Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters Against Infection, Hospitalization, and Death: A Target Trial Emulation in the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant Era

COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness of Booster Doses Against Delta and Omicron Variants Over Follow-up Times Using Longitudinal Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a viral disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2, leading to several variants. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of booster doses against the Delta and Omicron variants over different follow-up times. Study Design: This was a longitudinal meta-analysis.

METHODS

Searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, and eighty studies were selected for investigation. The analyses were separately performed on the unvaccinated control group (UNVCG) and the complete two doses of the vaccine control group (C2DCG) against Delta and Omicron variants. Three outcomes were examined, including symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death.

RESULTS

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) in UNVCG studies for symptomatic infection revealed a non-linear trend against Omicron with a peak of 67.3%, declining to 27.1% after 25 weeks after a booster dose. The mean of VE for hospitalization over time started to decrease after four weeks against Omicron and after eight weeks against Delta. The VE reached a peak at week eight (96.0%) and started to decline with a VE of 93.3% after 20 weeks after the booster dose against Delta. It was 90.8% at week four and decreased to 73.4% after 25 weeks after the booster dose against Omicron. VE in the C2DCG studies demonstrated more decreases in outcomes over time.

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed a tendency to decrease effectiveness over time based on outcomes and variants. The early protection levels were lower in Omicron. Moreover, the VE decrease over time was stronger in Omicron compared to the Delta variant.

Risk of death and cardiovascular events following COVID-19 vaccination or positive SARS-CoV-2 test amongst adult Singaporeans during omicron transmission

IMPORTANCE

Assessing population-wide risk-benefit ratio of COVID-19 vaccination remains relevant in the current era of Omicron endemicity and boosting. Assessments of mortality risk and cardiovascular events post-vaccination/infection were generally made prior to emergence of milder Omicron and booster rollout.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study from 6th January to 31st December 2022 (Omicron-predominant transmission), amongst adult Singaporeans aged ≥18 years. Cox regression models adjusted for demographics/comorbidities were used to estimate risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events 0-180 days post-mRNA vaccination/SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to >180 days post-mRNA vaccination. Risk periods post-vaccination were further stratified by presence/absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the preceding 180 days; similarly, risk periods post-infection were further stratified by vaccination in the 180 days preceding infection.

RESULTS

3,137,210 adults participated, with 2,047,008 vaccine doses administered (99 % being booster doses) and 1,189,846 infections. 23,028 deaths and 54,017 cardiac events were recorded. No elevated risk of all-cause mortality/cardiovascular events was observed across all age strata post-vaccination. Conversely, all-cause mortality post-infection remained elevated up to >180 days in older adults (≥60 years), compared to person-time > 180 days post-vaccination. For vaccine-breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection in older adults vaccinated <180 days prior, risk of mortality was only elevated up to 60 days post-infection, but not beyond. Elevated risk of cardiovascular events 1-2 months after any SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed across all age strata, with elevated risk observed in older adults >180 days post-infection (adjusted-hazards-ratio, aHR = 1.18, 95 %CI = 1.04-1.34). Preceding vaccination within 180 days prior to infection attenuated this risk, with no significantly elevated post-acute risk of cardiovascular events (>180 days: aHR = 1.10, 95 %CI = 0.95-1.07).

CONCLUSION

No increased risk of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular events was observed up to 180 days after any mRNA vaccination dose in the Omicron era; vaccination attenuated post-acute cardiovascular risk in older adults. The risk-benefit ratio of vaccination remained positive during Omicron.

Anti-RBD Antibody Levels and IFN-γ-Specific T Cell Response Are Associated with a More Rapid Swab Reversion in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis after the Booster Dose of COVID-19 Vaccination

This study investigated the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections (BIs) and the time to swab reversion in patients with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) after the booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. We enrolled 64 PwMS who had completed the three-dose mRNA vaccine schedule and had never experienced COVID-19 before. Among the 64 PwMS, 43.8% had BIs with a median time since the third vaccine dose of 155 days. BIs occurred more frequently in ocrelizumab-treated patients (64.7%). Patients with a relapsing-remitting MS course showed a reduced incidence of BIs compared with those with a primary-progressive disease (p = 0.002). Having anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies represented a protective factor reducing the incidence of BIs by 60% (p = 0.042). The majority of BIs were mild, and the only severe COVID-19 cases were reported in patients with a high Expanded Disability Status Scale score (EDSS > 6). The median time for a negative swab was 11 days. Notably, fingolimod-treated patients take longer for a swab-negativization (p = 0.002). Conversely, having anti-RBD antibodies ≥ 809 BAU/mL and an IFN-γ-specific T cell response ≥ 16 pg/mL were associated with a shorter time to swab-negativization (p = 0.051 and p = 0.018, respectively). In conclusion, the immunological protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection may differ among PwMS according to DMTs.

Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines as First Booster Doses in England: An Observational Study in OpenSAFELY-TPP

BACKGROUND

The UK delivered its first "booster" COVID-19 vaccine doses in September 2021, initially to individuals at high risk of severe disease, then to all adults. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, then also Moderna mRNA-1273.

METHODS

With the approval of the National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses. We matched each booster recipient with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior COVID-19 immunization. We adjusted for additional factors in Cox models, estimating hazard ratios up to 182 days (6 months) following booster dose. We estimated hazard ratios overall and within the following periods: 1-14, 15-42, 43-69, 70-97, 98-126, 127-152, and 155-182 days. Outcomes included a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalization, COVID-19 death, non-COVID-19 death, and fracture.

