Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron and Delta variants in a matched test-negative case-control study among US veterans

Waning effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against inpatient and emergency department encounters

In the United States, most real-world estimates of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness are based on data drawn from large health systems or sentinel populations. More data is needed to understand how the benefits of vaccination may vary across US populations with disparate risk profiles and policy contexts. We aimed to provide estimates of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against moderate and severe outcomes of COVID-19 based on state population-level data sources. Using statewide integrated administrative and clinical data and a test-negative case-control study design, we assessed mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalizations and emergency department visits among adults in South Carolina. We presented estimates of vaccine effectiveness at discrete time intervals for adults who received one, two or three doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine compared to adults who were unvaccinated. We also evaluated changes in vaccine effectiveness over time (waning) for the overall sample and in subgroups defined by age. We showed that while two doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were initially highly effective, vaccine effectiveness waned as time elapsed since the second dose. Compared to protection against hospitalizations, protection against emergency department visits was found to wane more sharply. In all cases, a third dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine conferred significant gains in protection relative to waning protection after two doses. Further, over more than 120 days of follow-up, the data revealed relatively limited waning of vaccine effectiveness after a third dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Effectiveness of the pre-Omicron COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron in reducing infection, hospitalization, severity, and mortality compared to Delta and other variants: A systematic review

Despite widespread mass rollout programs, the rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant called into question the effectiveness of the existing vaccines against infection, hospitalization, severity, and mortality compared to previous variants. This systematic review summarizes and compares the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, with respect to the above outcomes in adults, children, and adolescents. A comprehensive literature search was undertaken on several databases. Only 51 studies met our inclusion criteria, revealing that the protection from primary vaccination against Omicron infection is inferior to protection against Delta and Alpha infections and wanes faster over time. However, mRNA vaccine boosters were reported to reestablish effectiveness, although to a lower extent against Omicron. Nonetheless, primary vaccination was shown to preserve strong protection against Omicron-associated hospitalization, severity, and death, even months after last dose. However, boosters provide more robust and longer-lasting protection against hospitalizations due to Omicron as compared to only primary series.

Emerging heterologous mRNA-based booster strategies within the COVID-19 vaccine landscape

Messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccine platforms used for the development of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 have provided a robust adaptable approach to offer protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, as variants of concern (VoCs), such as omicron and associated sub-variants, emerge, boosting strategies must also adapt to keep pace with the changing landscape. Heterologous vaccination regimens involving the administration of booster vaccines different than the primary vaccination series offer a practical, effective, and safe approach to continue to reduce the global burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To understand the immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety of heterologous mRNA-based vaccination strategies, relevant clinical and real-world observational studies were identified and summarized. Overall, heterologous boosting strategies with mRNA-based vaccines that are currently available and those in development will play an important global role in protecting individuals from COVID-19 caused by emerging VoCs.

Protection of the third-dose and fourth-dose mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has raised concerns regarding waning vaccine-induced immunity and durability. We evaluated protection of the third-dose and fourth-dose mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant and its sublineages.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and other resources (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL PLUS, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, MedRxiv and bioRxiv) were searched until December 2022.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies that assessed the effectiveness of mRNA vaccine booster doses against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes caused by the subvariant.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at different time points after the third-dose and fourth-dose vaccination were extracted. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare VE of the third dose versus the primary series, no vaccination and the fourth dose at different time points. The certainty of the evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

This review included 50 studies. The third-dose VE, compared with the primary series, against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 48.86% (95% CI 44.90% to 52.82%, low certainty) at ≥14 days, and gradually decreased to 38.01% (95% CI 13.90% to 62.13%, very low certainty) at ≥90 days after the third-dose vaccination. The fourth-dose VE peaked at 14-30 days (56.70% (95% CI 50.36% to 63.04%), moderate certainty), then quickly declined at 61-90 days (22% (95% CI 6.40% to 37.60%), low certainty). Compared with no vaccination, the third-dose VE was 75.84% (95% CI 40.56% to 111.12%, low certainty) against BA.1 infection, and 70.41% (95% CI 49.94% to 90.88%, low certainty) against BA.2 infection at ≥7 days after the third-dose vaccination. The third-dose VE against hospitalisation remained stable over time and maintained 79.30% (95% CI 58.65% to 99.94%, moderate certainty) at 91-120 days. The fourth-dose VE up to 60 days was 67.54% (95% CI 59.76% to 75.33%, moderate certainty) for hospitalisation and 77.88% (95% CI 72.55% to 83.21%, moderate certainty) for death.

