ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024
Effectiveness of COVID-19 XBB.1.5 monovalent mRNA vaccine in Korea: interim analysis.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- COVID-19 Vaccination Strategy and Evidence in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Vaccination Strategies in Respiratory Diseases: Recommendation from AIPO-ITS/ETS, SIMIT, SIP/IRS, and SItI.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) becomes an endemic disease, the virus continues to evolve and become immunologically distinct from previous strains. Immune imprinting has raised concerns about bivalent mRNA vaccines containing both ancestral virus and Omicron variant. To increase efficacy against the predominant strains as of the second half of 2023, the updated vaccine formulation contained only the mRNA of XBB.1.5 sublineage. We conducted a multicenter, test-negative, case-control study to estimate XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine effectiveness (VE) and present the results of an interim analysis with data collected in November 2023. Patients who underwent COVID-19 testing at eight university hospitals were included and matched based on age (19-49, 50-64, and ≥65 years) and sex in a 1:1 ratio. VE was calculated using the adjusted odds ratio derived from multivariable logistic regression. Of the 992 patients included, 49 (5.3%) received the XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine at least 7 days before COVID-19 testing. Patients with COVID-19 (cases) were less likely to have received the XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine (case 3.5% vs. control 7.2%, p=0.019) and to have a history of COVID-19 within 6 months (2.2% vs. 4.6%, p=0.068). In contrast, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be healthcare workers (8.2% vs. 3.0%, p=0.001) and to have chronic neurological diseases (16.7% vs. 11.9%, p=0.048). The adjusted VE of the XBB.1.5 monovalent mRNA vaccine was 56.8% (95% confidence interval: 18.7-77.9%). XBB.1.5 monovalent mRNA vaccine provided significant protection against COVID-19 in the first one to two months after vaccination.
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.