RESULTS

We matched 8,198,643 booster recipients with unboosted controls. Adjusted hazard ratios over 6-month follow-up were: positive SARS-CoV-2 test 0.75 (0.74, 0.75); COVID-19 hospitalization 0.30 (0.29, 0.31); COVID-19 death 0.11 (0.10, 0.14); non-COVID-19 death 0.22 (0.21, 0.23); and fracture 0.77 (0.75, 0.78). Estimated effectiveness of booster vaccines against severe COVID-19-related outcomes peaked during the first 3 months following the booster dose. By 6 months, the cumulative incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 test was higher in boosted than unboosted individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

We estimate that COVID-19 booster vaccination, compared with no booster vaccination, provided substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 death but only limited protection against positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Lower rates of fracture in boosted than unboosted individuals may suggest unmeasured confounding. Observational studies should report estimated vaccine effectiveness against nontarget and negative control outcomes.

Factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy after stroke: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The vaccination status of post-stroke patients, who are at high risk of severe outcomes from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a significant concern, yet it remains unclear. We aimed to explore the vaccination status, factors associated with vaccine hesitancy, and adverse effects after vaccination among post-stroke patients.

METHODS

This multi-center observational study enrolled hospitalized post-stroke patients from six Chinese hospitals (Oct 1, 2020 - Mar 31, 2021), examining vaccine uptake and self-reported reasons for vaccine hesitancy, utilizing logistic regression to investigate risk factors for vaccine hesitancy, and recording any adverse reactions post-vaccination.

RESULTS

Of the total 710 post-stroke patients included in the study, 430 (60.6%) had completed the recommended full-3 dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, with 176 (24.8%) remaining unvaccinated. The most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy were concerns about vaccine side effects (41.5%) and impaired mobility (33.9%). Logistic regression identified advanced age (aOR = 1.97, 95%CI: 1.36-2.85, P = 0.001), lower Barthel Index score (aOR = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.82-0.93, P = 0.018), higher Modified Rankin Scale score (aOR = 1.85, 95%CI: 1.32-2.56, P = 0.004), and poorer usual activity level of EuroQol 5-Dimension (aOR = 2.82, 95%CI: 1.51-5.28, P = 0.001) as independent risk factors for vaccine hesitancy. Approximately 14.8% reported minor adverse reactions, mainly pain at the injection site.

CONCLUSION

We found that post-stroke patients have insufficient SARS-CoV-2 vaccination rates, with key risk factors for vaccine hesitancy including concerns about side effects, advanced age, and functional impairments. No severe adverse reactions were observed among the vaccinated population.

Interpretations of Studies on SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Post-acute COVID-19 Sequelae

This article discusses causal interpretations of epidemiologic studies of the effects of vaccination on sequelae after acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. To date, researchers have tried to answer several different research questions on this topic. While some studies assessed the impact of postinfection vaccination on the presence of or recovery from post-acute coronavirus disease 2019 syndrome, others quantified the association between preinfection vaccination and postacute sequelae conditional on becoming infected. However, the latter analysis does not have a causal interpretation, except under the principal stratification framework-that is, this comparison can only be interpreted as causal for a nondiscernible stratum of the population. As the epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 is now nearly entirely dominated by reinfections, including in vaccinated individuals, and possibly caused by different Omicron subvariants, it has become even more important to design studies on the effects of vaccination on postacute sequelae that address precise causal questions and quantify effects corresponding to implementable interventions.

Lower prevalence of post-Covid-19 Condition following Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection

Objectives

Different SARS-CoV-2 variants can differentially affect the prevalence of Post Covid-19 Condition (PCC). This prospective study assesses prevalence and severity of symptoms three months after an Omicron infection, compared to Delta, test-negative and population controls. This study also assesses symptomology after reinfection and breakthrough infections.

Methods

After a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, cases were classified as Omicron or Delta based on ≥ 85% surveillance prevalence. Three months after enrolment, participants indicated point prevalence for 41 symptoms and severity, using validated questionnaires for four symptoms. PCC prevalence was estimated as the difference in prevalence of at least one significantly elevated symptom, identified by permutation test, in cases compared to population controls.

Results

At three months follow-up, five symptoms and severe dyspnea were significantly elevated in Omicron cases (n = 4138) compared to test-negative (n = 1672) and population controls (n = 2762). PCC prevalence was 10·4% for Omicron cases and 17·7% for Delta cases (n = 6855). In Omicron cases, severe fatigue and dyspnea were more prevalent in reinfected than primary infected, while severity of symptoms did not significantly differ between cases with a booster or primary vaccination course.

Conclusions

Prevalence of PCC is 41% lower after Omicron than Delta at three months. Reinfection seems associated with more severe long-term symptoms compared to first infection.

Association Between the "We Can Do This" Campaign and COVID-19 Booster Uptake, U.S., 2021-2022

Introduction

Monovalent COVID-19 boosters lower the risk of COVID-19 disease, infection, hospitalization, and death. This study examined associations between exposure to a booster public education campaign (the booster campaign) and the increases in booster uptake and reduced length of time until booster uptake among U.S. adults.

Methods

Data included a national survey panel of U.S. adults and booster campaign paid media (i.e., digital impressions and TV gross rating points) from September 2021 to May 2022. Multilevel logistic regression models examined the association between exposure to the booster campaign and the likelihood of booster uptake. A Cox proportional hazard model evaluated the association between the booster campaign and booster uptake timing. Interaction terms between the booster campaign media variables and first-dose COVID-19 vaccine date examined differential effects of the booster campaign based on when individuals received their first dose.

