ImportanceData describing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) and durability of BNT162b2 among children 5 to 11 years of age are needed.ObjectiveTo estimate BNT162b2 VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection among children aged 5 to 11 years during Delta and Omicron variant–predominant periods and to further assess VE according to prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status and by sublineage during the Omicron variant–predominant period.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis test-negative case-control study was conducted from November 2 to December 9, 2021 (Delta variant), and from January 16 to September 30, 2022 (Omicron variant), among 160 002 children tested at a large national US retail pharmacy chain, for SARS-CoV-2 via polymerase chain reaction (PCR); 62 719 children were tested during the Delta period, and 97 283 were tested during the Omicron period.ExposureVaccination with BNT162b2 before SARS-CoV-2 testing vs no vaccination.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by PCR (regardless of the presence of symptoms), and the secondary outcome was confirmed symptomatic infection. Adjusted estimated VE was calculated from multilevel logistic regression models.ResultsA total of 39 117 children tested positive and 131 686 tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (total, 170 803; 84 487 [49%] were boys; mean [SD] age was 9 [2] years; 74 236 [43%] were White non-Hispanic or non-Latino; and 37 318 [22%] were Hispanic or Latino). Final VE analyses included 160 002 children without SARS-CoV-2 infection less than 90 days prior. The VE of 2 doses of BNT162b2 against Delta was 85% (95% CI, 80%-89%; median follow-up, 1 month) compared with the Omicron period (20% [95% CI, 17%-23%]; median follow-up, 4 months). The adjusted VE of 2 doses against Omicron at less than 3 months was 39% (95% CI, 36%-42%), and at 3 months or more, it was −1% (95% CI, −6% to 3%). Protection against Omicron was higher among children with vs without infection 90 days or more prior but decreased in all children approximately 3 months after the second dose (58% [95% CI, 49%-66%] with infection vs 37% [95% CI, 34%-41%] without infection at <3 months; 27% [95% CI, 17%-35%] with infection vs −7% [95% CI, −12% to −1%] at ≥3 months without infection). The VE of 2 doses of BNT162b2 at less than 3 months by Omicron sublineage was 40% (95% CI, 36%-43%) for BA.1, 32% (95% CI, 21%-41%) for BA.2/BA.2.12.1, and 50% (95% CI, 37%-60%) for BA.4/BA.5. After 3 months or more, VE was nonsignificant for BA.2/BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5. The VE of a booster dose was 55% (95% CI, 50%-60%) against Omicron, with no evidence of waning at 3 months or more.Conclusions and RelevanceThis study suggests that, among children aged 5 to 11 years, 2 doses of BNT162b2 provided modest short-term protection against Omicron infection that was higher for those with prior infection; however, VE waned after approximately 3 months in all children. A booster dose restored protection against Omicron and was maintained for at least 3 months. These findings highlight the continued importance of booster vaccination regardless of history of prior COVID-19.
BackgroundDrug-drug interactions (DDIs) are ubiquitous, harmful and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. With an aging population, growth in polypharmacy, widespread use of supplements, and the rising opioid abuse epidemic, primary care physicians (PCPs) are increasingly challenged with identifying and preventing DDIs. We set out to evaluate current clinical practices related to identifying and treating DDIs and to determine if opportunities to increase prevention of DDIs and their adverse events could be identified.MethodsIn a nationally representative sample of 330 board-certified family and internal medicine practitioners, we evaluated whether PCPs assessed DDIs in the care they provided for three simulated patients. The patients were taking common prescription medications (e.g. opioids and psychiatric medications) along with other common ingestants (e.g. supplements and food) and presented with symptoms of DDIs. Physicians were scored on their ability to inquire about the patient’s medications, investigate possible DDIs, evaluate the patient, and provide treatment recommendations. We scored the physicians’ care recommendations against evidence-based criteria, including overall care quality and treatment for DDIs.ResultsAverage overall quality of care score was 50.5% ± 12.0%. Despite >99% self-reported use of medication reconciliation practices and tools, physicians identified DDIs in only 15.3% of patients, with 15.5% ± 20.3% of DDI-specific treatment by the physicians.ConclusionsPCPs in this study did not recognize or adequately treat DDIs. Better methods are needed to screen for DDIs in the primary care setting.
SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has many variants capable of rapid transmission causing serious illness. Timely surveillance of new variants is essential for an effective public health response. Ensuring availability and access to diagnostic and molecular testing is key to this type of surveillance. This study utilized reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and whole genome sequencing results from COVID-19-positive patient samples obtained through a collaboration between Aegis Sciences Corporation and Walgreens Pharmacy that has conducted more than 8.5 million COVID-19 tests at ~5,200 locations across the United States and Puerto Rico. Viral evolution of SARS-CoV-2 can lead to mutations in the S-gene that cause reduced or failed S-gene amplification in diagnostic PCR tests. These anomalies, labeled reduced S-gene target performance (rSGTP) and S-gene target failure (SGTF), are characteristic of variants carrying the del69-70 mutation, such as Alpha and Omicron (B.1.1.529, BA.1, and BA.1.1) lineages. This observation has been validated by whole genome sequencing and can provide presumptive lineage data following completion of diagnostic PCR testing in 24–48 hours from collection. Active surveillance of trends in PCR and sequencing results is key to the identification of changes in viral transmission and emerging variants. This study shows that rSGTP and SGTF can be utilized for near real-time tracking and surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and is superior to the use of SGTF alone due to the significant proportion of Alpha and Omicron (B.1.1.529, BA.1, and BA.1.1) lineages known to carry the del69-70 mutation and observed to have S-gene amplification. Adopting new tools and techniques to both diagnose acute infections and expedite identification of emerging variants is critical to supporting public health.
Background and ObjectiveAegis Sciences Corporation developed a test (InterACT Rx™) that objectively and definitively identifies substances known to interact with drug–drug interaction-prone medications commonly prescribed in the treatment of chronic pain and behavioral health disorders. The objective of this study was to assess the severity of identified drug–drug interactions, the reduction in the frequency and severity of identified drug–drug interactions, and the impact of the test on healthcare utilization.MethodsPatients with chronic pain, behavioral health disorders, or both who had one or more drug–drug interaction tests and one or more drug–drug interactions identified in the study period were included. Drug–drug interaction test results described the number and severity of interactions and detected substances involved in drug–drug interactions. Patients’ electronic medical records were obtained to analyze outpatient visits and prescription medications. The cost of outpatient visits was based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Outcomes were compared between the pre- and post-study index periods to determine the impact of the drug–drug interaction test on patient care.ResultsA total of 262 patients were included. The majority of drug–drug interactions detected (77.9%) at index were of moderate severity. The number of monthly all-cause and pain-related outpatient visits was reduced in the post-index period compared with the pre-index period (0.74–0.54 and 0.69–0.49, respectively). Associated costs were reduced from US$64.92 to US$51.20, and from US$62.42 to US$47.62, (p < 0.0001 for both) for all-cause and pain-related outpatient visits, respectively. Follow-up drug–drug interaction testing for 43 patients revealed that previously reported drug–drug interactions at the index test were no longer identified in the subsequent test for 39.5% of patients.ConclusionsEmploying a definitive test to detect substances whose interactions may cause adverse drug events can enhance a provider’s insights, drive clinical decision making, and improve patient outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40801-018-0143-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Drug–drug interactions (DDIs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. New tools are needed to improve identification and treatment of DDIs. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the clinical utility of a new test to identify DDIs and improve their management. Primary care physicians (PCPs) cared for simulated patients presenting with DDI symptoms from commonly prescribed medications and other ingestants. All physicians, in either control or one of two intervention groups, cared for six patients over two rounds of assessment. Intervention physicians were educated on the DDI test and given access to these test reports when caring for their patients in the second round. At baseline, we saw no significant differences in making the DDI diagnosis (p = 0.071) or DDI-related treatment (p = 0.640) between control and intervention arms. By round two, providers who accessed the DDI test performed significantly better in making the DDI diagnosis (+41.6%) and performing DDI-specific treatment (+12.2%) than in the previous round, and were 9.8 and 20.4 times more likely to diagnose and identify the DDI (p < 0.001 for all). The introduction of a definitive DDI test significantly increased identification, appropriate management, and counseling of DDIs among PCPs, which has the potential to improve clinical care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.