OBJECTIVES: To propose a framework for adoption of privacy-preserving record linkage (PPRL) for public health applications. METHODS: Twelve interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs) were conducted virtually and coded using an inductive approach. A collaborative session was conducted with SMEs to identify key steps in the PPRL project lifecycle which informed development of a PPRL implementation checklist. RESULTS: This framework has 2 decision-making levels: the organization level and the project or program level. Organization-level considerations include PPRL governance, the optimal choice among approved PPRL solutions, the need for longitudinal linkages, the potential issue of vendor lock-in, and costs. Program-level considerations include characteristics of the PPRL use case, linkage quality and accuracy, data privacy and use, security thresholds, compatibility with data owners' data architecture, and trade-offs between open-source and commercial PPRL solutions. A PPRL implementation checklist was developed to guide public health practitioners considering PPRL for data linkage. CONCLUSIONS: The framework may be considered by public health entities to guide adoption and implementation of PPRL in public health research and surveillance. Public health experts may refer to this framework and the PPRL implementation checklist when determining the appropriateness of PPRL for specific use cases and implementation planning.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, mathematical modeling has been widely used to understand epidemiological burden, trends, and transmission dynamics, to facilitate policy decisions, and, to a lesser extent, to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) measures. This review highlights the added value of using conventional epidemiology and modeling approaches to address the complexity of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) and antimicrobial resistance. It demonstrates how epidemiological surveillance data and modeling can be used to infer transmission dynamics in healthcare settings and to forecast healthcare impact, how modeling can be used to improve the validity of interpretation of epidemiological surveillance data, how modeling can be used to estimate the impact of IPC interventions, and how modeling can be used to guide IPC and antimicrobial treatment and stewardship decision-making. There are several priority areas for expanding the use of modeling in healthcare epidemiology and IPC. Importantly, modeling should be viewed as complementary to conventional healthcare epidemiological approaches, and this requires collaboration and active coordination between IPC, healthcare epidemiology, and mathematical modeling groups.

BACKGROUND: Assessing variant-specific COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) and severity can inform public health risk assessments and decisions about vaccine composition. BA.2.86 and its descendants, including JN.1 (referred to collectively as "JN lineages"), emerged in late 2023 and exhibited substantial divergence from co-circulating XBB lineages. METHODS: We analyzed patients hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness at 26 hospitals in 20 U.S. states admitted October 18, 2023-March 9, 2024. Using a test-negative, case-control design, we estimated effectiveness of an updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccine dose against sequence-confirmed XBB and JN lineage hospitalization using logistic regression. Odds of severe outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, were compared for JN versus XBB lineage hospitalizations using logistic regression. RESULTS: 585 case-patients with XBB lineages, 397 case-patients with JN lineages, and 4,580 control-patients were included. VE in the first 7-89 days after receipt of an updated dose was 54.2% (95% CI = 36.1%-67.1%) against XBB lineage hospitalization and 32.7% (95% CI = 1.9%-53.8%) against JN lineage hospitalization. Odds of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.80; 95% CI = 0.46-1.38) and IMV or death (aOR 0.69; 95% CI = 0.34-1.40) were not significantly different among JN compared to XBB lineage hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination provided protection against both XBB and JN lineage hospitalization, but protection against the latter may be attenuated by immune escape. Clinical severity of JN lineage hospitalizations was not higher relative to XBB.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the landscape of privacy preserving record linkage (PPRL) applications in public health, assess estimates of PPRL accuracy and privacy, and evaluate factors for PPRL adoption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature scan examined the accuracy, data privacy, and scalability of PPRL in public health. Twelve interviews with subject matter experts were conducted and coded using an inductive approach to identify factors related to PPRL adoption. RESULTS: PPRL has a high level of linkage quality and accuracy. PPRL linkage quality was comparable to that of clear text linkage methods (requiring direct personally identifiable information [PII]) for linkage across various settings and research questions. Accuracy of PPRL depended on several components, such as PPRL technique, and the proportion of missingness and errors in underlying data. Strategies to increase adoption include increasing understanding of PPRL, improving data owner buy-in, establishing governance structure and oversight, and developing a public health implementation strategy for PPRL. DISCUSSION: PPRL protects privacy by eliminating the need to share PII for linkage, but the accuracy and linkage quality depend on factors including the choice of PPRL technique and specific PII used to create encrypted identifiers. Large-scale implementations of PPRL linking millions of observations-including PCORnet, National Institutes for Health N3C, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 project have demonstrated the scalability of PPRL for public health applications. CONCLUSIONS: Applications of PPRL in public health have demonstrated their value for the public health community. Although gaps must be addressed before wide implementation, PPRL is a promising solution to data linkage challenges faced by the public health ecosystem.