Results

Interactions between first-dose vaccination date and the booster campaign were statistically significant for cumulative digital impressions (ß=4.75e-08; 95% CIs=5.93e-09, 8.90e-08) and TV gross rating points (ß = 4.62e-05; 95% CIs=5.09e-06, 8.73e-05), suggesting that booster uptake was strongest among those who received their first-dose COVID-19 vaccine later. Booster campaign cumulative digital impressions and TV gross rating points were associated with accelerated booster uptake among those with later first-dose vaccination dates (digital: ß=9.98e-08; 95% CIs=2.70e-08, 1.73e-07; TV: ß=0.0001; 95% CIs=2.80e-05, 0.0002), relative to those with earlier first-dose vaccination dates.

Conclusions

The booster campaign may have increased monovalent booster uptake and reduced how long individuals waited until getting their booster. Public education campaigns show promise in stemming the tide of pandemic fatigue and increasing booster confidence.

Effectiveness of the SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Preventing Severe Disease-Related Outcomes: A Population-Based Study in the Italian Province of Bolzano (South Tyrol)

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of SARS-CoV2 vaccination in preventing ordinary or intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and deaths among cases registered during a variant transitional pandemic phase in the geographically and culturally unique territory of the Province of Bolzano (South Tyrol), an Italian region with low vaccination coverage. Methods: We collected data from 93,643 patients registered as positive for SARS-CoV-2 by health authorities during the winter of 2021-22. The data were analyzed retrospectively using descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression. Results: 925 patients were hospitalized (0.99%), 89 (0.10%) were in intensive care, and 194 (0.21%) died. Vaccinated patients had a significantly lower risk of being hospitalized: adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR): 0.39; 95% CI: 0.33-0.46, ICU admission: aOR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.09-0.29 and death: aOR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.29-0.58. Similar risk reductions were also observed in booster-vaccinated patients, independent of sex, age, and predominant variant. Furthermore, the median length of stay (LoS) in the ICU was significantly longer for unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated subjects (9 vs. 6 days; p < 0.003). Conclusion: Primary series vaccination and ongoing campaign booster doses were effective in preventing all severe disease-related outcomes and in reducing ICU Length of Stay, even during a transitional pandemic phase and in a unique territorial context.

The humoral response to COVID-19 vaccinations can predict the booster effect on health care workers-toward personalized vaccinations?

BACKGROUND

Waning immunity after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations creates the constant need of boosters. Predicting individual responses to booster vaccines can help in its timely administration. We hypothesized that the humoral response to the first two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine can predict the response to the booster vaccine.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of hospital health care workers (HCW) that received three doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Participants completed serological tests at 1 and 6 months after the second vaccine dose and 1 month after the third. We analyzed predictive factors of antibody levels after the booster using multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

From 289 eligible HCW, 89 (31%) completed the follow-up. Mean age was 48 (±10) and 46 (52%) had daily interaction with patients. The mean (±standard deviation) antibody level 1 month after the second vaccine was 223 (±59) AU/ml, and 31 (35%) had a rapid antibody decline (>50%) in 6 months. Low antibody levels 1 month after the second vaccine and a rapid antibody decline were independent predictors of low antibody levels after the booster vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of the humoral response to COVID-19 vaccinations show promise in predicting the humoral response to the booster vaccines.

Comparative effectiveness of alternative intervals between first and second doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines

The optimal interval between the first and second doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines has not been thoroughly evaluated. Employing a target trial emulation approach, we compared the effectiveness of different interdose intervals among >6 million mRNA vaccine recipients in Georgia, USA, from December 2020 to March 2022. We compared three protocols defined by interdose interval: recommended by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (17-25 days for Pfizer-BioNTech; 24-32 days for Moderna), late-but-allowable (26-42 days for Pfizer-BioNTech; 33-49 days for Moderna), and late ( ≥ 43 days for Pfizer-BioNTech; ≥50 days for Moderna). In the short-term, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was lowest under the FDA-recommended protocol. Longer-term, the late-but-allowable protocol resulted in the lowest risk (risk ratio on Day 120 after the first dose administration compared to the FDA-recommended protocol: 0.83 [95% confidence interval: 0.82-0.84]). Here, we showed that delaying the second dose by 1-2 weeks may provide stronger long-term protection.

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.

Omicron variant dominance and anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are key determinants for a milder course of COVID-19 in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to determine whether the introduction of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the dominance of the omicron variant had a significant impact on the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SAIRDs).

METHODS

Using data entered to the Greek Rheumatology Society COVID-19 registry, we investigated the incidence of hospitalization and death due to COVID-19, during the successive periods of the pandemic according to the prevalent strain (wild-type, Alpha, Delta, Omicron) in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Variables independently associated with hospitalization and death were explored using multivariate regression analyses, while Kaplan-Meier curves were used to depict survival data.

RESULTS

From August 2020 until June 30, 2022, 456 cases (70.2% females) of COVID-19 with a mean age (± SD) of 51.4 ± 14.0 years were reported. In unvaccinated patients, the proportions of hospitalization and death were 24.5% and 4%, compared to 12.5% and 0.8% in the vaccinated group (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). The rates of hospitalization for the wild-type, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron periods were 24.7%, 31.3%, 25.9%, and 8.1% respectively (p < 0.0001), while the case fatality rates were 2.7%, 4%, 7%, and 0%, respectively (p = 0.001). Using multivariable regression analysis, factors independently associated with hospitalization were infection by a non-Omicron variant, being non-vaccinated, exposure to rituximab, older age, and respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Independent predictors for death were contracting COVID-19 during the Alpha or Delta period, pulmonary disease, and older age, while being vaccinated was protective.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 2-year analysis, the rates of hospitalization and death among patients with SAIRDs have declined significantly. Vaccination and the dominance of the Omicron variant appear to be the major determinants for this shift. Key points • During the late phase of the pandemic, the proportion of severe COVID-19 cases, defined as requiring hospitalization or resulting in death, in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases has declined. • Anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and the dominance of the Omicron strain are the key factors that have independently contributed to this shift.

