Evaluating the Effectiveness of 2024-2025 Seasonal mRNA-1273 Vaccination Against COVID-19-Related Hospitalizations and Medically Attended COVID-19 Among Adults Aged≥18years in the United States: An Observational Matched Cohort Study.

Background This study aimed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of mRNA-1273.815, a 2023–2024 Omicron XBB.1.5-containing mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, at preventing COVID-19–related hospitalizations and any medically attended COVID-19 in adults. Methods In a linked electronic health record–claims dataset, we identified US adults (≥18 years) who received the mRNA-1273.815 vaccine (exposed cohort) between 12 September and 15 December 2023, matched 1:1 to individuals who did not receive a 2023–2024 updated COVID-19 vaccine (unexposed cohort). Cohorts were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting on demographics, vaccination and infection history, and underlying medical conditions. Study cohorts were followed until 31 December 2023 for COVID-19–related hospitalizations and medically attended COVID-19. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios and VE. Subgroup analyses were performed for adults ≥50 years, adults ≥65 years, and individuals with underlying medical conditions. Results Overall, 859 335 matched pairs of mRNA-1273.815 recipients and unexposed adults were identified. The mean (standard deviation) age was 63 (16) years. More than 60% of individuals in both cohorts had an underlying medical condition. Among the overall adult population, VE was 60.2% (95% confidence interval, 53.4–66.0) against COVID-19–related hospitalization and 33.1% (30.2–35.9) against medically attended COVID-19 over a median follow-up of 63 (interquartile range: 44–78) days. VE estimates by age and underlying medical conditions were similar. Conclusions These results demonstrate the significant protection provided by mRNA-1273.815 against COVID-19–related hospitalizations and any medically attended COVID-19 in adults, regardless of vaccination history, and support Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations to stay up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination to prevent COVID-19–related outcomes, including hospitalizations.

BackgroundThe continued evolution of SARS-CoV-2 has led to annual reformulations of COVID-19 vaccines to maintain protection against emerging variants. Updates to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine (Spikevax) have included a bivalent (Wuhan-Hu-1 + Omicron BA.4/5) formulation in 2022, a monovalent XBB.1.5 formulation in 2023, and a monovalent KP.2 formulation in 2024. Evaluating real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) of COVID-19 vaccines across these seasons, interpreted as incremental effectiveness against a background of immunity from prior vaccination and infection, is critical to understanding their public health impact and guiding ongoing vaccination strategies.Vaccine effectiveness of Spikevax (mRNA-1273) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and medically attended COVID-19, 2022–2025.MethodsWe share findings from five retrospective matched cohort studies with similar methodology in U.S. electronic health record and administrative claims databases that focused on the VE of mRNA-1273 specifically. Each study compared adults vaccinated with mRNA-1273 to controls had not received a COVID-19 vaccine during the same respiratory virus season. Exact match, and multivariable adjustment or propensity score weighting were used to account for measured confounding. Potential confounders with absolute standardized difference > 0.1 were included in the adjusted models. VE was estimated as 1 minus the adjusted hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards models, with outcomes including COVID-19-associated hospitalization and medically attended COVID-19.ResultsAcross seasons and formulations, VE in adults aged ≥18 years ranged from 51% to 70% against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and from 24% to 39% against medically attended COVID-19 (See Figure). VE estimates were similar for adults aged ≥18 years, aged ≥65 years, and aged ≥18 years at high risk of severe outcomes.ConclusionThe effectiveness of Moderna's updated mRNA-1273 vaccine formulations against severe COVID-19 outcomes remained stable across the most recent three respiratory virus seasons in the United States. These findings support the role of annual COVID-19 vaccination in reducing hospitalization and healthcare burden.DisclosuresAmanda Wilson, PhD, Moderna, Inc.: Employee|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Chris Clarke, PhD, Moderna, Inc.: Employee|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Keya Joshi, PhD, Moderna, Inc.: Employee|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Gigi Zheng, MD, PhD, ModernaTX: Employee|ModernaTX: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Nevena Vicic, MSc, Moderna, Inc.: Employee|Moderna, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)

