Relative effectiveness of a 2nd booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine up to four months post administration in individuals aged 80 years or more in Italy: A retrospective matched cohort study

The Impact of Vaccination on COVID-19 Outcomes in Vietnam

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine on the outcomes of patients in three hospitals in Vietnam. Methods: An observational study involved 3102 confirmed COVID-19 patients from Vietnam. Participants were classified into unvaccinated, partially vaccinated (one dose) (PV), fully vaccinated (two doses) (FV), and boosted (three doses) groups. We used a regression model to assess the relationship between vaccine status and disease outcome, including mortality, persistent symptoms after treatment, and hospital duration. Results: The proportions of unvaccinated, PV, FV, and boosted groups were 43.39%, 4.63%, 43.93%, and 8.05%, respectively, and 48% of the participants had at least one comorbidity. The proportion of severe clinical disease was significantly higher in the unvaccinated compared with the vaccinated. Biomarkers of cellular injury and organ failure, e.g., aspartate aminotransferase (AST), ferritin, troponin T, proBNP, D-dimer, and urea plasma concentration were significantly higher in unvaccinated and PV patients compared with FV and boosted patients. Age was the most crucial predictor of critical illness, followed by vaccine status, hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, and chronic kidney disease. The unvaccinated group had the highest proportion of deaths (5.2% vs. 1.4% and 0.3% in FV and boosted groups, respectively). Conclusions: Vaccination reduced mortality and both hospitalization length and disease severity in COVID-19 survivors, especially the older and patients with chronic comorbidities.

Effectiveness of the fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccines against severe COVID-19 among adults 40 years or older in Brazil: a population-based cohort study

Background

The emergence of COVID-19 variants with immune scape and the waning of primary vaccine schemes effectiveness have prompted many countries to indicate first and second booster COVID-19 vaccine doses to prevent severe COVID-19. However, current available evidence on second booster dose effectiveness are mostly limited to high-income countries, older adults, and mRNA-based vaccination schemes scenarios. We aimed to investigate the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of the fourth dose compared to three doses for severe COVID-19 outcomes in Brazil; and compare the rVE of a fourth dose with an mRNA vaccine compared to adenovirus-based product in the same settings.

Methods

We performed a target emulated trial using a population-based cohort of individuals aged 40 years or older who have received a homologous primary scheme of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, or BNT162b2, and any third dose product and were eligible for the fourth dose in Brazil. The primary outcome was COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death. We built Cohort A matching individuals vaccinated with a fourth dose to individuals who received three doses to estimate the rVE of the fourth dose. We built Cohort B, a subset of Cohort A, matching mRNA-based (mRNA) to adenovirus-based fourth dose vaccinated individuals to compare their relative hazards for severe COVID-19.

Findings

46,693,484 individuals were included in Cohort A and 6,763,016 in Cohort B. 45% of them were aged between 40 and 60 years old, and 48% between 60 and 79 years old. In Cohort A, the most common previous series was a ChAdOx1 two-dose followed by BNT162b2 (44%), and a CoronaVac two-dose followed by a BNT162b2 (36%). Among those fourth dose vaccinated, 36.9% received ChAdOx1, 32.7% Ad26.COV2.S, 25.8% BNT162b2, and 4.7% CoronaVac. In Cohort B, among those who received an adenovirus fourth dose, 53.7% received ChAdOx1 and 46.3% received Ad26.COV2.S. The estimated rVE for the primary outcome of four doses compared to three doses was 44.1% (95% CI 42.3-46.0), with some waning during follow-up (rVE 7-60 days 46.8% [95% CI 44.4-49.1], rVE after 120 days 33.8% [95% CI 18.0-46.6]). Among fourth dose vaccinated individuals, mRNA-based vaccinated individuals had lower hazards for hospitalization or death compared to adenovirus-vaccinated individuals (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.87). After 120 days, no difference in hazards between groups was observed (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93-1.97). Similar findings were observed for hospitalization and death separately, except no evidence for differences between fourth dose brands for death in Cohort B.

Interpretation

In a heterogeneous scenario of primary and first booster vaccination combinations, a fourth dose provided meaningful and durable protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to adenovirus-based booster, a fourth dose wild-type mRNA vaccine was associated with immediate lower hazards of hospitalization or death unsustained after 120 days.

Funding

None.

Design and analysis heterogeneity in observational studies of COVID-19 booster effectiveness: A review and case study

We investigated the design and analysis of observational booster vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies by performing a scoping review of booster VE literature with a focus on study design and analytic choices. We then applied 20 different approaches, including those found in the literature, to a single dataset from Michigan Medicine. We identified 80 studies in our review, including over 150 million observations in total. We found that while protection against infection is variable and dependent on several factors including the study population and time period, both monovalent boosters and particularly the bivalent booster offer strong protection against severe COVID-19. In addition, VE analyses with a severe disease outcome (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) appear to be more robust to design and analytic choices than an infection endpoint. In terms of design choices, we found that test-negative designs and their variants may offer advantages in statistical efficiency compared to cohort designs.