Perspectives on research needs in healthcare epidemiology, infection prevention, and antimicrobial stewardship: what's on the horizon-Part II

In this overview, we articulate research needs and opportunities in the field of infection prevention that have been identified from insights gained during operative infection prevention work, our own research in healthcare epidemiology, and from reviewing the literature. The 10 areas of research need are: 1) Transmissions and interruptions, 2) personal protective equipment and other safety issues in occupational health, 3) climate change and other crises, 4) device, diagnostic, and antimicrobial stewardship, 5) implementation and deimplementation, 6) healthcare outside the acute care hospital, 7) low- and middle-income countries, 8) networking with the "neighbors," 9) novel research methodologies, and 10) the future state of surveillance. An introduction and chapters 1-5 are presented in part I of the article and chapters 6-10 and the discussion in part II. There are many barriers to advancing the field, such as finding and motivating the future IP workforce including professionals interested in conducting research, a constant confrontation with challenges and crises, the difficulty of performing studies in a complex environment, the relative lack of adequate incentives and funding streams, and how to disseminate and validate the often very local quality improvement projects. Addressing research gaps now (i.e., in the post-pandemic phase) will make healthcare systems more resilient when facing future crises.

Older Age, a High Titre of Neutralising Antibodies and Therapy with Conventional DMARDs Are Associated with Protection from Breakthrough Infection in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients after the Booster Dose of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

Objectives: We aimed to analyse the incidence and severity of breakthrough infections (BIs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients after a COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination booster dose. Methods: We enrolled 194 RA patients and 1002 healthcare workers (HCWs) as controls. Clinical, lifestyle and demographic factors were collected at the time of the third dose, and immunogenicity analyses were carried out in a subgroup of patients at 4-6 weeks after the third dose. Results: BIs were experienced by 42% patients (82/194) with a median time since the last vaccination of 176 days. Older age (>50 years; aHR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.74), receiving conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) (aHR 0.52, 95%CI: 0.30-0.90) and having a titre of neutralising antibodies >20 (aHR 0.36, 95% CI: 0.12-1.07) were identified as protective factors. Conversely, anti-IL6R treatment and anti-CD20 therapy increased BI probability. BIs were mostly pauci-symptomatic, but the hospitalisation incidence was significantly higher than in HCWs (8.5% vs. 0.19%); the main risk factor was anti-CD20 therapy. Conclusions: Being older than 50 years and receiving csDMARDs were shown to be protective factors for BI, whereas anti-IL6R or anti-CD20 therapy increased the risk. Higher neutralising antibody titres were associated with a lower probability of BI. If confirmed in a larger population, the identification of a protective cut-off would allow a personalised risk-benefit therapeutic management of RA patients.

Long-term Real-world Protection Afforded by Third mRNA Doses Against Symptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections, Coronavirus Disease 19-related Emergency Attendances and Hospitalizations Amongst Older Singaporeans During an Omicron XBB Wave

BACKGROUND

Literature on long-term real-world vaccine effectiveness of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) booster vaccines (up to and beyond 360 days) is scarce. We report estimates of protection against symptomatic infection, emergency department (ED) attendances and hospitalizations up to and beyond 360 days post-receipt of booster messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines among Singaporeans aged ≥60 years during an Omicron XBB wave.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cohort study including all Singaporeans aged ≥60 years with no documented prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who had previously received ≥3 doses of mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2/mRNA-1273), over a 4-month period during transmission of Omicron XBB. We reported the adjusted incidence-rate-ratio (IRR) for symptomatic infections, ED attendances and hospitalizations at different time-intervals from both first and second boosters, using Poisson regression; with the reference group being those who received their first booster 90 to 179 days prior.

RESULTS

In total, 506 856 boosted adults were included, contributing 55 846 165 person-days of observation. Protection against symptomatic infections among those who received a third vaccine dose (first booster) waned after 180 days with increasing adjusted IRRs; however, protection against ED attendances and hospitalizations held up, with comparable adjusted IRRs with increasing time from third vaccine doses (≥360 days from third dose: adjusted IRR [ED attendances] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .62-.85; adjusted IRR [hospitalization] = 0.58, 95% CI = .49-.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight the benefit of a booster dose in reducing ED attendances and hospitalizations amongst older adults aged ≥60 years with no documented prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, during an Omicron XBB wave; up to and beyond 360 days post-booster. A second booster provided further reduction.

Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Booster Against Omicron Infection Among Quarantined Close Contacts

Importance

Assessment of additional protection of a booster dose with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is key to developing vaccination strategies for billions of people worldwide who have received the primary 2-dose regimen.

Objective

To estimate the relative effectiveness of a booster dose of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine against Omicron infection.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted among primary close contacts without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection identified in Shenzhen, China, between February and October 2022. Multiple strict nucleic acid testing and symptom surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 infection were regularly conducted during the 7-day centralized plus 7-day home-based quarantine.

Exposure

A booster with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine vs no booster after receipt of the primary 2-dose inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine regimen.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were overall, symptomatic, and asymptomatic infections. Secondary outcomes were length of incubation and level of cycle threshold values. All the outcomes were assessed during the quarantine period.

