Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38037728›Full record

ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2023

Relative vaccine effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 boosters in people aged at least 75 years during the spring-summer (monovalent vaccine) and autumn-winter (bivalent vaccine) booster campaigns: a prospective test negative case-control study, United Kingdom, 2022.

Anastasia Chatzilena, Catherine Hyams, Rob Challen, Robin Marlow, Jade King, David Adegbite, Jane Kinney, Madeleine Clout, Nick Maskell, Jennifer Oliver and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 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
2.9field-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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anastasia ChatzilenaThese authors contributed equally to this work and share first/last authorship.
Catherine HyamsThese authors contributed equally to this work and share first/last authorship.
Rob ChallenBristol Vaccine Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Robin MarlowPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Jade KingClinical Research and Imaging Centre, UHBW NHS Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.
David AdegbiteBristol Vaccine Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Jane KinneyBristol Vaccine Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Madeleine CloutBristol Vaccine Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Nick MaskellAcademic Respiratory Unit, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Jennifer OliverBristol Vaccine Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Adam FinnThese authors contributed equally to this work and share first/last authorship.
Leon DanonThese authors contributed equally to this work and share first/last authorship.
Avon CAP Research GroupThe members of the group are listed under Acknowledgements.
University of Bristol · GBSouthmead Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundUnderstanding the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of new COVID-19 vaccine formulations against SARS-CoV-2 infection is a public health priority. A precise analysis of the rVE of monovalent and bivalent boosters given during the 2022 spring-summer and autumn-winter campaigns, respectively, in a defined population remains of interest.AimWe assessed rVE against hospitalisation for the spring-summer (fourth vs third monovalent mRNA vaccine doses) and autumn-winter (fifth BA.1/ancestral bivalent vs fourth monovalent mRNA vaccine dose) boosters.MethodsWe performed a prospective single-centre test-negative design case-control study in ≥ 75-year-old people hospitalised with COVID-19 or other acute respiratory disease. We conducted regression analyses controlling for age, sex, socioeconomic status, patient comorbidities, community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, vaccine brand and time between baseline dose and hospitalisation.ResultsWe included 682 controls and 182 cases in the spring-summer booster analysis and 572 controls and 152 cases in the autumn-winter booster analysis. A monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as fourth dose showed 46.6% rVE (95% confidence interval (CI): 13.9-67.1) vs those not fully boosted. A bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as fifth dose had 46.7% rVE (95% CI: 18.0-65.1), compared with a fourth monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose.ConclusionsBoth fourth monovalent and fifth BA.1/ancestral mRNA bivalent COVID-19 vaccine doses demonstrated benefit as a booster in older adults. Bivalent mRNA boosters offered similar protection against hospitalisation with Omicron infection to monovalent mRNA boosters given earlier in the year. These findings support immunisation programmes in several European countries that advised the use of BA.1/ancestral bivalent booster doses.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAgedCase-Control StudiesCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2United KingdomVaccine EfficacyVaccines, CombinedCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesVaccines, CombinedCOVID-19respiratory infectionSARS-CoV-2vaccination

Identifiers

PMID38037728
PMCPMC10690860
OpenAlexW4389237502

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.