Lessons learned from COVID-19 vaccination implementation: How psychological antecedents of vaccinations mediate the relationship between vaccine literacy and vaccine hesitancy

BACKGROUND

Enhancing the public's vaccine literacy is critical for curbing vaccine hesitancy and enhancing society's pandemic preparedness, particularly in an era of infodemic. Evidence on vaccine literacy as an influencing factor of hesitancy is scarce. Lessons could be learned from COVID-19 vaccination implementation. Taking the COVID-19 vaccines as an example, the current study aimed to examine the relationship between vaccine literacy and hesitancy and the mediating role of psychological antecedents of vaccination on the relationship.

METHODS

A baseline online questionnaire survey among the general public in China based on quota sampling was conducted in April 2021 to measure participants' vaccine literacy, psychological antecedents of vaccination, COVID-19 vaccination status, and vaccine hesitancy. A follow-up online survey tracked the updated COVID-19 vaccination status among those who hadn't taken COVID-19 vaccines at the baseline survey. Structural equation modeling has been applied to examine the direct and indirect effect of vaccine literacy on vaccine hesitancy. Time-to-event analysis was used to explore the effect of vaccine hesitancy on vaccination behavior.

RESULTS

Lower vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher vaccine literacy. The "3Cs" psychological antecedents were important mediators between vaccine literacy and vaccine hesitancy. The pathway between critical/interactive vaccine literacy and vaccine hesitancy through the "3Cs" psychological antecedents played a more important role. Time-to-event analysis showed participants with a higher vaccine hesitancy were prone to have a longer delay in vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving the public's ability to obtain and evaluate vaccination information can fix the public's psychological determinants of vaccination, reducing vaccine hesitancy and promoting vaccination. Governments need to put more effort into guiding and regulating the media to disseminate evidence-based information, rectifying misinformation, and improving the public's vaccine literacy through education, especially the public's capability to critically discern mixed information.

Protection of COVID-19 Vaccination Against Hospitalization During the Era of Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 Predominance: A Nationwide Case-Control Study Based on the French National Health Data System

Background

Knowing the duration of effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster doses is essential to providing decision-makers with scientific arguments about the frequency of subsequent injections. We estimated the level of protection against COVID-19-related hospitalizations (Omicron BA.4-BA.5) over time after vaccination, accounting for breakthrough infections.

Methods

In this nationwide case-control study, all cases of hospitalizations for COVID-19 identified in the comprehensive French National Health Data System between June 1, 2022, and October 15, 2022, were matched with up to 10 controls by year of birth, sex, department, and an individual COVID-19 hospitalization risk score. Conditional logistic regressions were used to estimate the level of protection against COVID-19-related hospitalizations conferred by primary and booster vaccination, accounting for history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

Results

A total of 38 839 cases were matched to 377 653 controls; 19.2% and 9.9% were unvaccinated, respectively, while 68.2% and 77.7% had received ≥1 booster dose. Protection provided by primary vaccination reached 45% (95% CI, 42%-47%). The incremental effectiveness of booster doses ranged from 69% (95% CI, 67%-71%; ≤2 months) to 22% (95% CI, 19%-25%; ≥6 months). Specifically, the second booster provided an additional protection compared with the first ranging from 61% (95% CI, 59%-64%; ≤2 months) to 7% (95% CI, 2%-13%; ≥4 months). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred a strong, long-lasting protection (51% ≥20 months). There was no incremental effectiveness of a second booster among individuals infected since the first booster.

Conclusions

In the era of Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 predominance, primary vaccination still conferred protection against COVID-19 hospitalization, while booster doses provided an additional time-limited protection. The second booster had no additional protection in case of infection since the first booster.

Antibody response in elderly vaccinated four times with an mRNA anti-COVID-19 vaccine

The humoral response after the fourth dose of a mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 has not been adequately described in elderly recipients, particularly those not exposed previously to SARS-CoV-2. Serum anti-RBD IgG levels (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay) and neutralizing capacities (spike SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus Wuhan and Omicron BA.1 variant) were measured after the third and fourth doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine among 46 elderly residents (median age 85 years [IQR 81; 89]) of an assisted living facility. Among participants never infected by SARS-CoV-2, the mean serum IgG levels against RBD (2025 BAU/ml), 99 days after the fourth vaccine, was as high as 76 days after the third vaccine (1987 BAU/ml), and significantly higher (p = 0.030) when the latter were corrected for elapsed time. Neutralizing antibody levels against the historical Wuhan strain were significantly higher (Mean 1046 vs 1573; p = 0.002) and broader (against Omicron) (Mean 170 vs 375; p = 0.018), following the fourth vaccine. The six individuals with an Omicron breakthrough infection mounted strong immune responses for anti-RBD and neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron variant indicating that the fourth vaccine dose did not prevent a specific adaptation of the immune response. These findings point out the value of continued vaccine boosting in the elderly population.