Results

Among 119 438 eligible participants (mean [SD] age, 37.6 [12.0] years; 66 201 men [55.4%]), 86 251 (72.2%) received a booster dose of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and 33 187 (27.8%) did not. A total of 671 cases infected with Omicron BA.2 were confirmed (464 symptomatic and 207 asymptomatic), and no severe infection or death events were observed. At a median (IQR) duration of 111 (75 to 134) days after booster vaccination, the relative effectiveness of a booster was 32.2% (95% CI, 11.3% to 48.2%) for overall infection, 23.8% (95% CI, -8.2% to 46.4%) for symptomatic infection, and 43.3% (95% CI, 12.3% to 63.3%) for asymptomatic infection. The effectiveness against overall infection changed nonlinearly over time following booster vaccination: 44.9% (95% CI, 4.9% to 68.1%) within 60 days, 50.4% (95% CI, 23.7% to 67.7%) at 61 to 120 days, 29.1% (95% CI, -4.8% to 52.1%) at 121 to 180 days, and 19.4% (95% CI, -14.4% to 43.2%) after 180 days (nonlinear P = .03). The effectiveness did not vary significantly according to the interval between booster vaccination and completion of primary vaccination. There was no association of booster vaccination with incubation or cycle threshold values.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, a booster dose of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine provided additional moderate protection against mild infection for 120 days after receipt, but more research is needed to determine the optimal timing of a booster and its effectiveness in preventing severe infection for a longer duration.

Study of efficacy and antibody duration to fourth-dose booster of Ad5-nCoV or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in Chinese adults: a prospective cohort study

Introduction

China experienced a record surge of coronavirus disease 2019 cases in December 2022, during the pandemic.

Methods

We conducted a randomized, parallel-controlled prospective cohort study to evaluate efficacy and antibody duration after a fourth-dose booster with Ad5-nCoV or inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine.

Results

A total of 191 participants aged ≥18 years who had completed a three-dose regimen of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine 6 months earlier were recruited to receive the intramuscular Ad5-nCoV booster or the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The Ad5-nCoV group had significantly higher antibody levels compared with the inactivated vaccine group at 6 months after the fourth vaccination dose. After the pandemic, the breakthrough infection rate for the Ad5-nCoV and the inactivated vaccine groups was 77.89% and 78.13%, respectively. Survival curve analysis (p = 0.872) and multivariable logistic regression analysis (p = 0.956) showed no statistically significant differences in breakthrough infection between the two groups.

Discussion

Compared with a homologous fourth dose, a heterologous fourth dose of Ad5-nCoV elicited a higher immunogenic response in healthy adults who had been immunized with three doses of inactivated vaccine. Nevertheless, the efficacy of the two vaccine types was equivalent after the pandemic.

Dynamic Trends and Underlying Factors of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy in Adults: Cross-Sectional Observational Study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy reduces vaccination rates, which is detrimental to building herd immunity and halting the spread of COVID-19 and its variations. Most researches have simply identified the reasons affecting COVID-19 vaccination reluctance without delving into its dynamics, which makes forecasting future trends difficult.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the current COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy rate in Chinese adults as well as the dynamics of vaccine hesitancy and its influencing factors. The results of this study will have practical implications for policy responses in mainland China, and effective COVID-19 booster vaccination in specific populations.

METHODS

The web-based survey was completed by creating questionnaires and using a stratified random sampling method to collect information from adults (≥18 years old) among 2556 households in 4 geographical regions of China. We collected sociodemographic information, health status, awareness of COVID-19 and its vaccine, self-perceptions, trust in medical staff and vaccine developers, and so on. The odds ratios and 95% CI for the statistical associations were estimated using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Overall, 6659 participants (females: n=3540, 53.2%; males: n=3119, 46.8%) responded. In total, 533 (8%; 95% CI 7.4%-8.7%) participants presented a clear hesitancy in receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccination, while 736 (11.1%; 95% CI 10.3%-11.8%) expressed hesitancy in regular booster vaccination. A higher prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in both booster vaccination and regular booster vaccination was observed among participants with a history of allergies, experiencing chronic disease, lower levels of public health prevention measures or susceptibility or benefits or self-efficiency, higher levels of severity or barriers, and lower trust in both medical staff and vaccine developers (P<.05). The females and participants with higher education levels, higher levels of barriers, lower levels of susceptibility, and lower trust in vaccine developers preferred to have attitudinal changes from acceptance to hesitancy, while people with higher education levels, lower self-report health conditions, experiencing chronic disease, history of allergies, and lower trust in medical staff and developers were all positively associated with constant COVID-19 booster hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy is not high in mainland China. However, there is a slight increment in hesitancy on regular booster vaccination. Conducting targeted information guidance for people with higher education levels and chronic diseases, as well as improving accessibility to booster vaccination and increasing trust in medical staff and vaccine producers may be highly effective in reducing vaccine hesitancy.

Comparative effectiveness of bivalent BA.4-5 and BA.1 mRNA booster vaccines among adults aged ≥50 years in Nordic countries: nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effectiveness of the bivalent mRNA booster vaccines containing the original SARS-CoV-2 and omicron BA.4-5 or BA.1 subvariants as the fourth dose against severe covid-19.

DESIGN

Nationwide cohort analyses, using target trial emulation.

SETTING

Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, from 1 July 2022 to 10 April 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

People aged ≥50 years who had received at least three doses of covid-19 vaccine (that is, a primary course and a first booster).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to compare the risk of hospital admission and death related to covid-19 in people who received a bivalent Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) BA.4-5 or BA.1 mRNA booster vaccine as a fourth dose (second booster) with three dose (first booster) vaccinated people and between four dose vaccinated people.