The risk of adverse events has been found to be low for participants receiving the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna Inc) vaccines in randomized trials. However, a head-to-head comparison of their safety for a broader range of potential adverse events over longer follow-up and in larger and more diverse populations is lacking, to our knowledge. To compare the head-to-head safety in terms of risk of adverse events of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines in the national health care databases of the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest integrated health care system in the US. In this cohort study, the electronic health records of US veterans who received a first dose of the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine between January 4 and September 20, 2021, were used. Recipients of each vaccine were matched in a 1:1 ratio according to their risk factors. Vaccination with either the BNT162b2 vaccine, with a second dose scheduled 21 days later, or the mRNA-1273 vaccine, with a second dose scheduled 28 days later. A large panel of potential adverse events was evaluated; the panel included neurologic events, hematologic events, hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, other thromboembolic events, myocarditis or pericarditis, arrhythmia, kidney injury, appendicitis, autoimmune events, herpes zoster or simplex, arthritis or arthropathy, and pneumonia. Risks over 38 weeks were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Among 433 672 persons included in the matched vaccine groups, the median age was 69 years (IQR, 60-74 years), 93% of individuals were male, and 20% were Black. Estimated 38-week risks of adverse events were generally low after administration of either the BNT162b2 or the mRNA-1273 vaccine. Compared with the mRNA-1273 group, the BNT162b2 group had an excess per 10 000 persons of 10.9 events (95% CI, 1.9-17.4 events) of ischemic stroke, 14.8 events (95% CI, 7.9-21.8 events) of myocardial infarction, 11.3 events (95% CI, 3.4-17.7 events) of other thromboembolic events, and 17.1 events (95% CI, 8.8-30.2 events) of kidney injury. Estimates were largely similar among subgroups defined by age (<40, 40-69, and ≥70 years) and race (Black, White), but there were higher magnitudes of risk differences of ischemic stroke among older persons and White persons, kidney injury among older persons, and other thromboembolic events among Black persons. Small-magnitude differences between the 2 vaccines were seen within 42 days of the first dose, and few differences were seen within 14 days of the first dose. The findings of this cohort study suggest that there were few differences in risk of adverse events within 14 days of the first dose of either the BNT162b2 or the mRNA-1273 vaccine and small-magnitude differences within 42 days of the first dose. The 38-week risks of adverse events were low in both vaccine groups, although risks were lower for recipients of the mRNA-1273 vaccine than for recipients of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Although the primary analysis was designed to detect safety events unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection, the possibility that these differences may partially be explained by a lower effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine in preventing the sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the mRNA-1273 vaccine could not be ruled out. These findings may help inform decision-making in future vaccination campaigns.

Longevity and Clinical Effectiveness of the Humoral and Cellular Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Hemodialysis Patients

Conjugate pneumococcal vaccine and antibiotic-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae: herd immunity and reduction of otitis morbidity.

The effectiveness and safety of mRNA (BNT162b2) and inactivated (CoronaVac) COVID-19 vaccines among individuals with chronic kidney diseases

Comparative T and B immune responses of four different anti-COVID-19 vaccine strategies 6 months after vaccination

COVID-19 in Pediatric Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients: A CIBMTR Study

COVID-19 vaccines are effective, but inequities in vaccine administration and waning immunity may limit vaccine effectiveness. To report statewide trends in vaccine administration and vaccine effectiveness in Minnesota. This cohort study used COVID-19 vaccine data from the Minnesota Immunization Information Connection from October 25, 2020, through October 30, 2021 that were linked with electronic health record (EHR) data from health systems collaborating as part of the Minnesota EHR Consortium (MNEHRC). Participants included individuals who were seen at a participating health system in Minnesota. Individuals were considered fully vaccinated in the second week after receipt of a second dose of a BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine or a single dose of an Ad26.COV.2.S vaccine. A completed vaccination series and vaccine breakthrough, defined as either a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test or a hospital admission the same week or within the 3 weeks following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. A test-negative design and incident rate ratio were used to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness separately for the BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV.2.S vaccines. Rurality and social vulnerability index were assessed at the area level. This study included 4 431 190 unique individuals at participating health systems, and 3 013 704 (68%) of the individuals were fully vaccinated. Vaccination rates were lowest among Minnesotans who identified as Hispanic (116 422 of 217 019 [54%]), multiracial (30 066 of 57 412 [52%]), American Indian or Alaska Native (22 190 of 41 437 [54%]), and Black or African American (158 860 of 326 595 [49%]) compared with Minnesotans who identified as Asian or Pacific Islander (159 999 of 210 994 [76%]) or White (2 402 928 of 3 391 747 [71%]). Among individuals aged 19 to 64 years, vaccination rates were lower in rural areas (196 479 of 308 047 [64%]) compared with urban areas (151 541 of 1 951 265 [77%]) and areas with high social vulnerability (544 433 of 774 952 [70%]) compared with areas with low social vulnerability (571 613 of 724 369 [79%]). In the 9 weeks ending October 30, 2021, vaccine effectiveness as assessed by a test-negative design was 33% (95% CI, 30%-37%) for Ad26.COV.2.S; 53% (95% CI, 52%-54%) for BNT162b2; and 66% (95% CI, 65%-67%) for mRNA-1273. For SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalizations, vaccine effectiveness in the 9 weeks ending October 30, 2021, was 78% (95% CI, 75%-81%) for Ad26.COV.2.S; 81% (95% CI, 79%-82%) for BNT162b2; and 81% (95% CI, 79%-82%) for mRNA-1273. This cohort study of data from a Minnesota statewide consortium suggests disparities in vaccine administration and effectiveness. Vaccine effectiveness against infection was lower for Ad26.COV.2.S and BNT162b2 but was associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalizations despite the increased prevalence of the Delta variant in Minnesota.