Design and Analysis Heterogeneity in Observational Studies of COVID-19 Booster Effectiveness: A Review and Case Study

Background

Observational vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies based on real-world data are a crucial supplement to initial randomized clinical trials of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. However, there exists substantial heterogeneity in study designs and statistical methods for estimating VE. The impact of such heterogeneity on VE estimates is not clear.

Methods

We conducted a two-step literature review of booster VE: a literature search for first or second monovalent boosters on January 1, 2023, and a rapid search for bivalent boosters on March 28, 2023. For each study identified, study design, methods, and VE estimates for infection, hospitalization, and/or death were extracted and summarized via forest plots. We then applied methods identified in the literature to a single dataset from Michigan Medicine (MM), providing a comparison of the impact of different statistical methodologies on the same dataset.

Results

We identified 53 studies estimating VE of the first booster, 16 for the second booster. Of these studies, 2 were case-control, 17 were test-negative, and 50 were cohort studies. Together, they included nearly 130 million people worldwide. VE for all outcomes was very high (around 90%) in earlier studies (i.e., in 2021), but became attenuated and more heterogeneous over time (around 40%-50% for infection, 60%-90% for hospitalization, and 50%-90% for death). VE compared to the previous dose was lower for the second booster (10-30% for infection, 30-60% against hospitalization, and 50-90% against death). We also identified 11 bivalent booster studies including over 20 million people. Early studies of the bivalent booster showed increased effectiveness compared to the monovalent booster (VE around 50-80% for hospitalization and death).Our primary analysis with MM data using a cohort design included 186,495 individuals overall (including 153,811 boosted and 32,684 with only a primary series vaccination), and a secondary test-negative design included 65,992 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2. When different statistical designs and methods were applied to MM data, VE estimates for hospitalization and death were robust to analytic choices, with test-negative designs leading to narrower confidence intervals. Adjusting either for the propensity of getting boosted or directly adjusting for covariates reduced the heterogeneity across VE estimates for the infection outcome.

Conclusion

While the advantage of the second monovalent booster is not obvious from the literature review, the first monovalent booster and the bivalent booster appear to offer strong protection against severe COVID-19. Based on both the literature view and data analysis, VE analyses with a severe disease outcome (hospitalization, ICU admission, or death) appear to be more robust to design and analytic choices than an infection endpoint. Test-negative designs can extend to severe disease outcomes and may offer advantages in statistical efficiency when used properly.

Outcomes of Elderly Patients Hospitalized with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron B.1.1.529 Variant: A Systematic Review

The Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had an increased rate of spreading among the general population. Although this virus mutation resulted in milder symptoms, those on the vulnerable side of the population are still in danger of developing severe symptoms. Thus, this systematic review focused on identifying the clinical outcomes of older age patients (>65) that are hospitalized with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. The research was conducted using four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest Central), with a search query in December 2022 that comprised the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The inclusion criteria comprised (1) a population of patients older than 65 years, (2) a history of hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and (3) infection with Omicron B.1.1.529 variant. The initial search generated 295 articles, out of which six were included in the systematic review, and a total of 7398 patients. The main findings were that when looking at the elderly population, the mortality and hospitalization rates remained high. This is because older people are more vulnerable and have more comorbidities that interfere with the virus's progress. However, there is inconsistency in mortality rates, since the data reported by the included studies had different selection criteria based on the severity of the COVID-19 infection. Although no statistically significant differences were found between the unvaccinated and vaccinated groups, patients who got booster doses of vaccination had a lower likelihood of developing severe symptoms, serving as a protective factor for this population.

Efficacy of the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose in the Elderly

BACKGROUND

We analyzed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine efficacy in older persons who received the second booster compared to unvaccinated people and those receiving only a single COVID-19 vaccine booster.

METHODS

We collected information on vaccine efficacy from the ongoing Italian nationwide COVID-19 vaccination campaign in subjects aged 80 years or older from official data published by the Italian National Institute of Health.

RESULTS

The second vaccine booster maintained high effectiveness against adverse COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalization, intensive care unit admission and death (i.e., between 77 and 86%), and also showed around 10% higher efficacy than the single booster. Nonetheless, the efficacy of the second vaccine booster declined over time, decreasing by 33-46% when assessed at >120 days from administration.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our ad interim analysis of the ongoing Italian nationwide COVID-19 vaccination campaign suggest that regular boosting with COVID-19 vaccines may be advisable in older persons.