RESULTS

A total of 1 634 199 people receiving bivalent BA.4-5 fourth dose booster and 1 042 124 receiving bivalent BA.1 fourth dose booster across the four Nordic countries were included. Receipt of a bivalent BA.4-5 booster as a fourth dose was associated with a comparative vaccine effectiveness against admission to hospital with covid-19 of 67.8% (95% confidence interval 63.1% to 72.5%) and a risk difference of -91.9 (95% confidence interval -152.4 to -31.4) per 100 000 people at three months of follow-up compared with having received three doses of vaccine (289 v 893 events). The corresponding comparative vaccine effectiveness and risk difference for bivalent BA.1 boosters (332 v 977 events) were 65.8% (59.1% to 72.4%) and -112.9 (-179.6 to -46.2) per 100 000, respectively. Comparative vaccine effectiveness and risk difference against covid-19 related death were 69.8% (52.8% to 86.8%) and -34.1 (-40.1 to -28.2) per 100 000 for bivalent BA.4-5 booster (93 v 325 events) and 70.0% (50.3% to 89.7%) and -38.7 (-65.4 to -12.0) per 100 000 for BA.1 booster (86 v 286) as a fourth dose. Comparing bivalent BA.4-5 and BA.1 boosters as a fourth dose directly resulted in a three month comparative vaccine effectiveness and corresponding risk difference of -14.9% (-62.3% to 32.4%) and 10.0 (-14.4 to 34.4) per 100 000 people for admission to hospital with covid-19 (802 v 932 unweighted events) and -40.7% (-123.4% to 42.1%) and 8.1 (-3.3 to 19.4) per 100 000 for covid-19 related death (229 v 243 unweighted events). The comparative vaccine effectiveness did not differ across sex and age (</≥70 years) and seemed to be sustained up to six months from the day of vaccination with modest waning.

CONCLUSION

Vaccination with bivalent BA.4-5 or BA.1 mRNA booster vaccines as a fourth dose was associated with reduced rates of covid-19 related hospital admission and death among adults aged ≥50 years. The protection afforded by the bivalent BA.4-5 and BA.1 boosters did not differ significantly when directly compared, and any potential difference would most likely be very small in absolute numbers.

Comparative effectiveness of heterologous third dose vaccine schedules against severe covid-19 during omicron predominance in Nordic countries: population based cohort analyses

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the comparative vaccine effectiveness of heterologous booster schedules (ie, three vaccine doses) compared with primary schedules (two vaccine doses) and with homologous mRNA vaccine booster schedules (three vaccine doses) during a period of omicron predominance.

DESIGN

Population based cohort analyses.

SETTING

Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 27 December 2020 to 31 December 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

All adults aged ≥18 years who had received at least a primary vaccination schedule of AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) or monovalent SARS-CoV-2 wild type (ancestral) strain based mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna), in any combination.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measure was country combined risks of covid-19 related hospital admission and death with covid-19 and additional outcomes of covid-19 related admission to an intensive care unit and SARS-CoV-2 infection. During a period of omicron predominance, these outcomes were compared in those who received a heterologous booster versus primary schedule (matched analyses) and versus those who received a homologous mRNA vaccine booster (weighted analyses). Follow-up was for 75 days from day 14 after the booster dose; comparative vaccine effectiveness was calculated as 1-risk ratio.

RESULTS

Across the four Nordic countries, 1 086 418 participants had received a heterologous booster schedule of AZD1222+BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 and 2 505 093 had received a heterologous booster schedule of BNT162b2+mRNA-1273. Compared with the primary schedule only (two doses), the vaccine effectiveness of heterologous booster schedules comprising AZD1222+BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2+mRNA-1273 was 82.7% (95% confidence interval 77.1% to 88.2%) and 81.5% (78.9% to 84.2%) for covid-19 related hospital admission and 95.9% (91.6% to 100.0%) and 87.5% (82.5% to 92.6%) for death with covid-19, respectively. Homologous mRNA booster schedules were similarly associated with increased protection against covid-19 related hospital admission (≥76.5%) and death with covid-19 (≥84.1%) compared with previous primary course vaccination only. When a heterologous booster schedule was compared with the homologous booster schedule, vaccine effectiveness was 27.2% (3.7% to 50.6%) for AZD1222+BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 and 23.3% (15.8% to 30.8%) for BNT162b2+mRNA-1273 schedules against covid-19 related hospital admission and 21.7% (-8.3% to 51.7%) and 18.4% (-15.7% to 52.5%) against death with covid-19, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Heterologous booster schedules are associated with increased protection against severe, omicron related covid-19 outcomes compared with primary course schedules and homologous booster schedules.

