Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38115965›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2023

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation estimated using a test-negative case-control study design, and comparative odds of hospital admission and severe outcomes with COVID-19 sub-lineages BQ.1, CH.1.1. and XBB.1.5 in England.

Freja Cordelia Møller Kirsebom, Katie Harman, Rachel Jayne Lunt, Nick Andrews, Natalie Groves, Nurin Abdul Aziz, Russell Hope, Julia Stowe, Meera Chand, Mary Ramsay and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Integrating Genomic Data into Test-negative Designs for Estimating Lineage-specific COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Public Health Benefits of Applying Evidence-Based Best Practices in Managing Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Article
  11. Relative effectiveness of bivalent boosters against severe COVID-19 outcomes among people aged ≥ 65 years in Finland, September 2022 to August 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Freja Cordelia Møller KirsebomUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Katie HarmanUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Rachel Jayne LuntUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Nick AndrewsUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Natalie GrovesUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Nurin Abdul AzizUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Russell HopeUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Julia StoweUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Meera ChandUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Mary RamsayUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Gavin DabreraUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Meaghan KallUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Jamie Lopez BernalUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
UK Health Security Agency · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Since the first emergence of Omicron BA.1 in England in November 2021, numerous sub-lineages have evolved. In September 2022, BA.5 dominated. The prevalence of BQ.1 increased from October, while the prevalence of CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5 increased from December 2022 and January 2023, respectively. Little is known about the effectiveness of the vaccines against hospitalisation with these sub-lineages, nor the relative severity, so we here used national-level electronic health records from England to estimate vaccine effectiveness and variant severity. Methods: The study period for tests contributing to all analyses was from 5th December 2022 to 2nd April 2023, when the variants of interest were co-circulating. A test-negative case-control study was used to estimate the incremental effectiveness of the bivalent BA.1 booster vaccines against hospitalisation, relative to those with waned immunity where the last dose was at least 6 months prior. The odds of hospital admission for those testing PCR positive on the day of an attendance to accident and emergency departments and the odds of intensive care unit admission or death amongst COVID-19 admissions were compared between variants. Additionally, a Cox proportional hazards survival regression was used to investigate length of stay amongst hospitalised cases by variant. Findings: Our vaccine effectiveness study included 191,229 eligible tests with 1647 BQ.1 cases, 877 CH.1.1 cases, 1357 XBB.1.5 cases and 187,348 test negative controls. There was no difference in incremental vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with BQ.1, CH.1.1 or XBB.1.5, nor was there a difference in the severity of these variants. Effectiveness against hospitalisation was 48.0% (95% C.I.; 38.5-56.0%), 29.7% (95% C.I.; 7.5-46.6%) and 52.7% (95% C.I.; 24.6-70.4%) against BQ.1, CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5, respectively, at 5-9 weeks post booster vaccination. Compared to BQ.1, the odds of hospital admission were 0.87 (95% C.I.; 0.77-0.99) and 0.88 (95% C.I.; 0.75-1.02) for CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5 cases attending accident and emergency departments, respectively. There was no significant difference in the odds of admission to intensive care units or death for those with CH.1.1 (OR 0.96, 95% C.I.; 0.71-1.30) or XBB.1.5 (OR 0.67, 95% C.I.; 0.44-1.02) compared to BQ.1. There was also no significant difference in the length of hospital stay by variant. Interpretation: Together, these results provide reassuring evidence that the bivalent BA.1 booster vaccines provide similar protection against hospitalisation with BQ.1, CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5, and that the emergent CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5 sub-lineages do not cause more severe disease than BQ.1. Funding: None.

Indexed as

COVID-19OmicronTest-negative case-controlVaccine effectivenessVariant severity

Identifiers

PMID38115965
PMCPMC10730318
OpenAlexW4387954954

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.