjusted or adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: We did not find an association between serum vitamin D and albuminuria in either non-diabetic youth or those with type 1 diabetes. Further research is needed to more fully understand this relationship.

We assessed associations of demographic, psychosocial, and substance use factors with seroadaptation strategies among 835 BMSM in four US cities. Seroadaptation strategies were practiced by 59.8 % of men, with 10.5 % practicing 100 % condom use, 26.5 % serosorting, 7.2 % condom serosorting, and 15.6 % seropositioning. In multivariable analyses, compared to men who used no seroadaptation strategies, serosorters were older, were less likely to be HIV infected, had fewer male sex partners, and had higher levels of social support and sexual self-efficacy. Condom serosorters had less psychological distress, were more likely to use methamphetamine, and had higher levels of sexual self-efficacy. Seropositioners were older, were less likely to be HIV infected, to have a main partner, and report alcohol/drug use with sex, while having higher levels of sexual self-efficacy. Seroadaptation practices among BMSM need to be considered to address perceived safer sex strategies and strengthen access to a broader reach of culturally-relevant prevention efforts.

Blacks/Hispanics face limited access to HIV testing. We examined in-pharmacy HIV testing among customers in pharmacies participating in a nonprescription syringe program in New York City. Participants were recruited in two pharmacies to complete a survey and receive an optional HIV test. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed to examine associations of demographics and risk behaviors with receiving in-pharmacy HIV testing. Most participants were male (55%), black (80%), had used hard drugs (88%), and 39.5% received in-pharmacy HIV testing. Being female (AOR=2.24; 95% CI 1.24-4.05), having multiple sex partners (AOR=1.20; 95% CI 1.06-1.35), having an HIV test more than 12 months ago (AOS=4.06; CI 1.85-8.91), injecting drugs in last 3 months (AOR=2.73; 95% CI 1.31-5.69) and having continuous care (AOR=0.32; 95% CI 0.17-0.58) were associated with receiving in-pharmacy HIV test. These data provide evidence of in-pharmacy HIV testing reaching persons at risk of HIV. HIV testing in pharmacies may complement existing strategies.

In the USA, the impact of psychological distress may be greater for Black men who have sex with men given that they may experience both racial discrimination in society at large and discrimination due to sexual orientation within Black communities. Attachments to community members may play a role in addressing psychological distress for members of this vulnerable population. This analysis is based on 312 Black men who have sex with men recruited for a behavioural intervention trial in New York City. Analyses were conducted using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression to examine the relationship of discrimination and community attachment to psychological distress. Most participants (63%) reported exposure to both discrimination due to race and sexual orientation. However, a majority of participants (89%) also reported racial and/or sexual orientation community attachment. Psychological distress was significant and negatively associated with older age (40 years and above), being a high school graduate and having racial and/or sexual orientation community attachments. Psychological distress was significantly and positively associated with being HIV-positive and experiencing both racial and sexual orientation discrimination. Similar results were found in the multivariable model. Susceptibility to disparate psychological distress outcomes must be understood in relation to social membership, including its particular norms, structures and ecological milieu.