ArticleViruses2024
Effectiveness of Inactivated Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Against Omicron BA.2.2 Infection in Beijing, China, 2022: A Cohabitation Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Viruses, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of different doses of an inactivated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine against Omicron BA.2.2 infection in Beijing, China, 2022. Based on data from a previous cohabitation retrospective cohort of COVID-19 outbreak in Beijing, China, 2022, the cohabitating contacts of individuals with BA.2.2 infection were followed up. Using a log-binomial regression model in which the unvaccinated group as the control group, the risk ratios of different doses of inactivated vaccine in terms of preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms of COVID-19, and pneumonia were calculated, and the protective effect of the vaccine was estimated. The Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test was used to compare the effect of vaccination on the viral load of infected patients. From April to June 2022, a total of 2259 cohabiting close contacts of 1308 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection aged ≥3 years were included. Of the included close contacts, 737 (32.63%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the isolation period: 140 (19.00%) were infected but asymptomatic, 525 (71.23%) had mild infection, and 72 (9.77%) had pneumonia. There were no cases of severe or critical infection or death. The VE of the primary in preventing BA.2.2 infection, symptoms, and pneumonia was 37.35% (95% CI: 24.00-48.35), 42.36% (95% CI: 28.41-53.60), and 48.35% (95% CI: -5.34-74.67), respectively. The VE of the booster shot in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms, and pneumonia was 37.08% (95% CI: 24.29-47.70), 44.38% (95% CI: 31.45-54.87), and 61.46% (95% CI: 29.79-78.85), respectively. Six months after the booster vaccination, the VE of the booster in terms of preventing SARS-CoV-2 remained above 46%, and its VE in terms of the prevention of pneumonia remained above 72%. In the unvaccinated group, the Ct values of the N gene and ORFlab gene (represented by the median value and Q1 and Q3 in parentheses) were 26.45 (21.09, 31.61) and 28.06 (22.21, 32.06), respectively. There was no significant difference in the median value of either gene between the unvaccinated group, the partial group [25.81 (19.91, 31.78) and 26.98 (21.63, 31.17)], the primary group [28.79 (22.08, 32.34) and 29.30 (23.81, 33.86)], and the booster group [26.23 (21.66, 31.46) and 27.73 (23.38, 32.52)] (
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.