CONCLUSION

The boosters provided substantial protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes for at least 6 months, although the duration of protection remains uncertain, suggesting the need for a booster dose within 6 months of the third-dose or fourth-dose vaccination. However, the certainty of evidence in our VE estimates varied from very low to moderate, indicating significant heterogeneity among studies that should be considered when interpreting the findings for public health policies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023376698.

Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against Omicron infection and severe events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of test-negative design studies

Background

A rapidly growing body was observed of literature evaluating the vaccine effectiveness (VE) against Omicron in test-negative design studies.

Methods

We systematically searched papers that evaluated VE of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, Scopus, bioRxiv, and medRxiv published from November 26th, 2021, to June 27th, 2022 (full doses and the first booster), and to January 8th, 2023 (the second booster). The pooled VE against Omicron-associated infection and severe events were estimated.

Results

From 2,552 citations identified, 42 articles were included. The first booster provided stronger protection against Omicron than full doses alone, shown by VE estimates of 53.1% (95% CI: 48.0-57.8) vs. 28.6% (95% CI: 18.5-37.4) against infection and 82.5% (95% CI: 77.8-86.2) vs. 57.3% (95% CI: 48.5-64.7) against severe events. The second booster offered strong protection among adults within 60 days of vaccination against infection (VE=53.1%, 95% CI: 48.0-57.8) and severe events (VE=87.3% (95% CI: 75.5-93.4), comparable to the first booster with corresponding VE estimates of 59.9% against infection and 84.8% against severe events. The VE estimates of booster doses against severe events among adults sustained beyond 60 days, 77.6% (95% CI: 69.4-83.6) for first and 85.9% (95% CI: 80.3-89.9) for the second booster. The VE estimates against infection were less sustainable regardless of dose type. Pure mRNA vaccines provided comparable protection to partial mRNA vaccines, but both provided higher protection than non-mRNA vaccines.

Conclusions

One or two SARS-CoV-2 booster doses provide considerable protection against Omicron infection and substantial and sustainable protection against Omicron-induced severe clinical outcomes.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on surgical outcomes after hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery

COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare systems worldwide, causing the postponement or cancellation of millions of elective surgeries. It is essential for hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgeons to well understand the perioperative risk and management of HPB surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the impact of preoperative COVID-19 infection and timing of surgery, the impact of COVID-19 infection on postoperative mortality, the postoperative pulmonary complications in patients with perioperative COVID-19 infection, and the postoperative complications without pulmonary involvement. Perioperative COVID-19 infection increases the risk of postoperative mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Furthermore, in some regions, the COVID-19 vaccine's availability is still limited, leading to an increase in the number of cases and potential medical collapse, which could hinder the improvement of HPB postoperative mortality rates. The timing of surgery for COVID-19 positive patients should be carefully considered, balancing the potential risks of delay with the risks of surgery during the infection.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Real-World Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines against Infection, Symptomatic and Severe COVID-19 Disease Caused by the Omicron Variant (B.1.1.529)

Real-world data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) is limited. This systematic review aimed to investigate the real-world effectiveness and durability of protection conferred by primary course and booster vaccines against confirmed Omicron infection, and severe outcomes. We systematically searched literature up to 1 August 2022. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model to estimate the pooled vaccine effectiveness (VE). Overall, 28 studies were included representing 11 million individuals. The pooled VE against Omicron infection was 20.4% (95%CI: 12.1-28.7%) and 23.4% (95%CI: 13.5-33.3%) against symptomatic infection with variation based on vaccine type and age groups. VE sharply declined from 28.1% (95%CI: 19.1-37.1%) at three months to 3.9% (95%CI: -24.8-32.7%) at six months. Similar trends were observed for symptomatic Omicron infection. A booster dose restored protection against Omicron infection up to 51.1% (95%CI: 43.8-58.3%) and 57.3% (95%CI: 54.0-60.5%) against symptomatic infection within three months; however, this waned to 32.8% (95%CI: 16.8-48.7%) within six months. VE against severe Omicron infection following the primary course was 63.6% (95%CI: 57.5-69.7%) at three months, decreased to 49% (95%CI: 35.7-63.4%) within six months, and increased to 86% after the first or second booster dose.

