Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37828565›Full record

ArticleRespiratory research2023

Effectiveness of the booster dose of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine against Omicron BA.5 infection: a matched cohort study of adult close contacts.

Ting Zeng, Yaoqin Lu, Yanji Zhao, Zihao Guo, Shengzhi Sun, Zhidong Teng, Maozai Tian, Jun Wang, Shulin Li, Xucheng Fan and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Respiratory research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

17 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Ting Zeng *School of Public Health, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, 830017, China.
Yaoqin Lu *School of Public Health, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, 830017, China.
Yanji Zhao *Department of Applied Mathematics, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, 999077, China.
Zihao Guo *JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 999077, China.
Shengzhi SunSchool of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China.
Zhidong TengDepartment of Medical Engineering and Technology, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, 830017, China.
Maozai TianDepartment of Medical Engineering and Technology, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, 830017, China. mztian@ruc.edu.cn.
Jun WangUrumqi Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Urumqi, 830026, China.
Shulin LiUrumqi Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Urumqi, 830026, China.
Xucheng FanUrumqi Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Urumqi, 830026, China.
Weiming WangSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, Huaiyin Normal University, Huaian, 223300, China.
Yongli CaiSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, Huaiyin Normal University, Huaian, 223300, China.
Gengze LiaoJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 999077, China.
Xiao LiangDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, 999077, China.
Daihai HeDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, 999077, China.
Kai WangDepartment of Medical Engineering and Technology, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, 830017, China. wangkaimath@sina.com.
Shi ZhaoCentre for Health Systems and Policy Research, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 999077, China. zhaoshi.cmsa@gmail.com.
Xinjiang Medical University · CNChinese University of Hong Kong · CNHong Kong Polytechnic University · HKXinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Disease Prevention and Control Center · CNHuaiyin Normal University · CNCapital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough COVID-19 vaccines and their booster regimens protect against symptomatic infections and severe outcomes, there is limited evidence about their protection against asymptomatic and symptomatic infections in real-world settings, particularly when considering that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infections were asymptomatic. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the booster dose of inactivated vaccines in mainland China, i.e., Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV) and Sinovac (CoronaVac), against Omicron infection in an Omicron BA.5 seeded epidemic.

methodsBased on an infection-naive but highly vaccinated population in Urumqi, China, the study cohort comprised all 37,628 adults who had a contact history with individuals having SARS-CoV-2 infections, i.e., close contacts, between August 1 and September 7, 2022. To actively detect SARS-CoV-2 infections, RT-PCR tests were performed by local authorities on a daily basis for all close contacts, and a testing-positive status was considered a laboratory-confirmed outcome. The cohort of close contacts was matched at a ratio of 1:5 with the fully vaccinated (i.e., 2 doses) and booster vaccinated groups (i.e., 3 doses) according to sex, age strata, calendar date, and contact settings. Multivariate conditional logistic regression models were adopted to estimate the marginal effectiveness of the booster dose against Omicron BA.5 infection after adjusting for confounding variables. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) in different strata of sex, age, the time lag from the last vaccine dose to exposure, and the vaccination status of the source case. Kaplan-Meier curves were employed to visualize the follow-up process and testing outcomes among different subgroups of the matched cohort.

findingsBefore matching, 37,099 adult close contacts were eligible for cohort enrolment. After matching, the 2-dose and 3-dose groups included 3317 and 16,051 contacts, and the proportions with Omicron infections were 1.03% and 0.62% among contacts in the 2-dose and 3-dose groups, respectively. We estimated that the adjusted effectiveness of the inactivated booster vaccine versus 2 doses against Omicron infection was 35.5% (95% CI 2.0, 57.5). The booster dose provided a higher level of protection, with an effectiveness of 60.2% (95% CI 22.8, 79.5) for 15-180 days after vaccination, but this VE decreased to 35.0% (95% CI 2.8, 56.5) after 180 days. Evidence for the protection of the booster dose was detected among young adults aged 18-39 years, but was not detected for those aged 40 years or older.

interpretationThe receipt of the inactivated vaccine booster dose was associated with a significantly lower Omicron infection risk, and our findings confirmed the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of booster doses against Omicron BA.5 variants. Given the rapid evolution of SARS-CoV-2, we highlight the importance of continuously monitoring the protective performance of vaccines against the genetic variants of SARS-CoV-2, regardless of existing vaccine coverage.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesCohort StudiesHumansSARS-CoV-2Vaccines, InactivatedYoung AdultBIBP COVID-19 vaccineCOVID-19 Vaccinessinovac COVID-19 vaccineVaccines, InactivatedAsymptomatic infectionCOVID-19Omicron variantVaccine effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID37828565
PMCPMC10571409
OpenAlexW4387570546

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.