Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39314902›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy2024

Comparative 60-day effectiveness of bivalent versus monovalent mRNA vaccines in Shelby County: a population-level analysis.

Allison P Plaxco, Jennifer Kmet, Matthew P Smeltzer, Yu Jiang, Michelle Taylor, Vikki G Nolan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Allison P PlaxcoDivision of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Memphis, 214 Robison Hall, 3825 Desoto Ave, Memphis, TN 38152, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8179-2537
Jennifer KmetBureau of Epidemiology, Preparedness, and Informatics, Shelby County Health Department, Memphis, TN, USA.
Matthew P SmeltzerDivision of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA.
Yu JiangDivision of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA.
Michelle TaylorBureau of Epidemiology, Preparedness, and Informatics, Shelby County Health Department, Memphis, TN, USA.
Vikki G NolanDepartment of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Two monovalent mRNA vaccines, available in December 2020, were demonstrated to have high efficacy against both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and variants circulating through the summer and into the fall of 2021. In the context of the Omicron/BA.1 variant, which was predominant from late fall 2021 into winter of 2022 in the United States, and subsequent Omicron subvariants that have been predominant thereafter, vaccine effectiveness of the monovalent mRNA vaccine option is attenuated. Objectives: We aim to investigate the relative effectiveness of the bivalent booster compared to the monovalent booster against SARS-CoV-2 infection in the 60 days following administration in Shelby County, TN. Design: This observational population-based cohort study utilizes COVID-19 surveillance data to identify adults who were vaccinated with a monovalent booster dose between August 1, 2022 and August 30, 2022 or a bivalent booster dose between September 1, 2022 and September 30, 2022. Both groups were followed for COVID-19 status for 60 days from their administration date. Methods: We calculated incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals and propensity-adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals of COVID-19 diagnosis in the 60 days following administration of the booster dose between the bivalent group and the monovalent group. Stratified analysis was conducted by age group (18-34, 35-64, and 65+ years old). Results: The incidence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infection was substantially higher for those who received the monovalent booster, across age groups. Overall, we observed a 51% lower hazard of infection during the study period among those who received the bivalent booster, compared to the monovalent booster. Conclusion: These results support and extend prior findings that the bivalent booster dose may be more effective in preventing infection against the Omicron sub-variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Indexed as

bivalentCOVID-19mRNAOmicron Variantvaccine

Identifiers

PMID39314902
PMCPMC11418355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.