PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Shrestha, Nabin K.
AU  - Burke, Patrick C.
AU  - Nowacki, Amy S.
AU  - Gordon, Steven M.
TI  - Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among Those Up-to-Date and Not Up-to-Date on COVID-19 Vaccination by US CDC Criteria
AID  - 10.1101/2023.06.09.23290893
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.06.09.23290893
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/14/2023.06.09.23290893.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/14/2023.06.09.23290893.full
AB  - Background The CDC recently defined being “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination as having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 bivalent vaccine. The purpose of this study was to compare the risk of COVID-19 among those “up-to-date” and “not up-to-date”.Methods Employees of Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, USA, in employment when the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine first became available, and still employed when the XBB lineages became dominant, were included. Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 since the XBB lineages became dominant was compared across the ”up-to-date” and “not up-to-date” states, by treating COVID-19 bivalent vaccination as a time- dependent covariate whose value changed on receipt of the vaccine. Risk of COVID-19 by vaccination status was also evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting for propensity to get tested for COVID-19, age, sex, most recent prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and number of prior vaccine doses.Results COVID-19 occurred in 1475 (3%) of 48 344 employees during the 100-day study period. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was lower in the “not up-to-date” than the “up-to-date” state. On multivariable analysis, being “up-to-date” was not associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, 1.05; 95% C.I., 0.88-1.25; P-value, 0.58). Results were very similar when those 65 years and older were only considered “up-to-date” after 2 doses of the bivalent vaccine.Conclusions Since the XBB lineages became dominant, adults “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination by the CDC definition do not have a lower risk of COVID-19 than those “not up-to-date”, bringing into question the value of this risk classification definition.Summary Among 48 344 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, those “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination did not have a lower risk of COVID-19 than those not “up-to-date”. The current CDC definition provides a meaningless classification of risk of COVID-19 in the adult population.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Institutional Review Board of Cleveland Clinic gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available online at https://osf.io/bufwc/