Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35405090›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2022

COVID-19 vaccine waning and effectiveness and side-effects of boosters: a prospective community study from the ZOE COVID Study.

Cristina Menni, Anna May, Lorenzo Polidori, Panayiotis Louca, Jonathan Wolf, Joan Capdevila, Christina Hu, Sebastien Ourselin, Claire J Steves, Ana M Valdes and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 210 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
210citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
32.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

210 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 325 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

150 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Cristina MenniDepartment of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: cristina.menni@kcl.a.uk.
Anna MayZoe Limited, London, UK.
Lorenzo PolidoriZoe Limited, London, UK.
Panayiotis LoucaDepartment of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London, UK.
Jonathan WolfZoe Limited, London, UK.
Joan CapdevilaZoe Limited, London, UK.
Christina HuZoe Limited, London, UK.
Sebastien OurselinSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Claire J StevesDepartment of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London, UK.
Ana M ValdesDepartment of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London, UK; Nottingham NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Tim D SpectorDepartment of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: tim.spector@kcl.ac.uk.
King's College London · GBZOE (United Kingdom) · GBNottingham Biomedical Research Centre · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V027883/1Versus ArthritisWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 212904/Z/18/ZWellcome Trust WT203148/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust WT212904/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the surge of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, countries have begun offering COVID-19 vaccine booster doses to high-risk groups and, more recently, to the adult population in general. However, uncertainty remains over how long primary vaccination series remain effective, the ideal timing for booster doses, and the safety of heterologous booster regimens. We aimed to investigate COVID-19 primary vaccine series effectiveness and its waning, and the safety and effectiveness of booster doses, in a UK community setting.

methodsWe used SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates in individuals from a longitudinal, prospective, community-based study (ZOE COVID Study), in which data were self-reported through an app, to assess the effectiveness of three COVID-19 vaccines (ChAdOx1 nCov19 [Oxford-AstraZeneca], BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNtech], and mRNA1273 [Moderna]) against infection in the 8 months after completion of primary vaccination series. In individuals receiving boosters, we investigated vaccine effectiveness and reactogenicity, by assessing 16 self-reported systemic and localised side-effects. We used multivariate Poisson regression models adjusting for confounders to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

findingsWe included 620 793 participants who received two vaccine doses (204 731 [33·0%] received BNT162b2, 405 239 [65·3%] received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 10 823 [1·7%] received mRNA-1273) and subsequently had a SARS-CoV-2 test result between May 23 (chosen to exclude the period of alpha [B.1.1.7] variant dominance) and Nov 23, 2021. 62 172 (10·0%) vaccinated individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were compared with 40 345 unvaccinated controls (6726 [16·7%] of whom tested positive). Vaccine effectiveness waned after the second dose: at 5 months, BNT162b2 effectiveness was 82·1% (95% CI 81·3-82·9), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 effectiveness was 75·7% (74·9-76·4), and mRNA-1273 effectiveness was 84·3% (81·2-86·9). Vaccine effectiveness decreased more among individuals aged 55 years or older and among those with comorbidities. 135 932 individuals aged 55 years or older received a booster (2123 [1·6%] of whom tested positive). Vaccine effectiveness for booster doses in 0-3 months after BNT162b2 primary vaccination was higher than 92·5%, and effectiveness for heterologous boosters after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was at least 88·8%. For the booster reactogenicity analysis, in 317 011 participants, the most common systemic symptom was fatigue (in 31 881 [10·1%] participants) and the most common local symptom was tenderness (in 187 767 [59·2%]). Systemic side-effects were more common for heterologous schedules (32 632 [17·9%] of 182 374) than for homologous schedules (17 707 [13·2%] of 134 637; odds ratio 1·5, 95% CI 1·5-1·6, p<0·0001).

interpretationAfter 5 months, vaccine effectiveness remained high among individuals younger than 55 years. Booster doses restore vaccine effectiveness. Adverse reactions after booster doses were similar to those after the second dose. Homologous booster schedules had fewer reported systemic side-effects than heterologous boosters.

fundingWellcome Trust, ZOE, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Medical Research Council.

Indexed as

COVID-19Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAdultBNT162 VaccineChAdOx1 nCoV-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansImmunization, SecondaryProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2BNT162 VaccineChAdOx1 nCoV-19COVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID35405090
PMCPMC8993156
OpenAlexW4225745323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.