Background There are limited data on the effectiveness of the vaccines against symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) currently authorized in the United States with respect to hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or ambulatory care in an emergency department or urgent care clinic. Methods We conducted a study involving adults (≥50 years of age) with Covid-19–like illness who underwent molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed 41,552 admissions to 187 hospitals and 21,522 visits to 221 emergency departments or urgent care clinics during the period from January 1 through June 22, 2021, in multiple states. The patients’ vaccination status was documented in electronic health records and immunization registries. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated patients with those among unvaccinated patients. Vaccine effectiveness was adjusted with weights based on propensity-for-vaccination scores and according to age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1, 2021, to the index date for each medical visit), and local virus circulation. Results The effectiveness of full messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination (≥14 days after the second dose) was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87 to 91) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization, 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93) against infection leading to an ICU admission, and 91% (95% CI, 89 to 93) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. The effectiveness of full vaccination with respect to a Covid-19–associated hospitalization or emergency department or urgent care clinic visit was similar with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines and ranged from 81% to 95% among adults 85 years of age or older, persons with chronic medical conditions, and Black or Hispanic adults. The effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was 68% (95% CI, 50 to 79) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization and 73% (95% CI, 59 to 82) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. Conclusions Covid-19 vaccines in the United States were highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. This vaccine effectiveness extended to populations that are disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

Background Human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical screening are lacking in most lower resource settings, where approximately 80% of more than 500 000 cancer cases occur annually. Visual inspection of the cervix following acetic acid application is practical but not reproducible or accurate. The objective of this study was to develop a “deep learning”-based visual evaluation algorithm that automatically recognizes cervical precancer/cancer. Methods A population-based longitudinal cohort of 9406 women ages 18–94 years in Guanacaste, Costa Rica was followed for 7 years (1993–2000), incorporating multiple cervical screening methods and histopathologic confirmation of precancers. Tumor registry linkage identified cancers up to 18 years. Archived, digitized cervical images from screening, taken with a fixed-focus camera (“cervicography”), were used for training/validation of the deep learning-based algorithm. The resultant image prediction score (0–1) could be categorized to balance sensitivity and specificity for detection of precancer/cancer. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Automated visual evaluation of enrollment cervigrams identified cumulative precancer/cancer cases with greater accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89 to 0.93) than original cervigram interpretation (AUC = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.74; P < .001) or conventional cytology (AUC = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.77; P < .001). A single visual screening round restricted to women at the prime screening ages of 25–49 years could identify 127 (55.7%) of 228 precancers (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3/adenocarcinoma in situ [AIS]) diagnosed cumulatively in the entire adult population (ages 18–94 years) while referring 11.0% for management. Conclusions The results support consideration of automated visual evaluation of cervical images from contemporary digital cameras. If achieved, this might permit dissemination of effective point-of-care cervical screening.

† The data in these analyses come from 306 ED and UC clinics and 164 hospitals. § The study period at Baylor Scott and White Health began on September 11, 2021. *** With a test-negative design, vaccine performance is assessed by comparing the odds of antecedent vaccination among case-patients with acute laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and control-patients without acute COVID-19. This odds ratio was adjusted for age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1), and local virus circulation in the community and weighted for inverse propensity to be vaccinated or unvaccinated.

Objective The 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for the management of cervical cancer screening abnormalities recommend 1 of 6 clinical actions (treatment, optional treatment or colposcopy/biopsy, colposcopy/biopsy, 1-year surveillance, 3-year surveillance, 5-year return to regular screening) based on the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, adenocarcinoma in situ, or cancer (CIN 3+) for the many different combinations of current and recent past screening results. This article supports the main guidelines presentation 1 by presenting and explaining the risk estimates that supported the guidelines. Methods From 2003 to 2017 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), 1.5 million individuals aged 25 to 65 years were screened with human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology cotesting scheduled every 3 years. We estimated immediate and 5-year risks of CIN 3+ for combinations of current test results paired with history of screening test and colposcopy/biopsy results. Results Risk tables are presented for different clinical scenarios. Examples of important results are highlighted; for example, the risk posed by most current abnormalities is greatly reduced if the prior screening round was HPV-negative. The immediate and 5-year risks of CIN 3+ used to decide clinical management are shown. Conclusions The new risk-based guidelines present recommendations for the management of abnormal screening test and histology results; the key risk estimates supporting guidelines are presented in this article. Comprehensive risk estimates are freely available online at https://CervixCa.nlm.nih.gov/RiskTables.

Background: HPV testing is replacing cytology for cervical cancer screening because of greater sensitivity and superior reassurance following negative tests for the dozen HPV genotypes that cause cervical cancer. Management of women testing positive is unresolved. The need for identification of individual HPV genotypes for clinical use is debated. Also, it is unclear how long to observe persistent infections when precancer is not initially found. Methods: In the longitudinal NCI-Kaiser Permanente Northern California Persistence and Progression (PaP) Study, we observed the clinical outcomes (clearance, progression to CIN3+, or persistence without progression) of 11,573 HPV-positive women aged 30À65 yielding 14,158 type-specific infections. Findings: Risks of CIN3+ progression differed substantially by type, with HPV16 conveying uniquely elevated risk (26% of infections with seven-year CIN3+ risk of 22%). The other carcinogenic HPV types fell into 3 distinct seven-year CIN3+ risk groups: HPV18, 45 (13% of infections, risks >5%, with known elevated cancer risk); HPV31, 33, 35, 52, 58 (39%, risks >5%); and HPV39, 51, 56, 59, 68 (23%, risks <5%). In the absence of progression, HPV clearance rates were similar by type, with 80% of infections no longer detected within three years; persistence to seven years without progression was uncommon. The predictive value of abnormal cytology was most evident for prevalent CIN3+, but less evident in follow-up. A woman's age did not modify risk; rather it was the duration of persistence that was important.

HPV35 has been found in only 2% of invasive cervical cancers (ICC) worldwide but up to 10% in Sub-Saharan Africa, warranting further investigation and consideration of impact on preventive strategies. We studied HPV35 and ethnicity, in relation to the known steps in cervical carcinogenesis, using multiple large epidemiologic studies in the U.S. and internationally. Combining five U.S. studies, we measured HPV35 positivity and, in Northern California, observed HPV35 type-specific population

Objective To manage cervical screening abnormalities, the 2019 ASCCP management consensus guidelines will recommend clinical action on the basis of risk of cervical precancer and cancer. This article details the methods used to estimate risk, to determine the risk-based management, and to validate that the risk-based recommendations are of general use in different settings. Methods Based on 1.5 million patients undergoing triennial cervical screening by cotesting at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 2003 to 2017, we estimated risk profiles for different clinical scenarios and combinations of past and current human papillomavirus and cytology test results. We validated the recommended management by comparing with the estimated risks in several external data sources. Results Risk and management tables are presented separately by Egemen et al. 1 and Demarco et al. 2 Risk-based management derived from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California largely agreed with the management implied from the estimated risks of the other data sources. Conclusions The new risk-based guidelines present management of abnormal cervical screening results. By describing the steps used to develop these guidelines, the methods presented in this article can provide a basis for future extensions of the risk-based guidelines.

As a foundation for the next guidelines revision, we confirmed with additional precision the risk estimates previously reported for combinations of human papillomavirus and cytology screening.