Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39268649›Full record

ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2024

Relative effectiveness of bivalent boosters against severe COVID-19 outcomes among people aged ≥ 65 years in Finland, September 2022 to August 2023.

Eero Poukka, Jori Perälä, Hanna Nohynek, Sirkka Goebeler, Kari Auranen, Tuija Leino, Ulrike Baum

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5 BNT162b2 Vaccine in 6-Month- to <12-Year-Olds.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2024
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

7 authors.

Eero PoukkaInfectious Disease Control and Vaccinations Unit, Department of Health Security, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Jori PeräläInfectious Disease Control and Vaccinations Unit, Department of Health Security, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Hanna NohynekInfectious Disease Control and Vaccinations Unit, Department of Health Security, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Sirkka GoebelerForensic Medicine Unit, Department of Government services, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Kari AuranenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Tuija LeinoInfectious Disease Control and Vaccinations Unit, Department of Health Security, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Ulrike BaumInfectious Disease Control and Vaccinations Unit, Department of Health Security, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundLong-term effectiveness data on bivalent COVID-19 boosters are limited.AimWe evaluated the long-term protection of bivalent boosters against severe COVID-19 among ≥ 65-year-olds in Finland.MethodsIn this register-based cohort analysis, we compared the risk of three severe COVID-19 outcomes among ≥ 65-year-olds who received a bivalent booster (Original/Omicron BA.1 or Original/BA.4-5; exposed group) between 1/9/2022 and 31/8/2023 to those who did not (unexposed). We included individuals vaccinated with at least two monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses before 1/9/2022 and ≥ 3 months ago. The analysis was divided into two periods: 1/9/2022-28/2/2023 (BA.5 and BQ.1.X predominating) and 1/3/2023-31/8/2023 (XBB predominating). The hazards for the outcomes between exposed and unexposed individuals were compared with Cox regression.ResultsWe included 1,191,871 individuals. From 1/9/2022 to 28/2/2023, bivalent boosters were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (hazard ratio (HR): 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.37-0.55), death due to COVID-19 (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.38-0.62), and death in which COVID-19 was a contributing factor (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.31-0.51) during 14-60 days since vaccination. From 1/3/2023 to 31/8/2023, bivalent boosters were associated with lower risks of all three severe COVID-19 outcomes during 61-120 days since a bivalent booster (e.g. HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.39-0.71 for hospitalisation due to COVID-19); thereafter no notable risk reduction was observed. No difference was found between Original/Omicron BA.1 and Original/BA.4-5 boosters.ConclusionBivalent boosters initially reduced the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes by ca 50% among ≥ 65-year-olds, but protection waned over time. These findings help guide vaccine development and vaccination programmes.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesImmunization, SecondarySARS-CoV-2AgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleFinlandHospitalizationHumansMaleVaccinationVaccine EfficacyCOVID-19 Vaccinesbivalentcoronavirus disease (COVID-19)COVID-19deathepidemiologyFinlandhospitalisationvaccine effectivenessvaccines and immunisation

Identifiers

PMID39268649
PMCPMC11395282

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.