IMPORTANCE: Pneumonia is the most common infection requiring hospitalization and is a major reason for overuse of extended-spectrum antibiotics. Despite low risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection, clinical uncertainty often drives initial antibiotic selection. Strategies to limit empiric antibiotic overuse for patients with pneumonia are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO infection risk estimates could reduce empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for non-critically ill patients admitted with pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time MDRO risk-based CPOE prompts; n = 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in non-critically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with pneumonia. There was an 18-month baseline period from April 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018, and a 15-month intervention period from April 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. INTERVENTION: CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics during the empiric period who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO pneumonia, coupled with feedback and education. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy and safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes compared differences between baseline and intervention periods across strategies. RESULTS: Among 59 hospitals with 96 451 (51 671 in the baseline period and 44 780 in the intervention period) adult patients admitted with pneumonia, the mean (SD) age of patients was 68.1 (17.0) years, 48.1% were men, and the median (IQR) Elixhauser comorbidity count was 4 (2-6). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 28.4% reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66-0.78]; P < .001). Safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.5 vs 7.1 days) and hospital length of stay (6.8 vs 7.1 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and CPOE intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Empiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use was significantly lower among adults admitted with pneumonia to non-ICU settings in hospitals using education, feedback, and CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients at low risk of MDRO infection, compared with routine stewardship practices. Hospital length of stay and days to ICU transfer were unchanged. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697070.

IMPORTANCE: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the second most common infection leading to hospitalization and is often associated with gram-negative multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). Clinicians overuse extended-spectrum antibiotics although most patients are at low risk for MDRO infection. Safe strategies to limit overuse of empiric antibiotics are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO risk estimates could reduce use of empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for treatment of UTI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time and risk-based CPOE prompts; 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in noncritically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with UTI with an 18-month baseline (April 1, 2017-September 30, 2018) and 15-month intervention period (April 1, 2019-June 30, 2020). INTERVENTIONS: CPOE prompts recommending empiric standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO UTI, coupled with feedback and education. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy. Safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes were assessed using generalized linear mixed-effect models to assess differences between the baseline and intervention periods. RESULTS: Among 127 403 adult patients (71 991 baseline and 55 412 intervention period) admitted with UTI in 59 hospitals, the mean (SD) age was 69.4 (17.9) years, 30.5% were male, and the median Elixhauser Comorbidity Index count was 4 (IQR, 2-5). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 17.4% (95% CI, 11.2%-23.2%) reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77-0.89]; P < .001). The safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.6 vs 7.0 days) and hospital length of stay (6.3 vs 6.5 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and intervention groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with routine stewardship, CPOE prompts providing real-time recommendations for standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients with low MDRO risk coupled with feedback and education significantly reduced empiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use among noncritically ill adults admitted with UTI without changing hospital length of stay or days to ICU transfers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697096.

