Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35131144›Full record

ArticleValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2022

Heterologous COVID-19 Vaccination in Spain: A Case Study of Individual Autonomy in the Real World.

Rafael Dal-Ré, Magí Farré, M Isabel Lucena

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. COVID-19 Health Economics: Looking Back and Scoping the Future.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rafael Dal-RéEpidemiology Unit, Health Research Institute-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: rafael.dalre@quironsalud.es.
Magí FarréClinical Pharmacology, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain; Pharmacology Department, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain; Fundació Institut d'Investigació en Ciències de la Salut Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain.
M Isabel LucenaClinical Pharmacology Service, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMA, Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain; UICEC-IBIMA Plataforma de Investigación Clínica del ISCiii, Málaga, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Madrid, Spain.
Institut d'Investigació en Ciències de la Salut Germans Trias i Pujol · ESUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid · ESUniversidad de Málaga · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Spain, 1.5 million essential < 60-year-old workers were vaccinated with a first AstraZeneca vaccine dose. After assessing the cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia associated to this vaccine, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) supported the administration of 2 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine with no age restrictions. Nevertheless, Spain decided not to administer the second dose of this vaccine to < 60-year-olds. The government sponsored a clinical trial (CombiVacS) to assess the immunogenicity response to a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine dose in adults primed with the AstraZeneca vaccine. The positive results backed the Public Health Commission and the Spanish Ministry of Health to offer the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine as the booster. Nevertheless, regional public health authorities-responsible for administering vaccines-believed that, following the EMA's decision, an AstraZeneca booster dose should be given. The public confrontation of these 2 positions forced the Spanish Health Ministry to request the signature of an informed consent form to those individuals willing to receive the AstraZeneca vaccine booster and rejecting the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine dose. Eventually, it was decided that these essential workers could choose the vaccine but signing an informed consent form. All relevant information was posted on the Ministry of Health and regional health authorities' websites and provided to potential vaccine recipients at vaccination sites. Most individuals (≥ 75%) chose the AstraZeneca vaccine: perhaps because they likely trusted the EMA more than the CombiVacS results. This unprecedented and massive exercise of individual autonomy about the choice of COVID-19 vaccines from 2 different platforms has shown that adequately informed persons can autonomously weigh their options, regardless of government decisions. Exercising individual autonomy may contribute to the success of future COVID-19 booster vaccination campaigns.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAdultCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansMiddle AgedSpainVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesadultsAstraZenecaautonomyCOVID-19heterologous vaccinationmix-and-matchPfizer/BioNTechthrombosis with thrombocytopeniavaccines

Identifiers

PMID35131144
PMCPMC8816848
OpenAlexW4212921118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.