ArticlePloS one2025
COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among healthcare workers during the Omicron period in the country of Georgia, January - June 2022.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionUnderstanding COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) in healthcare workers (HCWs) is critical to inform vaccination policies. We measured COVID-19 VE against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic infection in HCWs in the country of Georgia from January - June 2022, during a period of Omicron circulation.
methodsWe conducted a cohort study of HCWs in six hospitals in Georgia. HCWs were enrolled in early 2021. Participants completed weekly symptom questionnaires. Symptomatic HCWs were tested by RT-PCR and/or rapid antigen test (RAT). Participants were also routinely tested, at varying frequencies during the study period, for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR or RAT, regardless of symptoms. Serology was collected quarterly throughout the study and tested by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We estimated absolute and relative VE of a first booster dose compared to a primary vaccine series as (1-hazard ratio)*100 using Cox proportional hazards models.
resultsAmong 1253 HCWs, 141 (11%) received a primary vaccine series (PVS) and a first booster, 855 (68%) received PVS only, and 248 (20%) were unvaccinated. Most boosters were BNT162b2 (Comirnaty original monovalent) vaccine (90%) and BBIBP-CorV vaccine (Sinopharm) (9%). Most PVS were BNT162b2 vaccine (68%) and BBIBP-CorV vaccine (24%). Absolute VE for a first booster was 40% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -56-77) at 7-29 days following vaccination, -9% (95% CI -104-42) at 30-59 days following vaccination, and -46% (95% CI -156-17) at ≥ 60 days following vaccination. Relative VE of first booster dose compared to PVS was 58% (95% CI 1-82) at 7-29 days following vaccination, 21% (95% CI -33-54) at 30-59 days following vaccination, and -9% (95% CI -82-34) at ≥ 60 days following vaccination.
conclusionIn Georgia, first booster dose VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs was moderately effective but waned very quickly during Omicron. Increased efforts to vaccinate priority groups in Georgia, such as healthcare workers, prior to periods of anticipated high COVID-19 incidence are essential.
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.