IMPORTANCE: On June 21, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended the first respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines for adults aged 60 years and older using shared clinical decision-making. Understanding the severity of RSV disease in adults can help guide this clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To describe disease severity among adults hospitalized with RSV and compare it with the severity of COVID-19 and influenza disease by vaccination status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, adults aged 18 years and older admitted to the hospital with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection were prospectively enrolled from 25 hospitals in 20 US states from February 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023. Clinical data during each patient's hospitalization were collected using standardized forms. Data were analyzed from August to October 2023. EXPOSURES: RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Using multivariable logistic regression, severity of RSV disease was compared with COVID-19 and influenza severity, by COVID-19 and influenza vaccination status, for a range of clinical outcomes, including the composite of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death. RESULTS: Of 7998 adults (median [IQR] age, 67 [54-78] years; 4047 [50.6%] female) included, 484 (6.1%) were hospitalized with RSV, 6422 (80.3%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 1092 (13.7%) were hospitalized with influenza. Among patients with RSV, 58 (12.0%) experienced IMV or death, compared with 201 of 1422 unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 (14.1%) and 458 of 5000 vaccinated patients with COVID-19 (9.2%), as well as 72 of 699 unvaccinated patients with influenza (10.3%) and 20 of 393 vaccinated patients with influenza (5.1%). In adjusted analyses, the odds of IMV or in-hospital death were not significantly different among patients hospitalized with RSV and unvaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59-1.13; P = .22) or influenza (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.82-1.76; P = .35); however, the odds of IMV or death were significantly higher among patients hospitalized with RSV compared with vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.86; P = .03) or influenza disease (aOR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.62-4.86; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults hospitalized in this US cohort during the 16 months before the first RSV vaccine recommendations, RSV disease was less common but similar in severity compared with COVID-19 or influenza disease among unvaccinated patients and more severe than COVID-19 or influenza disease among vaccinated patients for the most serious outcomes of IMV or death.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between stroke care infrastructure and stroke quality-of-care outcomes at 29 spoke hospitals participating in the <name concealed for blinding purposes> hub-and-spoke telestroke network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Encounter-level data from <name concealed for blinding purposes> telestroke patient registry were filtered to include encounters during 2015-2022 for patients aged 18 and above with a clinical diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke, and who received intravenous tissue plasminogen activator. Unadjusted and adjusted generalized estimating equations assessed associations between time-related stroke quality-of-care metrics captured during the encounter and the existence of the two components of stroke care infrastructure-stroke coordinators and stroke center certifications-across all hospitals and within hospital subgroups defined by size and rurality. RESULTS: Telestroke encounters at spoke hospitals with stroke coordinators and stroke center certifications were associated with shorter door-to-needle (DTN) times (60.9 min for hospitals with both components and 57.3 min for hospitals with one, vs. 81.2 min for hospitals with neither component, p <.001). Similar patterns were observed for the percentage of encounters with DTN time of ≤60 min (63.8% and 68.9% vs. 32.0%, p <.001) and ≤45 min (34.0% and 38.4% vs. 8.42%, p <.001). Associations were similar for other metrics (e.g., door-to-registration time), and were stronger for smaller (vs. larger) hospitals and rural (vs. urban) hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke coordinators or stroke center certifications may be important for stroke quality of care, especially at spoke hospitals with limited resources or in rural areas.

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.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship Programs (ASPs) and began monitoring uptake through the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Annual Hospital Survey. In 2019, CDC updated the Core Elements and in 2022 released the Priorities for Hospital Core Element Implementation. We describe Core Element uptake from 2014 to 2021, provide a snapshot of specific ASP practices in acute care hospitals in 2021, and describe how we plan to monitor stewardship moving forward. METHODS: We used the NHSN Annual Hospital Survey to summarize facility demographics and ASP practices and to monitor uptake of Core Elements. Questions have been updated over time, so not all data could be compared across years. RESULTS: Uptake of all 7 Core Elements increased from 41% in 2014 to 95% in 2021. Uptake of all 6 Priority Elements was 10% in 2021, though 46% of hospitals met 4 or 5 of the possible 6 elements. Antibiotic stewardship was specifically listed in a contract or job description for about 60% of program leaders. The percentage of physician-pharmacist co-led programs rose from 23% to 64%. Seventy-six percent of hospitals reported implementing audit with feedback interventions. CONCLUSIONS: With nearly all acute care hospitals reporting uptake of the 7 Core Elements in 2021, and with more evidence for which ASP practices are most effective, the Priorities for Hospital Core Element Implementation were released in 2022 to help enhance the quality and impact of existing ASPs.

From December 2020 through March 2023, the COVID-19 vaccination efforts in long-term care (LTC) settings, identified many gaps and opportunities to improve public health capacity to support vaccine distribution, education, and documentation of COVID-19 vaccines administered to LTC residents and staff. Partner engagement at the local, state, and federal levels helped establish pathways for dissemination of information, improve access and delivery of vaccines, and expand reporting of vaccine administration data to monitor the impact of COVID-19 vaccination in LTC settings. Sustaining the improvements to the vaccine infrastructure in LTC settings that were created or enhanced during the COVID-19 vaccination efforts is critical for the protection of residents and staff against COVID-19 and other vaccine preventable respiratory outbreaks in the future.