Global emerging Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2: Impacts, challenges and strategies

Newly emerging variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are continuously posing high global public health concerns and panic resulting in waves of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Depending on the extent of genomic variations, mutations and adaptation, few of the variants gain the ability to spread quickly across many countries, acquire higher virulency and ability to cause severe disease, morbidity and mortality. These variants have been implicated in lessening the efficacy of the current COVID-19 vaccines and immunotherapies resulting in break-through viral infections in vaccinated individuals and recovered patients. Altogether, these could hinder the protective herd immunity to be achieved through the ongoing progressive COVID-19 vaccination. Currently, the only variant of interest of SARS-CoV-2 is Omicron that was first identified in South Africa. In this review, we present the overview on the emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants with a special focus on the Omicron variant, its lineages and hybrid variants. We discuss the hypotheses of the origin, genetic change and underlying molecular mechanism behind higher transmissibility and immune escape of Omicron variant. Major concerns related to Omicron including the efficacy of the current available immunotherapeutics and vaccines, transmissibility, disease severity, and mortality are discussed. In the last part, challenges and strategies to counter Omicron variant, its lineages and hybrid variants amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are presented.

Public misperceptions of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and waning: experimental evidence from Ireland

OBJECTIVES

The study set out to measure public understanding of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) and how effectiveness wanes with time since vaccination. Because perceived VE is a strong predictor of vaccine uptake, measuring perceptions can inform public health policy and communications.

STUDY DESIGN

Online randomised experiment.

METHODS

The study was undertaken in Ireland, which has high vaccination rates. A nationally representative sample (n = 2000) responded to a scenario designed to measure perceptions of COVID-19 VE against mortality. The length of time since vaccination in the scenario was randomly varied across four treatment arms (2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months).

RESULTS

The public underestimates VE, with substantial variation in perceptions. A majority (57%) gave responses implying perceived VE against mortality of 0-85%, i.e., below scientific estimates. Among this group, mean perceived VE was just 49%. Over a quarter (26%) gave responses implying perceived VE greater than 95%, i.e., above scientific estimates. Comparing the four treatment groups, responses took no account of vaccine waning. Perceived VE was actually higher 9 months after vaccination than 2 weeks after vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Despite high vaccination rates, most of the public in Ireland underestimates VE. Furthermore, the general public has not absorbed the concept of vaccine waning in the months following vaccination. Both misperceptions may reduce vaccine uptake, unless public health authorities act to correct them through improved communication.

Measurement of burnout during the prolonged pandemic in the Chinese zero-COVID context: COVID-19 burnout views scale

Burnout is an important public health issue at times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Current measures which focus on work-based burnout have limitations in length and/or relevance. When stepping into the post-pandemic as a new Norm Era, the burnout scale for the general population is urgently needed to fill the gap. This study aimed to develop a COVID-19 Burnout Views Scale (COVID-19 BVS) to measure burnout views of the general public in a Chinese context and examine its psychometric properties. A multiphase approach including literature review, expert consultation, and pilot testing was adopted in developing the scale. The scale was administered to a sample of 1,078 of the general public in Hong Kong with an average age of 34.45 years (SD = 12.47). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses suggested a 5-item unidimensional model of COVID-19 BVS. The CFA results indicated that the COVID-19 BVS had a good model fit, as χ2 (10.054)/5 = 2.01, SRMR = 0.010, CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.031. Five items were maintained in EFA with high internal consistency in terms of Cronbach's α of 0.845 and McDonald's ω coefficient of 0.87, and the corrected item-to-total correlations of 0.512 to 0.789 are way above the acceptable range. The KMO values of 0.841 and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (p < 0.01) verified the normal distribution of the EFA and the adequacy of the EFA sampling. The analyses suggest that the COVID-19 BVS is a promising tool for assessing burnout views on the impacts of the epidemic on the Chinese general populations.

COVID-19 in Older Adults at the Time of the Omicron Variant

Since its outbreak, COVID-19 has had a significant impact on older adults worldwide [...].