ArticleVaccines2024
Evaluation of Vaccine Strategies among Healthcare Workers during COVID-19 Omicron Outbreak in Taiwan.
Article in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of various SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and compare their protective effects against COVID-19 among healthcare workers (HCWs) during the Omicron outbreak in Taiwan.
methodsConducted from March 2021 to July 2023, this prospective observational study included healthy HCWs without prior COVID-19 immunization. Participants chose between adenovirus-vectored (AstraZeneca), mRNA (Moderna, BioNTech-Pfizer), and protein-based (Medigen, Novavax) vaccines. Blood samples were taken at multiple points to measure neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded via questionnaires.
resultsOf 710 HCWs, 668 (94.1%) completed three doses, and 290 (40.8%) received a fourth dose during the Omicron outbreak. AEs were more common with AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines, while Medigen caused fewer AEs. Initial nAb titers were highest with Moderna but waned over time regardless of the vaccine. Booster doses significantly increased nAb titers, with the highest levels observed in Moderna BA1 recipients. The fourth dose significantly reduced COVID-19 incidence, with Moderna BA1 being the most effective.
conclusionsRegular booster doses, especially with mRNA and adjuvant-protein vaccines, effectively enhance nAb levels and reduce infection rates, providing critical protection for frontline HCWs during variant outbreaks.
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.