Letters6 July 2020Obesity and COVID-19 in New York City: A Retrospective Cohort StudyFREEParag Goyal, MD, MSc, Joanna Bryan Ringel, MPH, Mangala Rajan, MBA, Justin J. Choi, MD, Laura C. Pinheiro, PhD, MPH, Han A. Li, BA, Graham T. Wehmeyer, BS, Mark N. Alshak, BA, Assem Jabri, MD, Edward J. Schenck, MD, MSc, Ruijun Chen, MD, Michael J. Satlin, MD, Thomas R. Campion Jr., PhD, Musarrat Nahid, MSc, Maria Plataki, MD, PhD, Katherine L. Hoffman, MS, Evgeniya Reshetnyak, PhD, Nathaniel Hupert, MD, MPH, Evelyn M. Horn, MD, Fernando J. Martinez, MD, Roy M. Gulick, MD, MPH, and Monika M. Safford, MDParag Goyal, MD, MScWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Joanna Bryan Ringel, MPHWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Mangala Rajan, MBAWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Justin J. Choi, MDWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Laura C. Pinheiro, PhD, MPHWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Han A. Li, BAWeill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York (H.A.L., G.T.W., M.N.A.), Graham T. Wehmeyer, BSWeill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York (H.A.L., G.T.W., M.N.A.), Mark N. Alshak, BAWeill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York (H.A.L., G.T.W., M.N.A.), Assem Jabri, MDWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Edward J. Schenck, MD, MScWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Ruijun Chen, MDWeill Cornell Medicine and Columbia University, New York, New York (R.C.), Michael J. Satlin, MDWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Thomas R. Campion Jr., PhDWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Musarrat Nahid, MScWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Maria Plataki, MD, PhDWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Katherine L. Hoffman, MSWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Evgeniya Reshetnyak, PhDWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Nathaniel Hupert, MD, MPHWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Evelyn M. Horn, MDWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Fernando J. Martinez, MDWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), Roy M. Gulick, MD, MPHWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.), and Monika M. Safford, MDWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York (P.G., J.B.R., M.R., J.J.C., L.C.P., A.J., E.J.S., M.J.S., T.R.C., M.N., M.P., K.L.H., E.R., N.H., E.M.H., F.J.M., R.M.G., M.M.S.)Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M20-2730 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Background: Some reports suggest that obesity could be a risk factor for complications in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1). Several mechanisms could explain this. First, adipocytes, which activate the inflammatory cascade, can increase risk for thromboembolism and susceptibility to the cytokine storm described in COVID-19 (2). Second, obesity negatively affects lung mechanics, which could predispose obese persons to more severe respiratory distress and failure (3). Finally, obesity can alter mitochondrial bioenergetics in lung epithelial cells and increase risk for acute lung injury (4). However, some have suggested an obesity paradox in some critical illnesses, including acute respiratory distress syndrome, where patients with obesity may have improved outcomes; whether this phenomenon occurs in patients with COVID-19 is unclear (5).Objective: To study the association between obesity and outcomes among a diverse cohort of 1687 persons hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 at 2 New York City hospitals.Methods and Findings: This retrospective observational cohort study included consecutive adults with confirmed COVID-19 who were hospitalized between 3 March and 15 May 2020 at an 862-bed quaternary referral center or a 180-bed community hospital in New York City. We excluded 46 patients who did not have height or weight data available to calculate body mass index (BMI). Patient data were manually abstracted (1) from the electronic health record through 6 June 2020.We determined BMI on the basis of the most recent height and weight listed in the electronic health record. Height and weight were collected during hospitalization for 95.5% of the cohort; the remaining BMIs were collected during ambulatory encounters within 3 months of hospitalization. We defined BMI categories as underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), normal (18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25.0 to 29.9 kg/m2), mild to moderate obesity (30.0 to 39.9 kg/m2), and morbid obesity (≥40.0 kg/m2).To examine the association between BMI and in-hospital mortality, we used a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, race, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, end-stage renal disease, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and cancer. These characteristics were chosen on the basis of risk factors for severe COVID-19 identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We also examined for effect modification by age, sex, and race. To examine the association between BMI and respiratory failure, defined as a need for invasive mechanical ventilation, we used a Fine and Gray model to account for the competing risk for death and adjusted for the same 12 variables used in the model for mortality. We excluded the underweight group from this analysis because of low numbers. Finally, we repeated the adjusted Cox proportional hazards model analysis for mortality among persons with respiratory failure, again excluding the underweight group. To account for missing data (12% for race), we did multiple imputation.We examined 1687 patients, whose median BMI was 27 kg/m2 (interquartile range, 23.5 to 31.3 kg/m2); 31.1% were obese. Participants in higher BMI categories were younger (Table). At the time of this report, only 69 persons remained hospitalized, including 3 who remained on invasive mechanical ventilation. Median follow-up was 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 17 days).Table. Characteristics of 1687 Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19, According to BMI*We found a J-shaped pattern for in-hospital mortality. The fully adjusted hazard of dying was highest for underweight persons, was lowest for overweight persons, and progressively increased with higher degrees of obesity (Figure). This observation was similar across age (P for interaction = 0.32), sex (P = 0.59), and race (P = 0.57). For respiratory failure, the fully adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was lowest among persons with normal weight and progressively increased with higher BMI class (Figure). Finally, among those with respiratory failure, we found a similar J-shaped pattern for in-hospital mortality; HRs were similar to those in the full cohort, albeit with wider CIs (normal as the reference: HR, 1; overweight: HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52 to 1.12]; mild to moderate obesity: HR, 0.82 [CI, 0.53 to 1.27]; morbid obesity: HR, 1.29 [CI, 0.58 to 2.86]).Figure. HRs for in-hospital mortality and respiratory failure according to BMI.The association between BMI and in-hospital mortality (blue triangle) is explained by a J-shaped curve, whereas that between BMI and respiratory failure (orange square) is linear. The solid blue lines indicate CIs for mortality, and the dashed orange lines indicate CIs for respiratory failure. Covariates in both models included age, sex, race, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, end-stage renal disease, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and cancer. All analyses were done in STATA 14 (StataCorp) and SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), with 2-sided statistical tests and significance levels of 0.05. HRs are provided with 95% CIs. BMI = body mass index; HR = hazard ratio. Download figure Download PowerPoint Discussion: This study of 1687 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in New York City showed that obesity was an independent risk factor for respiratory failure but not for in-hospital mortality. Our findings, at least in part, explain the extensive use of invasive mechanical ventilation reported in the United States (1), where the prevalence of obesity exceeds 40%. These findings thus support the need to consider the community-specific prevalence of obesity when planning a community's COVID-19 response and also suggest that risk conferred by obesity is similar across age, sex, and race. Our findings also provide insights about a possible obesity paradox in COVID-19.This study was limited to hospitalized adults in a single geographic location. The association between obesity and adverse outcomes could differ in other settings and thus merits additional investigation.

