Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine.
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
bivalent vaccine
effectiveness
vaccines
Journal
Open forum infectious diseases
ISSN: 2328-8957
Titre abrégé: Open Forum Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101637045
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
21
12
2022
accepted:
17
04
2023
medline:
5
6
2023
pubmed:
5
6
2023
entrez:
5
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a bivalent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine protects against COVID-19. The study included employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment when the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine first became available. Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 over the following 26 weeks was examined. Protection provided by vaccination (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression, with change in dominant circulating lineages over time accounted for by time-dependent coefficients. The analysis was adjusted for the pandemic phase when the last prior COVID-19 episode occurred and the number of prior vaccine doses. Among 51 017 employees, COVID-19 occurred in 4424 (8.7%) during the study. In multivariable analysis, the bivalent-vaccinated state was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 during the BA.4/5-dominant (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% confidence interval, .63-79]) and the BQ-dominant (0.80 [.69-.94]) phases, but decreased risk was not found during the XBB-dominant phase (0.96 [.82-.1.12]). The estimated vaccine effectiveness was 29% (95% confidence interval, 21%-37%), 20% (6%-31%), and 4% (-12% to 18%), during the BA.4/5-, BQ-, and XBB-dominant phases, respectively. The risk of COVID-19 also increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received. The bivalent COVID-19 vaccine given to working-aged adults afforded modest protection overall against COVID-19 while the BA.4/5 lineages were the dominant circulating strains, afforded less protection when the BQ lineages were dominant, and effectiveness was not demonstrated when the XBB lineages were dominant.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a bivalent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine protects against COVID-19.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
The study included employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment when the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine first became available. Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 over the following 26 weeks was examined. Protection provided by vaccination (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression, with change in dominant circulating lineages over time accounted for by time-dependent coefficients. The analysis was adjusted for the pandemic phase when the last prior COVID-19 episode occurred and the number of prior vaccine doses.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Among 51 017 employees, COVID-19 occurred in 4424 (8.7%) during the study. In multivariable analysis, the bivalent-vaccinated state was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 during the BA.4/5-dominant (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% confidence interval, .63-79]) and the BQ-dominant (0.80 [.69-.94]) phases, but decreased risk was not found during the XBB-dominant phase (0.96 [.82-.1.12]). The estimated vaccine effectiveness was 29% (95% confidence interval, 21%-37%), 20% (6%-31%), and 4% (-12% to 18%), during the BA.4/5-, BQ-, and XBB-dominant phases, respectively. The risk of COVID-19 also increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The bivalent COVID-19 vaccine given to working-aged adults afforded modest protection overall against COVID-19 while the BA.4/5 lineages were the dominant circulating strains, afforded less protection when the BQ lineages were dominant, and effectiveness was not demonstrated when the XBB lineages were dominant.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37274183
doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofad209
pii: ofad209
pmc: PMC10234376
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
ofad209Informations de copyright
© Crown copyright 2023.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: No reported conflicts.
Références
Nature. 2023 Feb;614(7948):521-529
pubmed: 36535326
N Engl J Med. 2022 Mar 31;386(13):1288-1290
pubmed: 35139269
Nat Commun. 2022 Aug 12;13(1):4738
pubmed: 35961956
Clin Infect Dis. 2022 Dec 19;75(12):2169-2177
pubmed: 35476018
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Apr 29;71(17):606-608
pubmed: 35482574
N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 15;384(15):1412-1423
pubmed: 33626250
Sci Immunol. 2023 Jan 27;8(79):eade2798
pubmed: 36548397
Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Jun 30;10(7):
pubmed: 35891214
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Dec 02;71(48):1526-1530
pubmed: 36454688
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 4;384(5):403-416
pubmed: 33378609
Stat Med. 1984 Jan-Mar;3(1):35-44
pubmed: 6729287
Eur J Epidemiol. 2021 Jul;36(7):735-739
pubmed: 34114187
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Feb 11;71(6):206-211
pubmed: 35143464
Clin Infect Dis. 2022 Aug 24;75(1):e662-e671
pubmed: 35028662
Lancet. 2021 May 15;397(10287):1819-1829
pubmed: 33964222
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Aug 1;5(8):e2225320
pubmed: 35921113
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 31;383(27):2603-2615
pubmed: 33301246
Ann Intern Med. 2021 May;174(5):655-662
pubmed: 33481642