Nursing home residents are at risk for becoming infected with and experiencing severe complications from respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Fall 2023 is the first season during which vaccines are simultaneously available to protect older adults in the United States against all three of these respiratory viruses. Nursing homes are required to report COVID-19 vaccination coverage and can voluntarily report influenza and RSV vaccination coverage among residents to CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network. The purpose of this study was to assess COVID-19, influenza, and RSV vaccination coverage among nursing home residents during the current 2023-24 respiratory virus season. As of December 10, 2023, 33.1% of nursing home residents were up to date with vaccination against COVID-19. Among residents at 20.2% and 19.4% of facilities that elected to report, coverage with influenza and RSV vaccines was 72.0% and 9.8%, respectively. Vaccination varied by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services region, social vulnerability index level, and facility size. There is an urgent need to protect nursing home residents against severe outcomes of respiratory illnesses by continuing efforts to increase vaccination against COVID-19 and influenza and discussing vaccination against RSV with eligible residents during the ongoing 2023-24 respiratory virus season.

Immunizations are an important tool to reduce the burden of vaccine preventable diseases and improve population health.(1) High-quality immunization data is essential to inform clinical and public health interventions and respond to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. To track COVID-19 vaccines and vaccinations, CDC established an integrated network that included vaccination provider systems, health information exchange systems, immunization information systems, pharmacy and dialysis systems, vaccine ordering systems, electronic health records, and tools to support mass vaccination clinics. All these systems reported data to CDC's COVID-19 response system (either directly or indirectly) where it was processed, analyzed, and disseminated. This unprecedented vaccine tracking effort provided essential information for public health officials that was used to monitor the COVID-19 response and guide decisions. This paper will describe systems, processes, and policies that enabled monitoring and reporting of COVID-19 vaccination efforts and share challenges and lessons learned for future public health emergency responses.

Through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Promoting Interoperability Program, more hospitals will be reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network Antimicrobial Use (AU) Option. We highlight the next steps and opportunities for measurement of AU to optimize prescribing. © Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, 2023.

Antimicrobial resistance remains a significant global public health threat. Although development of novel antibiotics can be challenging, several new antibiotics with improved activity against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative organisms have recently been commercialised. Expanding access to these antibiotics is a global public health priority that should be coupled with improving access to quality diagnostics, health care with adequately trained professionals, and functional antimicrobial stewardship programmes. This comprehensive approach is essential to ensure responsible use of these new antibiotics.

Sepsis, life-threatening organ dysfunction secondary to infection, contributes to at least 1.7 million adult hospitalizations and at least 350,000 deaths annually in the United States. Sepsis care is complex, requiring the coordination of multiple hospital departments and disciplines. Sepsis programs can coordinate these efforts to optimize patient outcomes. The 2022 National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) annual survey evaluated the prevalence and characteristics of sepsis programs in acute care hospitals. Among 5,221 hospitals, 3,787 (73%) reported having a committee that monitors and reviews sepsis care. Prevalence of these committees varied by hospital size, ranging from 53% among hospitals with 0-25 beds to 95% among hospitals with >500 beds. Fifty-five percent of all hospitals provided dedicated time (including assigned protected time or job description requirements) for leaders of these committees to manage a program and conduct daily activities, and 55% of committees reported involvement with antibiotic stewardship programs. These data highlight opportunities, particularly in smaller hospitals, to improve the care and outcomes of patients with sepsis in the United States by ensuring that all hospitals have sepsis programs with protected time for program leaders, engagement of medical specialists, and integration with antimicrobial stewardship programs. CDC's Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements provides a guide to assist hospitals in developing and implementing effective sepsis programs that complement and facilitate the implementation of existing clinical guidelines and improve patient care. Future NHSN annual surveys will monitor uptake of these sepsis core elements.

Antimicrobial use (AU) data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network's Antimicrobial Use and Resistance Module between January 2019 and July 2022 were analyzed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on inpatient antimicrobial use.

Antibiotic stewardship has seen transformative change over the past decade. Antibiotic stewardship infrastructure has grown significantly across the spectrum of health care in hospitals, nursing homes, and ambulatory settings, and issues related to improving antibiotic use have become central to high-level policy discussions, regulations, and legislation. Herein we review important events and developments in stewardship across the spectrum of care with a focus on (1) infrastructure and implementation, (2) requirement and regulation, and (3) measurement of antibiotic use and other outcomes.

