Relative Vaccine Effectiveness Research Articles

Relative vaccine effectiveness of MF59®-adjuvanted vs high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines for prevention of test-confirmed influenza hospitalizations during the 2017–2020 influenza seasons

ObjectivesThis study evaluated relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of MF59-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aTIV) vs high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-TIV) for prevention of test-confirmed influenza emergency department visits and/or inpatient admissions (“ED/IP”) and for IP admissions alone pooled across the 2017–2020 influenza seasons. Exploratory individual season analyses were also performed. MethodsThis retrospective test-negative design study included US adults age ≥65 years vaccinated with aTIV or HD-TIV who presented to an ED or IP setting with acute respiratory or febrile illness during the 2017–2020 influenza seasons. Test-positive cases and test-negative controls were grouped by vaccine received. The rVE of aTIV vs HD-TIV was evaluated using a combination of inverse probability of treatment weighting and logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders. ResultsPooled analyses over the 3 seasons found no significant differences in the rVE of aTIV vs HD-TIV for prevention of test-confirmed influenza ED/IP (−2.5% [−19.6, 12.2]) visits and admissions or IP admissions alone (–1.6% [−22.5, 15.7]). The exploratory individual season analyses also showed no significant differences. ConclusionsEvidence from the 2017–2020 influenza seasons indicates aTIV and HD-TIV are comparable for prevention of test-confirmed influenza ED/IP visits in US adults age ≥65 years.

Investigation of COVID-19 transmission during the first community outbreak in a remote island population, Falkland Islands, April to June 2022.

After 2 years of no community outbreaks of COVID-19, the Falkland Islands (FI) reported their first community case in April 2022. Because of high vaccine coverage (88% of entire population), no specific control measures were instigated, and cases spread rapidly. We undertook a retrospective cohort study to determine the extent of transmission and the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in a population with limited natural immunity. We extracted data on age, sex, and vulnerability for the FI registered population from a patient information system and linked to COVID-19 case line-list and vaccination datasets. Cases were individuals with positive SARS-CoV-2 PCRs or Lateral Flow Devices (LFDs), from 26 April to 30 June 2022. Univariable analyses compared case risk factors to non-cases. Relative vaccine effectiveness was calculated using Poisson regression with robust error variance, comparing against individuals with vaccination more than the 20 weeks prior to the outbreak. Models were adjusted for age, sex, extreme vulnerability, and previous infection. Of the 3,343 registered population, 44% (n = 1,467) were cases, with no COVID-19 hospitalisations or deaths. In univariable analysis, being female (RR 1.12, p = 0.004) and under 18 years (RR 1.70, p<0.001) were associated with increased COVID-19 risk. Relative vaccine effectiveness was 39.0% (95% CI, 1.03 to 62.5) and 33.0% (95% CI, 8.3 to 51.0) 1 to 9 weeks after receiving 2nd and 1st boosters respectively. We showed widespread transmission in a small island population with limited natural immunity, disproportionately affecting children and women, indicative of transmission in educational and household settings. Despite limited natural immunity, our findings suggested that vaccination was effective protecting against severe disease and booster doses provided additional short-term protection against infection. We would recommend optimizing coverage with boosters of vaccine in remote island populations such as FI. Follow-up would be needed to assess duration of protection after booster vaccination.

Comparative effectiveness of the bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, mRNA1273-222 and BNT162b2, in immunocompromised adults in the US.

e23057 Background: Despite the decline in COVID-19–related hospitalizations and mortality during the period of omicron predominance, immunocompromised individuals, including those with cancer, remain at an increased risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes. A subanalysis of a retrospective observational cohort study assessed the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of 2 previously approved bivalent vaccines targeting the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and the omicron BA.4/BA.5 variant, mRNA-1273.222 (Moderna, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA) and BNT162b2 bivalent (Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA; BioNTech GmbH, Mainz, Germany), in immunocompromised adults in the United States. Methods: The study used a US electronic health record dataset (Veradigm) linked with medical and pharmacy claims data of adults aged ≥18 years with at least 1 underlying medical condition associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 who received a dose of mRNA-1273.222 or BNT162b2 bivalent vaccines between August 31, 2022, and February 28, 2023. A subgroup analysis was conducted among an immunocompromised population, encompassing cancer patients, organ or stem cell transplant recipients, individuals with primary immunodeficiency, individuals with HIV, and individuals receiving immunosuppressing medications. Comorbid conditions were based on prior medical encounters in the 365 days before vaccination. The outcomes measured were rVE of the two bivalent mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-related hospitalizations (primary outcome) and outpatient visits (secondary outcome). Follow-up started 7 days after vaccination until May 31, 2023 (end of available claims data). Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for baseline differences between groups. Results: The subanalysis included 427,260 immunocompromised individuals, of which 250,573 (58.6%) were identified as having cancer. In the overall weighted immunocompromised population, 169,509 individuals received mRNA-1273.222, and 257,751 received BNT162b2 bivalent. The adjusted rVEs of mRNA-1273.222 versus BNT162b2 bivalent vaccine against COVID-19–related hospitalizations and outpatient visits were 15.0% (95% CI, 7.2%-22.0%; P&lt; 0.001) and 4.8% (95% CI, 1.8%-7.7%; P= 0.002), respectively. Conclusions: In this study, the mRNA-1273.222 vaccine offered greater protection against COVID-19–related hospitalization compared with the BNT162b2 bivalent vaccine among immunocompromised individuals. This study emphasizes the importance of assessing COVID-19 vaccine formulations and optimizing protection, especially in immunocompromised adults, including those with cancer.

