Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37878315›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Booster Against Omicron Infection Among Quarantined Close Contacts.

Di Liu, Siyang Feng, Feng Sha, Yuxue Liao, Xu Xie, Fang Huang, Dongfeng Kong, Zhen Zhang, Zhigao Chen, Nixuan Chen and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

20 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Di LiuShenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Siyang FengShenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shenzhen, China.
Feng ShaShenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Yuxue LiaoShenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shenzhen, China.
Xu XieShenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shenzhen, China.
Fang HuangShenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shenzhen, China.
Dongfeng KongShenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shenzhen, China.
Zhen ZhangShenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shenzhen, China.
Zhigao ChenShenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shenzhen, China.
Nixuan ChenShenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shenzhen, China.
Wei GaoShenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shenzhen, China.
Tiejian FengShenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shenzhen, China.
Ziyi ZhaoShenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Bingli LiShenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Ying LiShenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Fengcai ZhuDepartment of Vaccine Clinical Evaluation, Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, China.
Zhirong YangShenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Qiuying LvShenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shenzhen, China.
Zijian FengDivision of Infectious Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Jinling TangShenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Shenzhen Center for Disease Control and Prevention · CNShenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology · CNChinese Academy of Sciences · CNChinese Center For Disease Control and Prevention · CNJiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention · CNUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Assessment of additional protection of a booster dose with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is key to developing vaccination strategies for billions of people worldwide who have received the primary 2-dose regimen. Objective: To estimate the relative effectiveness of a booster dose of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine against Omicron infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted among primary close contacts without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection identified in Shenzhen, China, between February and October 2022. Multiple strict nucleic acid testing and symptom surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 infection were regularly conducted during the 7-day centralized plus 7-day home-based quarantine. Exposure: A booster with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine vs no booster after receipt of the primary 2-dose inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine regimen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were overall, symptomatic, and asymptomatic infections. Secondary outcomes were length of incubation and level of cycle threshold values. All the outcomes were assessed during the quarantine period. Results: Among 119 438 eligible participants (mean [SD] age, 37.6 [12.0] years; 66 201 men [55.4%]), 86 251 (72.2%) received a booster dose of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and 33 187 (27.8%) did not. A total of 671 cases infected with Omicron BA.2 were confirmed (464 symptomatic and 207 asymptomatic), and no severe infection or death events were observed. At a median (IQR) duration of 111 (75 to 134) days after booster vaccination, the relative effectiveness of a booster was 32.2% (95% CI, 11.3% to 48.2%) for overall infection, 23.8% (95% CI, -8.2% to 46.4%) for symptomatic infection, and 43.3% (95% CI, 12.3% to 63.3%) for asymptomatic infection. The effectiveness against overall infection changed nonlinearly over time following booster vaccination: 44.9% (95% CI, 4.9% to 68.1%) within 60 days, 50.4% (95% CI, 23.7% to 67.7%) at 61 to 120 days, 29.1% (95% CI, -4.8% to 52.1%) at 121 to 180 days, and 19.4% (95% CI, -14.4% to 43.2%) after 180 days (nonlinear P = .03). The effectiveness did not vary significantly according to the interval between booster vaccination and completion of primary vaccination. There was no association of booster vaccination with incubation or cycle threshold values. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, a booster dose of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine provided additional moderate protection against mild infection for 120 days after receipt, but more research is needed to determine the optimal timing of a booster and its effectiveness in preventing severe infection for a longer duration.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAdultAsymptomatic InfectionsCohort StudiesHumansMaleQuarantineSARS-CoV-2COVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID37878315
PMCPMC10600580
OpenAlexW4387931017

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.