Globally, there are 20 million adolescent girls and young women living with HIV who have limited access to long-acting, effective, women-controlled preventative methods. Additionally, although there are many contraceptive methods available, globally, half of all pregnancies remain unintended. Here we report the first 3D-printed multipurpose prevention technology (MPT) intravaginal ring (IVR) for HIV prevention and contraception. We utilized continuous liquid interface production (CLIP™) to fabricate MPT IVRs in a biocompatible silicone-based resin. Etonogestrel (ENG), ethinyl estradiol (EE), and islatravir (ISL) were loaded into the silicone poly(urethane) IVR in a controlled single step drug loading process driven by absorption. ENG/EE/ISL IVR promoted sustained release of drugs for 150 days in vitro and 14 days in sheep. There were no adverse MPT IVR-related findings of cervicovaginal toxicity or changes in vaginal biopsies or microbiome community profiles evaluated in sheep. Furthermore, ISL IVR in macaques promoted sustained release for 28 days with ISL-triphosphate levels above the established pharmacokinetic benchmark of 50-100 fmol/10(6) PBMCs. The ISL IVR was found to be safe and well tolerated in the macaques with no observed mucosal cytokine changes or alterations in peripheral CD4 T-cell populations. Collectively, the proposed MPT IVR has potential to expand preventative choices for young women and girls.

Background SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in nursing homes can be large with high case fatality. Identifying asymptomatic individuals early through serial testing is recommended to control COVID-19 in nursing homes, both in response to an outbreak (“outbreak testing” of residents and healthcare personnel) and in facilities without outbreaks (“non-outbreak testing” of healthcare personnel). The effectiveness of outbreak testing and isolation with or without non-outbreak testing was evaluated.Methods Using published SARS-CoV-2 transmission parameters, the fraction of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions prevented through serial testing (weekly, every three days, or daily) and isolation of asymptomatic persons compared to symptom-based testing and isolation was evaluated through mathematical modeling using a Reed-Frost model to estimate the percentage of cases prevented (i.e., “effectiveness”) through either outbreak testing alone or outbreak plus non-outbreak testing. The potential effect of simultaneous decreases (by 10%) in the effectiveness of isolating infected individuals when instituting testing strategies was also evaluated.Results Modeling suggests that outbreak testing could prevent 54% (weekly testing with 48-hour test turnaround) to 92% (daily testing with immediate results and 50% relative sensitivity) of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Adding non-outbreak testing could prevent up to an additional 8% of SARS-CoV-2 infections (depending on test frequency and turnaround time). However, added benefits of non-outbreak testing were mostly negated if accompanied by decreases in infection control practice.Conclusions When combined with high-quality infection control practices, outbreak testing could be an effective approach to preventing COVID-19 in nursing homes, particularly if optimized through increased test frequency and use of tests with rapid turnaround.Summary Mathematical modeling evaluated the effectiveness of serially testing asymptomatic persons in a nursing home in response to a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak with or without serial testing of asymptomatic staff in the absence of known SARS-CoV-2 infections.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was received. All work was conducted as part of government duties.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy (see e.g., 45 C.F.R. part 46, 21 C.F.R. part 56; 42 U.S.C. 241(d); 5 U.S.C 552a; 44 U.S.C. 351 et seq.).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData provided in supplemental materials or publicly available through links in the manuscript. https://github.com/cdcepi/Nursing-home-SARS-CoV-2-testing-model/