Intranasal Single-Replication Influenza Vector Induces Cross-Reactive Serum and Mucosal Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Variants

Current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines provide protection for COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death, but remain inefficient at inhibiting initial infection and transmission. Despite updated booster formulations, breakthrough infections and reinfections from emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants are common. Intranasal vaccination to elicit mucosal immunity at the site of infection can improve the performance of respiratory virus vaccines. We developed SARS-CoV-2 M2SR, a dual SARS-CoV-2 and influenza vaccine candidate, employing our live intranasal M2-deficient single replication (M2SR) influenza vector expressing the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein of the prototype strain, first reported in January 2020. The intranasal vaccination of mice with this dual vaccine elicits both high serum IgG and mucosal IgA titers to RBD. Sera from inoculated mice show that vaccinated mice develop neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers against the prototype and Delta virus strains, which are considered to be sufficient to protect against viral infection. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 M2SR elicited cross-reactive serum and mucosal antibodies to the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 variant. The SARS-CoV-2 M2SR vaccine also maintained strong immune responses to influenza A with high titers of anti H3 serum IgG and hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody titers corresponding to those seen from the control M2SR vector alone. With a proven safety record and robust immunological profile in humans that includes mucosal immunity, the M2SR influenza viral vector expressing key SARS-CoV-2 antigens could provide more efficient protection against influenza and SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Selection Effects and COVID-19 Mortality Risk after Pfizer vs. Moderna Vaccination: Evidence from Linked Mortality and Vaccination Records

Prior research generally finds that the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA1273) COVID-19 vaccines provide similar protection against mortality, sometimes with a Moderna advantage due to slower waning. However, most comparisons do not address selection effects for those who are vaccinated and with which vaccine. We report evidence on large selection effects, and use a novel method to control for these effects. Instead of directly studying COVID-19 mortality, we study the COVID-19 excess mortality percentage (CEMP), defined as the COVID-19 deaths divided by non-COVID-19 natural deaths for the same population, converted to a percentage. The CEMP measure uses non-COVID-19 natural deaths to proxy for population health and control for selection effects. We report the relative mortality risk (RMR) for each vaccine relative to the unvaccinated population and to the other vaccine, using linked mortality and vaccination records for all adults in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, from 1 April 2021 through 30 June 2022. For two-dose vaccinees aged 60+, RMRs for Pfizer vaccinees were consistently over twice those for Moderna, and averaged 248% of Moderna (95% CI = 175%,353%). In the Omicron period, Pfizer RMR was 57% versus 23% for Moderna. Both vaccines demonstrated waning of two-dose effectiveness over time, especially for ages 60+. For booster recipients, the Pfizer-Moderna gap is much smaller and statistically insignificant. A possible explanation for the Moderna advantage for older persons is the higher Moderna dose of 100 μg, versus 30 μg for Pfizer. Younger persons (aged 18-59) were well-protected against death by two doses of either vaccine, and highly protected by three doses (no deaths among over 100,000 vaccinees). These results support the importance of a booster dose for ages 60+, especially for Pfizer recipients. They suggest, but do not prove, that a larger vaccine dose may be appropriate for older persons than for younger persons.

SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections According to the Immune Response Elicited after mRNA Third Dose Vaccination in COVID-19-Naïve Hospital Personnel

BACKGROUND

Vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2-anti-spike antibody (anti-S/RBD) titers are often used as a marker of immune protection and to anticipate the risk of breakthrough infections, although no clear cut-off is available. We describe the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infections in COVID-19-free personnel of our hospital, according to B- and T-cell immune response elicited one month after mRNA third dose vaccination.

METHODS

The study included 487 individuals for whom data on anti-S/RBD were available. Neutralizing antibody titers (nAbsT) against the ancestral Whuan SARS-CoV-2, and the BA.1 Omicron variant, and SARS-CoV-2 T-cell specific response were measured in subsets of 197 (40.5%), 159 (32.6%), and 127 (26.1%) individuals, respectively.

RESULTS

On a total of 92,063 days of observation, 204 participants (42%) had SARS-CoV-2 infection. No significant differences in the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection for different levels of anti-S/RBD, nAbsT, Omicron nAbsT, or SARS-CoV-2 T cell specific response, and no protective thresholds for infection were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine testing for vaccine-induced humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is not recommended if measured as parameters of 'protective immunity' from SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination. Whether these findings apply to new Omicron-specific bivalent vaccines is going to be evaluated.

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests Based on Symptom Onset and Close Contact Exposure: A secondary analysis from the Test Us At Home prospective cohort study

Background

The performance of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 (Ag-RDT) in temporal relation to symptom onset or exposure is unknown, as is the impact of vaccination on this relationship.

Objective

To evaluate the performance of Ag-RDT compared with RT-PCR based on day after symptom onset or exposure in order to decide on 'when to test'.

Design Setting and Participants

The Test Us at Home study was a longitudinal cohort study that enrolled participants over 2 years old across the United States between October 18, 2021 and February 4, 2022. All participants were asked to conduct Ag-RDT and RT-PCR testing every 48 hours over a 15-day period. Participants with one or more symptoms during the study period were included in the Day Post Symptom Onset (DPSO) analyses, while those who reported a COVID-19 exposure were included in the Day Post Exposure (DPE) analysis.

Exposure

Participants were asked to self-report any symptoms or known exposures to SARS-CoV-2 every 48-hours, immediately prior to conducting Ag-RDT and RT-PCR testing. The first day a participant reported one or more symptoms was termed DPSO 0, and the day of exposure was DPE 0. Vaccination status was self-reported.

Main Outcome and Measures

Results of Ag-RDT were self-reported (positive, negative, or invalid) and RT-PCR results were analyzed by a central laboratory. Percent positivity of SARS-CoV-2 and sensitivity of Ag-RDT and RT-PCR by DPSO and DPE were stratified by vaccination status and calculated with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 7,361 participants enrolled in the study. Among them, 2,086 (28.3%) and 546 (7.4%) participants were eligible for the DPSO and DPE analyses, respectively. Unvaccinated participants were nearly twice as likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than vaccinated participants in event of symptoms (PCR+: 27.6% vs 10.1%) or exposure (PCR+: 43.8% vs. 22.2%). The highest proportion of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals tested positive on DPSO 2 and DPE 5-8. Performance of RT-PCR and Ag-RDT did not differ by vaccination status. Ag-RDT detected 78.0% (95% Confidence Interval: 72.56-82.61) of PCR-confirmed infections by DPSO 4. For exposed participants, Ag-RDT detected 84.9% (95% CI: 75.0-91.4) of PCR-confirmed infections by day five post-exposure (DPE 5).

