Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39240827›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Primary series COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among health care workers in the country of Georgia, March-December 2021.

Mark A Katz, Madelyn Yiseth Rojas Castro, Giorgi Chakhunashvili, Nazibrola Chitadze, Caleb L Ward, C Jason McKnight, Héloïse Lucaccioni, Iris Finci, Tamila Zardiashvili, Richard Pebody and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors.

Mark A KatzWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5532-7276
Madelyn Yiseth Rojas CastroEpiconcept, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7006-7946
Giorgi ChakhunashviliNational Center for Disease Control and Public Health, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Nazibrola ChitadzeNational Center for Disease Control and Public Health, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Caleb L WardPublic Health Institute, Tbilisi, Georgia.
C Jason McKnightSouth Caucasus Hub, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Héloïse LucaccioniEuropean Programme for Intervention Epidemiology Training, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3080-9794
Iris FinciWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tamila ZardiashviliWHO Country Office in Georgia, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Richard PebodyWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Esther KisslingEpiconcept, Paris, France.
Lia SanodzeNational Center for Disease Control and Public Health, Tbilisi, Georgia.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) have suffered considerable morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Few data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) are available from middle-income countries in the WHO European Region. We evaluated primary series COVID-19 VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among HCWs in Georgia.

methodsHCWs in six hospitals in Georgia were invited to enroll in a prospective cohort study conducted during March 19-December 5, 2021. Participants completed weekly symptom questionnaires. Symptomatic HCWs were tested by RT-PCR and/or rapid antigen test (RAT), and participants were routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR or RAT, regardless of symptoms. Serology was collected at enrolment, and quarterly thereafter, and tested by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We defined primary series vaccination as two doses of COVID-19 vaccine received ≥14 days before symptom onset. We estimated VE as (1-hazard ratio)*100 using a Cox proportional hazards model with vaccination status as a time-varying covariate. Estimates were adjusted by potential confounders that changed the VE estimate by more than 5%, according to the change-in-estimate approach.

resultsOverall, 1561/3849 (41%) eligible HCWs enrolled and were included in the analysis. The median age was 40 (IQR: 30-53), 1318 (84%) were female, and 1003 (64%) had laboratory evidence of prior SARS-Cov-2 infection. At enrolment, 1300 (83%) were unvaccinated; By study end, 1082 (62%) had completed a primary vaccine series (69% BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech); 22% BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm); 9% other). During the study period, 191(12%) participants had a new PCR- or RAT-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE against PCR- or RAT- confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 58% (95%CI: 41; 70) for all primary series vaccinations, 68% (95%CI: 51; 79) for BNT162b2, and 40% (95%CI: 1; 64) for BBIBP-CorV vaccines. Among previously infected HCWs, VE was 58% (95%CI: 11; 80). VE against medically attended COVID-19 was 52% (95%CI: 28; 68), and VE against hospitalization was 69% (95% CI: 36; 85). During the period of predominant Delta variant circulation (July-December 2021), VE against symptomatic COVID-19 was 52% (95%CI: 30; 66).

conclusionsPrimary series vaccination with BNT162b2 and BBIBP-CorV was effective at preventing COVID-19 among HCWs, most of whom had previous infection, during a period of mainly Delta circulation. Our results support the utility of COVID-19 primary vaccine series, and the importance of increasing coverage, even among previously infected individuals.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHealth PersonnelSARS-CoV-2Vaccine EfficacyAdultAntibodies, ViralBNT162 VaccineFemaleGeorgia (Republic)HumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesVaccinationAntibodies, ViralBNT162 VaccineCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID39240827
PMCPMC11379210

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.