Real-world effectiveness of the mRNA-1273 vaccine against COVID-19: Interim results from a prospective observational cohort study

Safety of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines and effects of immunosuppressive drugs on adverse reactions in patients with rheumatic diseases

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy.

COVID-19 vaccines have been essential for reducing the impact of the pandemic; nevertheless, population-based data under real-life conditions are needed to compare their effectiveness in various contexts. The objective of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing hospitalization and death from COVID-19 in Colombia under real-life conditions among people aged 18 years and older, according to sex, age, confirmed history of COVID-19 and vaccination series, including the effects of boosters. This investigation was an observational, retrospective, population-based study based on the Colombian cohort "Esperanza". A total of 14,213,409 individuals aged 18 years and older were analyzed, who were matched in a 1:1 ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated. The study groups consisted of unvaccinated individuals, those with a complete series (CS) and individuals with a CS plus booster. The vaccinated individuals received either homologous or heterologous vaccinations with Ad26.COV2-S, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, CoronaVac and mRNA-1273 vaccines. Follow-up was conducted between February 2021 and June 2022. Cox proportional hazards models were used, adjusted for potential confounders, to estimate the effectiveness of different vaccination series. For adults aged 18 years and older, the overall effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing hospitalization was 82.7% (95% CI 82.1-83.2) for CS and 80.2% (95%CI 78.7-81.6) for CS + booster. The effectiveness in preventing death was 86.0% (95%CI 85.5-86.5) for CS and 83.1% (95%CI 81.5-84.5) for CS + booster. Effectiveness decreased with age. While all efficacies were high, CoronaVac offered significantly lower protection, although this improved with a booster. Continued mass vaccination is pivotal, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The study highlights both the real-world effectiveness of these vaccines and the challenges in understanding waning immunity and the influence of different VoC(Variants of Concern) on results.

Is COVID-19 infection more severe in kidney transplant recipients?