• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Int J Epidemiol . Comparative effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA-based booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections:

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Int J Epidemiol


. 2023 Jan 19;dyad002.
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyad002. Online ahead of print.
Comparative effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA-based booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections: a time-varying cohort analysis using trial emulation in the Virus Watch community cohort


Vincent Grigori Nguyen[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Alexei Yavlinsky[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sarah Beale[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Susan Hoskins[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Thomas E Byrne[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Vasileios Lampos[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Isobel Braithwaite[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Wing Lam Erica Fong[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Ellen Fragaszy[SUP] 1 4 [/SUP], Cyril Geismar[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jana Kovar[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Annalan M D Navaratnam[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Parth Patel[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Madhumita Shrotri[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sophie Weber[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Andrew C Hayward[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Robert W Aldridge[SUP] 1 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: The Omicron B.1.1.529 variant increased severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in doubly vaccinated individuals, particularly in the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1) recipients. To tackle infections, the UK's booster vaccination programmes used messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines irrespective of an individual's primary course vaccine type, and prioritized the clinically vulnerable. These mRNA vaccines included the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273). There is limited understanding of the effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections and how time-varying confounders affect these evaluations.
Methods: Trial emulation was applied to a prospective community observational cohort in England and Wales to reduce time-varying confounding-by-indication driven by prioritizing vaccination based upon age, vulnerability and exposure. Trial emulation was conducted by meta-analysing eight adult cohort results whose booster vaccinations were staggered between 16 September 2021 and 05 January 2022 and followed until 23 January 2022. Time from booster vaccination until SARS-CoV-2 infection, loss of follow-up or end of study was modelled using Cox proportional hazard models and adjusted for age, sex, minority ethnic status, clinically vulnerability and deprivation.
Results: A total of 19 159 participants were analysed, with 11 709 ChAdOx1 primary courses and 7450 BNT162b2 primary courses. Median age, clinical vulnerability status and infection rates fluctuate through time. In mRNA-boosted adults, 7.4% (n = 863) of boosted adults with a ChAdOx1 primary course experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with 7.7% (n = 571) of those who had BNT162b2 as a primary course. The pooled adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 1.01 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of: 0.90 to 1.13.
Conclusion: After an mRNA booster dose, we found no difference in protection comparing those with a primary course of BNT162b2 with those with a ChAdOx1 primary course. This contrasts with pre-booster findings where previous research shows greater effectiveness of BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1 in preventing infection.

Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; mRNA booster vaccination; time-varying confounding-by-indication; trial emulation.
 
Back
Top Bottom