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a primary COVID-19 vaccine series plus a booster dose with a primary series alone for the prevention of Omicron variant COVID-19 hospitalization. Design(s): Multicenter observational case-control study using the test-negative design to evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE). Setting(s): Twenty-one hospitals in the United States (US). Participant(s): 3,181 adults hospitalized with an acute respiratory illness between December 26, 2021 and April 30, 2022, a period of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1, BA.2) predominance. Participants included 1,572 (49%) case-patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and 1,609 (51%) control patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Median age was 64 years, 48% were female, and 21% were immunocompromised; 798 (25%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus booster, 1,326 (42%) were vaccinated with a primary series alone, and 1,057 (33%) were unvaccinated. Main Outcome Measure(s): VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated for a primary series plus a booster and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. VE analyses were stratified by immune status (immunocompetent; immunocompromised) because the recommended vaccine schedules are different for these groups. The primary analysis evaluated all COVID-19 vaccine types combined and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products. Result(s): Among immunocompetent patients, VE against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization for a primary series plus one booster of any vaccine product dose was 77% (95% CI: 71-82%), and for a primary series alone was 44% (95% CI: 31-54%) (p<0.001). VE was higher for a boosted regimen than a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines used in the US (BNT162b2: primary series plus booster VE 80% (95% CI: 73-85%), primary series alone VE 46% (95% CI: 30-58%) [p<0.001]; mRNA-1273: primary series plus booster VE 77% (95% CI: 67-83%), primary series alone VE 47% (95% CI: 30-60%) [p<0.001]). Among immunocompromised patients, VE for a primary series of any vaccine product against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization was 60% (95% CI: 41-73%). Insufficient sample size has accumulated to calculate effectiveness of boosted regimens for immunocompromised patients. Conclusion(s): Among immunocompetent people, a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing COVID-19 hospitalization due to the Omicron variant. 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.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) provide protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and are highly effective against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among eligible persons who receive 2 doses (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) among persons with immunocompromising conditions* is lower than that among immunocompetent persons (2), and VE declines after several months among all persons (3). On August 12, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a third mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series ≥28 days after dose 2 for persons aged ≥12 years with immunocompromising conditions, and, on November 19, 2021, as a booster dose for all adults aged ≥18 years at least 6 months after dose 2, changed to ≥5 months after dose 2 on January 3, 2022 (4,5,6). Among 2,952 adults (including 1,385 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,567 COVID-19-negative controls) hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals during August 19-December 15, 2021, effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was compared between adults eligible for but who had not received a third vaccine dose (1,251) and vaccine-eligible adults who received a third dose ≥7 days before illness onset (312). Among 1,875 adults without immunocompromising conditions (including 1,065 [57%] unvaccinated, 679 [36%] 2-dose recipients, and 131 [7%] 3-dose [booster] recipients), VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was higher among those who received a booster dose (97%; 95% CI = 95%-99%) compared with that among 2-dose recipients (82%; 95% CI = 77%-86%) (p <0.001). Among 1,077 adults with immunocompromising conditions (including 324 [30%] unvaccinated, 572 [53%] 2-dose recipients, and 181 [17%] 3-dose recipients), VE was higher among those who received a third dose to complete a primary series (88%; 95% CI = 81%-93%) compared with 2-dose recipients (69%; 95% CI = 57%-78%) (p <0.001). Administration of a third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series among immunocompromised adults, or as a booster dose among immunocompetent adults, provides improved protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: An infodemic is excess information, including false or misleading information, that spreads in digital and physical environments during a public health emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an unprecedented global infodemic that has led to confusion about the benefits of medical and public health interventions, with substantial impact on risk-taking and health-seeking behaviors, eroding trust in health authorities and compromising the effectiveness of public health responses and policies. Standardized measures are needed to quantify the harmful impacts of the infodemic in a systematic and methodologically robust manner, as well as harmonizing highly divergent approaches currently explored for this purpose. This can serve as a foundation for a systematic, evidence-based approach to monitoring, identifying, and mitigating future infodemic harms in emergency preparedness and prevention. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we summarize the Fifth World Health Organization (WHO) Infodemic Management Conference structure, proceedings, outcomes, and proposed actions seeking to identify the interdisciplinary approaches and frameworks needed to enable the measurement of the burden of infodemics. METHODS: An iterative human-centered design (HCD) approach and concept mapping were used to facilitate focused discussions and allow for the generation of actionable outcomes and recommendations. The discussions included 86 participants representing diverse scientific disciplines and health authorities from 28 countries across all WHO regions, along with observers from civil society and global public health-implementing partners. A thematic map capturing the concepts matching the key contributing factors to the public health burden of infodemics was used throughout the conference to frame and contextualize discussions. Five key areas for immediate action were identified. RESULTS: The 5 key areas for the development of metrics to assess the burden of infodemics and associated interventions included (1) developing standardized definitions and ensuring the adoption thereof; (2) improving the map of concepts influencing the burden of infodemics; (3) conducting a review of evidence, tools, and data sources; (4) setting up a technical working group; and (5) addressing immediate priorities for postpandemic recovery and resilience building. The summary report consolidated group input toward a common vocabulary with standardized terms, concepts, study designs, measures, and tools to estimate the burden of infodemics and the effectiveness of infodemic management interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Standardizing measurement is the basis for documenting the burden of infodemics on health systems and population health during emergencies. Investment is needed into the development of practical, affordable, evidence-based, and systematic methods that are legally and ethically balanced for monitoring infodemics; generating diagnostics, infodemic insights, and recommendations; and developing interventions, action-oriented guidance, policies, support options, mechanisms, and tools for infodemic managers and emergency program managers.

