Background The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4–12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. Methods We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials—one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)—and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 10 10 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 10 10 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). Findings Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more t...

Key Points Question Are the rate and risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infections higher among vaccinated people with vs without HIV in the United States through December 31, 2021? Findings In this cohort study of 113 994 patients, risk of breakthrough infection was low overall (3.8%) but 28% higher in people with vs without HIV. The breakthrough rate was also higher in people with vs without HIV (55 cases per 1000 person-years vs 43 cases per 1000 person-years). Meaning The higher rate and risk of infection in people with HIV observed in this study suggests comprehensive inclusion of this population in recommendations for additional primary doses in immunocompromised groups.

Disease characterization of Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) does not account for pre-existing conditions and time course of incidence. We utilized longitudinal data and matching to a COVID PCR-negative population to discriminate PASC conditions over time within our patient population during 2020. Clinical Classification Software was used to identify PASC condition groupings. Conditions were specified acute and persistent (occurring 0-30 days post COVID PCR and persisted 30–120 days post-test) or late (occurring initially 30-120 days post-test). We matched 3:1 COVID PCR-negative COVIDPCR-positive by age, sex, testing month and service area, controlling for pre-existing conditions up to four years prior; 28,118 PCR-positive to 70,293 PCR-negative patients resulted. We estimated PASC risk from the matched cohort. Risk of any PASC condition was 12% greater for PCR-positive patients in the late period with a significantly higher risk of anosmia, cardiac dysrhythmia, diabetes, genitourinary disorders, malaise, and nonspecific chest pain. Our findings contribute to a more refined PASC definition which can enhance clinical care.

IntroductionWe assessed the impact of a diabetic foot ulcer prevention program incorporating once-daily foot temperature monitoring on hospitalizations, emergency department and outpatient visits, and rates of diabetic foot ulcer recurrence and lower extremity amputations for patients with recently healed foot ulcers.Research design and methodsIn this retrospective analysis of real-world data, we enrolled 80 participants with a healed diabetic foot ulcer in a year-long foot ulcer recurrence prevention program. Four outpatient centers within a large integrated healthcare system in the USA contributed to enrollment. We evaluated diabetic foot-related outcomes and associated resource utilization for participants during three periods: the 2 years before the program, the year during the program, and after the program ended. We reported unadjusted resource utilization rates during the program and the periods before and after it. We then adjusted rates of outcomes in each phase using an interrupted time series approach, explicitly controlling for overall trends in resource utilization and recurrence during the three periods.ResultsOur unadjusted data showed high initial rates of resource utilization and recurrence before enrollment in the program, followed by lower rates during the program, and higher rates of resource utilization and similar rates of recurrence in the period following the end of the program. The adjusted data showed lower rates of hospitalizations (relative risk reduction (RRR)=0.52; number needed to treat (NNT)=3.4), lower extremity amputations (RRR=0.71; NNT=6.4), and outpatient visits (RRR=0.26; absolute risk reduction (ARR)=3.5) during the program. We also found lower rates of foot ulcer recurrence during the program in the adjusted data, particularly for wounds with infection or greater than superficial depth (RRR=0.91; NNT=4.4).ConclusionsWe observed lower rates of healthcare resource utilization for high-risk participants during enrollment in a diabetic foot prevention program incorporating once-daily foot temperature monitoring.Trial registration numberNCT04345016.

Purpose Health plan claims may provide complete longitudinal data for timely, real‐world population‐level COVID‐19 assessment. However, these data often lack laboratory results, the standard for COVID‐19 diagnosis. Methods We assessed the validity of ICD‐10‐CM diagnosis codes for identifying patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 in U.S. claims databases, compared to linked laboratory results, among six Food and Drug Administration Sentinel System data partners (two large national insurers, four integrated delivery systems) from February 20–October 17, 2020. We identified patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 according to five ICD‐10‐CM diagnosis code‐based algorithms, which included combinations of codes U07.1, B97.29, general coronavirus codes, and diagnosis codes for severe symptoms. We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity of each algorithm relative to laboratory test results. We stratified results by data source type and across three time periods: February 20–March 31 (Time A), April 1–30 (Time B), May 1–October 17 (Time C). Results The five algorithms identified between 34 806 and 47 293 patients across the study periods; 23% with known laboratory results contributed to PPV calculations. PPVs were high and similar across algorithms. PPV of U07.1 alone was stable around 93% for integrated delivery systems, but declined over time from 93% to 70% among national insurers. Overall PPV of U07.1 across all data partners was 94.1% (95% CI, 92.3%–95.5%) in Time A and 81.2% (95% CI, 80.1%–82.2%) in Time C. Sensitivity was consistent across algorithms and over time, at 94.9% (95% CI, 94.2%–95.5%). Conclusion Our results support the use of code U07.1 to identify hospitalized COVID‐19 patients in U.S. claims data.