Background The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome 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.)

On May 14, 2021, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr).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.A test-negative design case-control study of mRNA COVID-19 VE is underway, with HCP being enrolled at 33 sites across 25 U.S. states; the planned interim analysis presented in this report includes data collected during January-March 2021.* A majority (75%) of enrolled HCP worked at acute care hospitals (including emergency departments), 25% worked in outpatient or specialty clinics, and <1% worked in long-term care facilities and urgent care * https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/hcp-early-phaseprotocol-508.pdf

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for COVID-19, has infected more than 25 million Americans, leading to over 420,000 deaths. 1 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports over 378,000 cases of COVID-19 in U.S. health care personnel (HCP) with 1,286 deaths. 2 By summer 2020, an estimated 4.6% of academic emergency department (ED)

Interhospital transfer significantly delays administration of appropriate initial antibiotics and resuscitation therapy. Future studies are needed to identify strategies of providing regional sepsis care prior to transfer to tertiary centers and to continue care pathways during the interhospital transfer process.

Objective Telemedicine networks are beginning to provide an avenue for conducting emergency medicine research, but using telemedicine to recruit participants for clinical trials has not been validated. The goal of this consent study is to determine whether patient comprehension of telemedicine-enabled research informed consent is non-inferior to standard face-to-face research informed consent. Methods A prospective, open-label randomized controlled trial was performed in a 60,000-visit Midwestern academic Emergency Department (ED) to test whether telemedicine-enabled research informed consent provided non-inferior comprehension compared with standard consent. This study was conducted as part of a parent clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of oral chlorhexidine gluconate 0.12% in preventing hospital-acquired pneumonia among adult ED patients with expected hospital admission. Prior to being recruited into the study, potential participants were randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio to consent by telemedicine versus standard face-to-face consent. Telemedicine connectivity was provided using a commercially available interface (REACH platform, Vidyo Inc., Hackensack, NJ) to an emergency physician located in another part of the ED. Comprehension of research consent (primary outcome) was measured using the modified Quality of Informed Consent (QuIC) instrument, a validated tool for measuring research informed consent comprehension. Parent trial accrual rate and qualitative survey data were secondary outcomes. Results One-hundred thirty-one patients were randomized (n = 64, telemedicine), and 101 QuIC surveys were completed. Comprehension of research informed consent using telemedicine was not inferior to face-to-face consent (QuIC scores 74.4 ± 8.1 vs. 74.4 ± 6.9 on a 100-point scale, p = 0.999). Subjective understanding of consent (p=0.194) and parent trial study accrual rates (56% vs. 69%, p = 0.142) were similar. Conclusion Telemedicine is non-inferior to face-to-face consent for delivering research informed consent, with no detected differences in comprehension and patient-reported understanding. This consent study will inform design of future telemedicine-enabled clinical trials.