INTRODUCTION: Racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). ESKD patients on dialysis are at increased risk for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections, but racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities associated with this outcome are not well described. METHODS: Surveillance data from the 2020 National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) and the 2017-2020 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) were used to describe bloodstream infections among patients on hemodialysis (hemodialysis patients) and were linked to population-based data sources (CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] Social Vulnerability Index [SVI], United States Renal Data System [USRDS], and U.S. Census Bureau) to examine associations with race, ethnicity, and social determinants of health. RESULTS: In 2020, 4,840 dialysis facilities reported 14,822 bloodstream infections to NHSN; 34.2% were attributable to S. aureus. Among seven EIP sites, the S. aureus bloodstream infection rate during 2017-2020 was 100 times higher among hemodialysis patients (4,248 of 100,000 person-years) than among adults not on hemodialysis (42 of 100,000 person-years). Unadjusted S. aureus bloodstream infection rates were highest among non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black) and Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) hemodialysis patients. Vascular access via central venous catheter was strongly associated with S. aureus bloodstream infections (NHSN: adjusted rate ratio [aRR] = 6.2; 95% CI = 5.7-6.7 versus fistula; EIP: aRR = 4.3; 95% CI = 3.9-4.8 versus fistula or graft). Adjusting for EIP site of residence, sex, and vascular access type, S. aureus bloodstream infection risk in EIP was highest in Hispanic patients (aRR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.2-1.7 versus non-Hispanic White [White] patients), and patients aged 18-49 years (aRR = 1.7; 95% CI = 1.5-1.9 versus patients aged ≥65 years). Areas with higher poverty levels, crowding, and lower education levels accounted for disproportionately higher proportions of hemodialysis-associated S. aureus bloodstream infections. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: Disparities exist in hemodialysis-associated S. aureus infections. Health care providers and public health professionals should prioritize prevention and optimized treatment of ESKD, identify and address barriers to lower-risk vascular access placement, and implement established best practices to prevent bloodstream infections.

Small sample sizes have limited prior studies' ability to capture severe COVID-19 outcomes, especially among Ad26.COV2.S vaccine recipients. This study of 18.9 million adults aged ≥18 years assessed relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) in three recipient cohorts: (1) primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and Ad26.COV2.S booster (two Ad26.COV2.S), (2) primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and mRNA booster (Ad26.COV2.S+mRNA), (3) two doses of primary mRNA vaccine and mRNA booster (three mRNA). The study analyzed two de-identified datasets linked using privacy-preserving record linkage (PPRL): medical and pharmacy insurance claims and COVID-19 vaccination data from retail pharmacies. It assessed the presence of COVID-19 during January 1-March 31, 2022 in: (1) any claim, (2) outpatient claim, (3) emergency department (ED) claim, (4) inpatient claim, and (5) inpatient claim with intensive care unit (ICU) admission. rVE for each outcome comparing three recipient cohorts (reference: two Ad26.COV2.S doses) was estimated from adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Compared with two Ad26.COV2.S doses, Ad26.COV2.S+mRNA and three mRNA doses were more effective against all COVID-19 outcomes, including 57% (95% CI: 52-62) and 62% (95% CI: 58-65) rVE against an ED visit; 44% (95% CI: 34-52) and 54% (95% CI: 48-59) rVE against hospitalization; and 48% (95% CI: 22-66) and 66% (95% CI: 53-75) rVE against ICU admission, respectively. This study demonstrated that Ad26.COV2.S + mRNA doses were as good as three doses of mRNA, and better than two doses of Ad26.COV2.S. Vaccination continues to be an important preventive measure for reducing the public health impact of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE. RESULTS: A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

BACKGROUND: Test-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls. METHODS: Adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group. RESULTS: 5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64years, VE was 93% (95% CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91% (95% CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: Despite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.

