On March 29, 2021, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr)Messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials (1,2); however, the benefits of these vaccines for preventing asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection, particularly when administered in real-world conditions, is less well understood. Using prospective cohorts of health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers* in eight U.S. locations during December 14, 2020-March 13, 2021, CDC routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 infections every week regardless of symptom status and at the onset of symptoms consistent with COVID-19-associated illness. Among 3,950 participants with no previous laboratory documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,479 (62.8%) received both recommended mRNA doses and 477 (12.1%) received only one dose of mRNA vaccine. † Among unvaccinated participants, 1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) per 1,000 person-days. § In contrast, among fully immunized (≥14 days after second dose) persons, 0.04 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported, and among partially immunized (≥14 days after first dose and * Occupational categories: primary health care personnel (physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and dentists), other allied health care personnel (nurses, therapists, technicians, medical assistants, orderlies, and all other persons providing clinical support in inpatient or outpatient settings), first responders (firefighters, law enforcement, corrections, and emergency medical technicians), other essential and frontline workers (workers in hospitality, delivery, and retail; teachers; and all other occupations that require contact within 3 feet of the public, customers, or coworkers as a routine part of their job). † An additional five participants received the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Johnson & Johnson), resulting in 2,961 vaccinated participants. § Person-days is an estimate of the time-at-risk (to SARS-CoV-2 infection) that each participant contributed to the study.

No abstract

BackgroundClostridium difficile is the most common cause of nosocomial infectious diarrhea in the United States. However, recent reports have documented that C. difficile infections (CDIs) are occurring among patients without traditional risk factors. The purpose of this study was to examine the epidemiology of CA-CDI, by estimating the incidence of CA-CDI and HA-CDI, identifying patient-related risk factors for CA-CDI, and describing adverse health outcomes of CA-CDI.MethodsWe conducted a population-based, retrospective, nested, case-control study within the University of Iowa Wellmark Data Repository from January 2004 to December 2007. We identified persons with CDI, determined whether infection was community-associated (CA) or hospital-acquired (HA), and calculated incidence rates. We collected demographic, clinical, and pharmacologic information for CA-CDI cases and controls (i.e., persons without CDI). We used conditional logistic regression to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for potential risk factors for CA-CDI.ResultsThe incidence rates for CA-CDI and HA-CDI were 11.16 and 12.1 cases per 100,000 person-years, respectively. CA-CDI cases were more likely than controls to receive antimicrobials (adjusted OR, 6.09 [95% CI 4.59-8.08]) and gastric acid suppressants (adjusted OR, 2.30 [95% CI 1.56-3.39]) in the 180 days before diagnosis. Controlling for other covariates, increased risk for CA-CDI was associated with use of beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors, cephalosporins, clindamycin, fluoroquinolones, macrolides, and penicillins. However, 27% of CA-CDI cases did not receive antimicrobials in the 180 days before their diagnoses, and 17% did not have any traditional risk factors for CDI.ConclusionsOur study documented that the epidemiology of CDI is changing, with CA-CDI occurring in populations not traditionally considered "high-risk" for the disease. Clinicians should consider this diagnosis and obtain appropriate diagnostic testing for outpatients with persistent or severe diarrhea who have even remote antimicrobial exposure.

BACKGROUND: Information is limited on messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) and mRNA–1273 (Moderna) COVID–19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing SARS–CoV–2 infection or attenuating disease when administered in real–world conditions. METHODS: Prospective cohorts of 3,975 healthcare personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS–CoV–2 testing during December 14 2020—April 10 2021. Self–collected mid–turbinate nasal swabs were tested by qualitative and quantitative reverse–transcription—polymerase–chain–reaction (RT–PCR). VE was calculated as 100%× (1−hazard ratio); adjusted VE was calculated using vaccination propensity weights and adjustments for site, occupation, and local virus circulation . RESULTS: SARS–CoV–2 was detected in 204 (5.1%) participants; 16 were partially (≥14 days post–dose–1 to 13 days after dose–2) or fully (≥14 days post–dose–2) vaccinated, and 156 were unvaccinated; 32 with indeterminate status (<14 days after dose–1) were excluded. Adjusted mRNA VE of full vaccination was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]=76%—97%) against symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS–CoV–2 infection; VE of partial vaccination was 81% (95% CI=64%–90%). Among partially or fully vaccinated participants with SARS–CoV–2 infection, mean viral RNA load (Log10 copies/mL) was 40% lower (95% CI=16%–57%), the risk of self–reported febrile COVID–19 was 58% lower (Risk Ratio=0.42, 95% CI=0.18–0.98), and 2.3 fewer days (95% CI=0.8–3.7) were spent sick in bed compared to unvaccinated infected participants. CONCLUSIONS: Authorized mRNA vaccines were highly effective among working–age adults in preventing SARS–CoV–2 infections when administered in real–world conditions and attenuated viral RNA load, febrile symptoms, and illness duration among those with breakthrough infection despite vaccination.

Objective Patient-centered approaches to improving medication adherence hold promise, but evidence of their effectiveness is unclear. This review reports the current state of scientific research around interventions to improve medication management through four patient-centered domains: shared decision-making, methods to enhance effective prescribing, systems for eliciting and acting on patient feedback about medication use and treatment goals, and medication-taking behavior. Methods We reviewed literature on interventions that fell into these domains and were published between January 2007 and May 2013. Two reviewers abstracted information and categorized studies by intervention type. Results We identified 60 studies, of which 40% focused on patient education. Other intervention types included augmented pharmacy services, decision aids, shared decision-making, and clinical review of patient adherence. Medication adherence was an outcome in most (70%) of the studies, although 50% also examined patient-centered outcomes. Conclusions We identified a large number of medication management interventions that incorporated patient-centered care and improved patient outcomes. We were unable to determine whether these interventions are more effective than traditional medication adherence interventions. Practice Implications Additional research is needed to identify effective and feasible approaches to incorporate patient-centeredness into the medication management processes of the current health care system, if appropriate.