Conclusions and Relevance

Performance of Ag-RDT and RT-PCR was highest on DPSO 0-2 and DPE 5 and did not differ by vaccination status. These data suggests that serial testing remains integral to enhancing the performance of Ag-RDT.

Effectiveness of full (booster) COVID-19 vaccination against severe outcomes and work absenteeism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during the Delta and Omicron waves in Greece

AIM

We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of full (booster) vaccination against severe outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the Delta and Omicron waves.

METHODS

The study extended from November 15, 2021 to April 17, 2022. Full vaccination was defined as a primary vaccination plus a booster ≥ 6 months later.

RESULTS

We studied 1138 patients (mean age: 66.6 years), of whom 826 (72.6 %) had > 1 comorbidity. Of the 1138 patients, 75 (6.6 %) were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU), 64 (5.6 %) received mechanical ventilation, and 172 (15.1 %) died. There were 386 (33.9 %) fully vaccinated, 172 (15.1 %) partially vaccinated, and 580 (51 %) unvaccinated patients. Unvaccinated patients were absent from work for longer periods compared to partially or fully vaccinated patients (mean absence of 20.1 days versus 12.3 and 17.3 days, respectively; p-value = 0.03). Compared to unvaccinated patients, fully vaccinated patients were less likely to be admitted to ICU [adjusted relative risk (ARR: 0.49; 95 % CI: 0.29-0.84)], mechanically ventilated (ARR: 0.43; 95 % CI: 0.23-0.80), and die (ARR: 0.57; 95 % CI: 0.42-0.78), while they were hospitalized for significantly shorter periods (ARR: 0.79; 95 % CI: 0.70-0.89). The adjusted full VE was 48.8 % (95 % CI: 42.7 %-54.9 %) against ICU admission, 55.4 % (95 % CI: 52.0 %-56.2 %) against mechanical ventilation, and 22.6 % (95 % CI: 7.4 %-34.8 %) against death. For patients with ≥ 3 comorbidities, VE was 56.2 % (95 % CI: 43.9 %-67.1 %) against ICU admission, 60.2 % (95 % CI: 53.7 %-65.4 %) against mechanical ventilation, and 43.9 % (95 % CI: 19.9 %-59.7 %) against death.

CONCLUSIONS

Full (booster) COVID-19 vaccination conferred protection against severe outcomes, prolonged hospitalization, and prolonged work absenteeism.

The impact of vaccination and outpatient treatment on the economic burden of Covid-19 in the United States omicron era: a systematic literature review

AIMS

To identify and synthesize evidence regarding how coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) interventions, including vaccines and outpatient treatments, have impacted healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs in the United States (US) during the Omicron era.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify articles published between 1 January 2021 and 10 March 2023 that assessed the impact of vaccination and outpatient treatment on costs and HCRU outcomes associated with COVID-19. Screening was performed by two independent researchers using predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight unique studies were included in the SLR, of which all reported HCRU outcomes, and one reported costs. Overall, there was a significant reduction in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization for patients who received an original monovalent primary series vaccine plus booster dose vs. no vaccination. Moreover, receipt of a booster vaccine was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization vs. primary series vaccination. Evidence also indicated a significantly reduced risk of hospitalizations among recipients of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r), remdesivir, sotrovimab, and molnupiravir compared to non-recipients. Treated and/or vaccinated patients also experienced reductions in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay, and emergency department (ED)/urgent care clinic encounters.

LIMITATIONS

The identified studies may not represent unique patient populations as many utilized the same regional/national data sources. Synthesis of the evidence was also limited by differences in populations, outcome definitions, and varying duration of follow-up across studies. Additionally, significant gaps, including HCRU associated with long COVID and various high-risk populations and cost data, were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence gaps, findings from the SLR highlight the significant positive impact that vaccination and outpatient treatment have had on HCRU in the US, including periods of Omicron predominance. Continued research is needed to inform clinical and policy decision-making in the US as COVID-19 continues to evolve as an endemic disease.

Effectiveness of mRNA Booster Vaccination Against Mild, Moderate, and Severe COVID-19 Caused by the Omicron Variant in a Large, Population-Based, Norwegian Cohort

BACKGROUND

Understanding how booster vaccination can prevent moderate and severe illness without hospitalization is crucial to evaluate the full advantage of mRNA boosters.

METHODS

We followed 85 801 participants (aged 31-81 years) in 2 large population-based cohorts during the Omicron BA.1/2 wave. Information on home testing, PCR testing, and symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was extracted from biweekly questionnaires covering the period 12 January 2022 to 7 April 2022. Vaccination status and data on previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were obtained from national registries. Cox regression was used to estimate the effectiveness of booster vaccination compared to receipt of 2-dose primary series >130 days previously.

RESULTS

The effectiveness of booster vaccination increased with increasing severity of COVID-19 and decreased with time since booster vaccination. The effectiveness against severe COVID-19 was reduced from 80.9% shortly after booster vaccination to 63.4% in the period >90 days after vaccination. There was hardly any effect against mild COVID-19. The effectiveness tended to be lower among subjects aged ≥60 years than those aged <50 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first population-based study to evaluate booster effectiveness against self-reported mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19. Our findings contribute valuable information on duration of protection and thus timing of additional booster vaccinations.