ArticleVaccine2025
Relative effectiveness of the second booster COVID-19 vaccines against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers: VEBIS HCW VE cohort study (1 October 2022-2 May 2023).
Article in Vaccine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRepeated COVID-19 booster vaccination was recommended in healthcare workers (HCWs) to maintain protection. We measured the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of the second booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared to the first booster, against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs.
methodsIn a prospective cohort study among HCWs from 12 European hospitals, we collected nasopharyngeal or saliva samples at enrolment and during weekly/fortnightly follow-up between October 2022 and May 2023. We estimated rVE of the second versus first COVID-19 vaccine booster dose against SARS-CoV-2 infection, overall, by time since second booster and restricted to the bivalent vaccines only. Using Cox regression, we calculated the rVE as (1-hazard ratio)*100, adjusting for hospital, age, sex, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least one underlying condition.
resultsAmong the 979 included HCWs eligible for a second booster vaccination, 392 (40 %) received it and 192 (20 %) presented an infection during the study period. The rVE of the second versus first booster dose was -5 % (95 %CI: -46; 25) overall, 3 % (-46; 36) in the 7-89 days after receiving the second booster dose. The rVE was 11 % (-43; 45) when restricted to the use of bivalent vaccines only.
conclusionThe bivalent COVID-19 could have reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs by 11 %. However, we note the limitation of imprecise rVE estimates due to the proportion of monovalent vaccine used in the study, the small sample size and the study being conducted during the predominant circulation of XBB.1.5 sub-lineage. COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies in HCWs can provide important evidence to inform the optimal timing and the use of updated COVID-19 vaccines.
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.