ArticleVaccine2023
Effectiveness of second booster compared to first booster and protection conferred by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection against symptomatic Omicron BA.2 and BA.4/5 in France.
Article in Vaccine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protection of Omicron Sub-Lineage Infection Against Reinfection with Another Omicron Sub-Lineage: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression - Worldwide, 2022-2023.China CDC weekly · 2024Article
- mRNA vaccine boosters and impaired immune system response in immune compromised individuals: a narrative review.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2024Review
- COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign.Cureus · 2024Review
- All-cause mortality according to COVID-19 vaccination status: An analysis of the UK office for National statistics public data.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Protection of COVID-19 Vaccination Against Hospitalization During the Era of Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 Predominance: A Nationwide Case-Control Study Based on the French National Health Data System.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In face of evidence of rapid waning of vaccine effectiveness against Omicron and its sub-lineages, a second booster with mRNA vaccines was recommended for the most vulnerable in France. We used a test negative design to estimate the effectiveness of the second booster relative to the first booster and the protection conferred by a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, against symptomatic Omicron BA.2 or BA.4/5. We included symptomatic ≥60 years old individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 in March 21-October 30, 2022. Compared to a 181-210 days old first booster, a second booster restored protection with a relative effectiveness of 41% [95%CI: 39-42%], 7-30 days post-vaccination. This gain in protection was lower than the one observed with the first booster, at equal time points since vaccination. High levels of protection were associated to previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially when the infection was recent and occurred when an antigenic-related variant was dominant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.