Vaccination with JYNNEOS vaccine (Modified Vaccinia Ankara vaccine, Bavarian Nordic) to prevent monkeypox commenced shortly after confirmation of the first monkeypox case in the current outbreak in the United States on May 17, 2022 (1). To date, more than 27,000 cases have been reported across all 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), and Puerto Rico.* JYNNEOS vaccine is licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a 0.5-mL 2-dose series administered subcutaneously 28 days apart to prevent smallpox and monkeypox infections (2) and has been found to provide protection against monkeypox infection during the current outbreak (3). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) allocated 1.1 million vials of JYNNEOS vaccine from the Strategic National Stockpile, with doses allocated to jurisdictions based on case counts and estimated size of population at risk (4). However, initial vaccine supplies were severely constrained relative to vaccine demand during the expanding outbreak. Some jurisdictions with highest incidence responded by prioritizing first dose administration during May-July (5,6). The FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) of 0.1 mL dosing for intradermal administration of JYNNEOS for persons aged ≥18 years on August 9, 2022, substantially expanded available vaccine supply(†) (7). The U.S. vaccination strategy focuses primarily on persons with known or presumed exposures to monkeypox (8) or those at high risk for occupational exposure (9). Data on monkeypox vaccine doses administered and reported to CDC by U.S. jurisdictions were analyzed to assess vaccine administration and completion of the 2-dose series. A total of 931,155 doses of JYNNEOS vaccine were administered and reported to the CDC by 55 U.S. jurisdictions during May 22-October 10, 2022. Among persons who received ≥1 dose, 51.4% were non-Hispanic White (White), 22.5% were Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic), and 12.6% were non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black). The percentages of vaccine recipients who were Black (5.6%) and Hispanic (15.5%) during May 22-June 25 increased to 13.3% and 22.7%, respectively, during July 31-October 10. Among 496,888 persons who received a first dose and were eligible for a second dose during the study period, 57.6% received their second dose. Second dose receipt was highest among older adults, White persons, and those residing in the South U.S. Census Bureau Region. Tracking and addressing disparities in vaccination can reduce inequities, and equitable access to and acceptance of vaccine should be an essential factor in planning vaccination programs, events, and strategies. Receipt of both first and second doses is necessary for optimal protection against Monkeypox virus infection.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 or BA.1) became predominant in the United States by late December 2021 (1). BA.1 has since been replaced by emerging lineages BA.2 (including BA.2.12.1) in March 2022, followed by BA.4 and BA.5, which have accounted for a majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections since late June 2022 (1). Data on the effectiveness of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against BA.4/BA.5-associated hospitalizations are limited, and their interpretation is complicated by waning of vaccine-induced immunity (2-5). Further, infections with earlier Omicron lineages, including BA.1 and BA.2, reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates because certain persons in the referent unvaccinated group have protection from infection-induced immunity. The IVY Network(†) assessed effectiveness of 2, 3, and 4 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccines compared with no vaccination against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during December 26, 2021-August 31, 2022. During the BA.1/BA.2 period, VE 14-150 days after a second dose was 63% and decreased to 34% after 150 days. Similarly, VE 7-120 days after a third dose was 79% and decreased to 41% after 120 days. VE 7-120 days after a fourth dose was 61%. During the BA.4/BA.5 period, similar trends were observed, although CIs for VE estimates between categories of time since the last dose overlapped. VE 14-150 days and >150 days after a second dose was 83% and 37%, respectively. VE 7-120 days and >120 days after a third dose was 60%and 29%, respectively. VE 7-120 days after the fourth dose was 61%. Protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization waned even after a third dose. The newly authorized bivalent COVID-19 vaccines include mRNA from the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain and from shared mRNA components between BA.4 and BA.5 lineages and are expected to be more immunogenic against BA.4/BA.5 than monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (6-8). All eligible adults aged ≥18 years(§) should receive a booster dose, which currently consists of a bivalent mRNA vaccine, to maximize protection against BA.4/BA.5 and prevent COVID-19-associated hospitalization.