The relative vaccine effectiveness of high-dose vs standard-dose influenza vaccines in preventing hospitalization and mortality: A meta-analysis of evidence from randomized trials

To summarize current evidence of high-dose influenza vaccine (HD-IV) vs standard-dose (SD-IV) regarding severe clinical outcomes. A prespecified meta-analysis was conducted to assess relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of HD-IV vs SD-IV in reducing the rates of (1) pneumonia and influenza (P&I) hospitalization, (2) all hospitalizations, and (3) all-cause death in adults ≥65 years in randomized controlled trials. Pooled effect sizes were estimated using fixed-effects models with the inverse variance method. Five randomized trials were included encompassing 105,685 individuals. HD-IV vs SD-IV reduced P&I hospitalizations (rVE: 23.5%, [95%CI: 12.3 to 33.2]). HD-IV vs SD-IV also reduced rate of all-cause hospitalizations (rVE: 7.3%, [95%CI: 4.5 to 10.0]). No significant differences were observed in death rates (rVE = 1.6% ([95%CI: -2.0 to 5.0]) in HD-IV vs SD-IV. Sensitivity analyses omitting trials with participants sharing the same comorbidity, trials with ≥100 events, and random-effects models provided comparable estimates for all outcomes. HD-IV reduced the incidence of P&I and all-cause hospitalization vs SD-IV in adults ≥65 years in randomized trials, through no significant difference was observed in all-cause death rates. These findings, supported by evidence from several randomized studies, can benefit from replication in a fully powered, individually randomized trial.

Effectiveness of the fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccines against severe COVID-19 among adults 40 years or older in Brazil: a population-based cohort study

The emergence of COVID-19 variants with immune scape and the waning of primary vaccine schemes effectiveness have prompted many countries to indicate first and second booster COVID-19 vaccine doses to prevent severe COVID-19. However, current available evidence on second booster dose effectiveness are mostly limited to high-income countries, older adults, and mRNA-based vaccination schemes scenarios. We aimed to investigate the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of the fourth dose compared to three doses for severe COVID-19 outcomes in Brazil; and compare the rVE of a fourth dose with an mRNA vaccine compared to adenovirus-based product in the same settings. We performed a target emulated trial using a population-based cohort of individuals aged 40 years or older who have received a homologous primary scheme of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, or BNT162b2, and any third dose product and were eligible for the fourth dose in Brazil. The primary outcome was COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death. We built Cohort A matching individuals vaccinated with a fourth dose to individuals who received three doses to estimate the rVE of the fourth dose. We built Cohort B, a subset of Cohort A, matching mRNA-based (mRNA) to adenovirus-based fourth dose vaccinated individuals to compare their relative hazards for severe COVID-19. 46,693,484 individuals were included in Cohort A and 6,763,016 in Cohort B. 45% of them were aged between 40 and 60 years old, and 48% between 60 and 79 years old. In Cohort A, the most common previous series was a ChAdOx1 two-dose followed by BNT162b2 (44%), and a CoronaVac two-dose followed by a BNT162b2 (36%). Among those fourth dose vaccinated, 36.9% received ChAdOx1, 32.7% Ad26.COV2.S, 25.8% BNT162b2, and 4.7% CoronaVac. In Cohort B, among those who received an adenovirus fourth dose, 53.7% received ChAdOx1 and 46.3% received Ad26.COV2.S. The estimated rVE for the primary outcome of four doses compared to three doses was 44.1% (95% CI 42.3-46.0), with some waning during follow-up (rVE 7-60 days 46.8% [95% CI 44.4-49.1], rVE after 120 days 33.8% [95% CI 18.0-46.6]). Among fourth dose vaccinated individuals, mRNA-based vaccinated individuals had lower hazards for hospitalization or death compared to adenovirus-vaccinated individuals (HR0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.87). After 120 days, no difference in hazards between groups was observed (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93-1.97). Similar findings were observed for hospitalization and death separately, except no evidence for differences between fourth dose brands for death in Cohort B. In a heterogeneous scenario of primary and first booster vaccination combinations, a fourth dose provided meaningful and durable protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to adenovirus-based booster, a fourth dose wild-type mRNA vaccine was associated with immediate lower hazards of hospitalization or death unsustained after 120 days. None.

Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Cell- vs Egg-Based Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Against Test-Confirmed Influenza Over 3 Seasons Between 2017 and 2020 in the United States.

Influenza vaccine viruses grown in eggs may acquire egg-adaptive mutations that may reduce antigenic similarity between vaccine and circulating influenza viruses and decrease vaccine effectiveness. We compared cell- and egg-based quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVc and QIVe, respectively) for preventing test-confirmed influenza over 3 US influenza seasons (2017-2020). Using a retrospective test-negative design, we estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of QIVc vs QIVe among individuals aged 4 to 64 years who had an acute respiratory or febrile illness and were tested for influenza in routine outpatient care. Exposure, outcome, and covariate data were obtained from electronic health records linked to pharmacy and medical claims. Season-specific rVE was estimated by comparing the odds of testing positive for influenza among QIVc vs QIVe recipients. Models were adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, influenza test date, and additional unbalanced covariates. A doubly robust approach was used combining inverse probability of treatment weights with multivariable regression. The study included 31 824, 33 388, and 34 398 patients in the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 seasons, respectively; ∼10% received QIVc and ∼90% received QIVe. QIVc demonstrated superior effectiveness vs QIVe in prevention of test-confirmed influenza: rVEs were 14.8% (95% CI, 7.0%-22.0%) in 2017-2018, 12.5% (95% CI, 4.7%-19.6%) in 2018-2019, and 10.0% (95% CI, 2.7%-16.7%) in 2019-2020. This study demonstrated consistently superior effectiveness of QIVc vs QIVe in preventing test-confirmed influenza over 3 seasons characterized by different circulating viruses and degrees of egg adaptation.

Effects of high-dose versus standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine among patients with diabetes: A post-hoc analysis of the DANFLU-1 trial.

High-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD) has been shown to be more effective than standard-dose (QIV-SD) in reducing influenza infection, but whether diabetes status affects relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) is unknown. We aimed to assess rVE on change in glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c (∆HbA1c)], incident diabetes, total all-cause hospitalizations (first + recurrent), and a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza. DANFLU-1 was a pragmatic, open-label trial randomizing adults (65-79 years) 1:1 to QIV-HD or QIV-SD during the 2021/22 influenza season. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate rVE against incident diabetes and the composite endpoint, negative binomial regression to estimate rVE against all-cause hospitalizations, and ANCOVA when assessing rVE against ∆HbA1c. Of the 12 477 participants, 1162 (9.3%) had diabetes at baseline. QIV-HD, compared with QIV-SD, was associated with a reduction in the rate of all-cause hospitalizations irrespective of diabetes [overall: 647 vs. 742 events, incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.87, 95% CI (0.76-0.99); diabetes: 93 vs. 118 events, IRR: 0.80, 95% CI (0.55-1.15); without diabetes: 554 vs. 624 events, IRR: 0.88, 95% CI (0.76-1.01), pinteraction = 0.62]. Among those with diabetes, QIV-HD was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome [2 vs. 11 events, HR: 0.18, 95% CI (0.04-0.83)] but had no effect on ∆HbA1c; QIV-HD adjusted mean difference: ∆ + 0.2 mmol/mol, 95% CI (-0.9 to 1.2). QIV-HD did not affect the risk of incident diabetes [HR 1.18, 95% CI (0.94-1.47)]. In this post-hoc analysis, QIV-HD versus QIV-SD was associated with an increased rVE against the composite of all-cause death and hospitalization for pneumonia/influenza, and the all-cause hospitalization rate irrespective of diabetes status.

Effectiveness and durability of mRNA-1273 BA.4/BA.5 bivalent vaccine (mRNA-1273.222) against SARS-CoV-2 BA.4/BA.5 and XBB sublineages

ABSTRACT Emerging SARS-CoV-2 sublineages continue to cause serious COVID-19 disease, but most individuals have not received any COVID-19 vaccine for >1 year. Assessment of long-term effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines against circulating sublineages is important to inform the potential need for vaccination with updated vaccines. In this test-negative study at Kaiser Permanente Southern California, sequencing-confirmed BA.4/BA.5- or XBB-related SARS-CoV-2-positive cases (September 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023), were matched 1:3 to SARS-CoV-2-negative controls. We assessed mRNA-1273 bivalent relative (rVE) and absolute vaccine effectiveness (VE) compared to ≥2 or 0 doses of original monovalent vaccine, respectively. The rVE analysis included 20,966 cases and 62,898 controls. rVE (95%CI) against BA.4/BA.5 at 14–60 days and 121–180 days was 52.7% (46.9–57.8%) and 35.5% (−2.8–59.5%) for infection, and 59.3% (49.7–67.0%) and 33.2% (−28.2–68.0%) for Emergency Department/Urgent Care (ED/UC) encounters. For BA.4/BA.5-related hospitalizations, rVE was 71.3% (44.9–85.1%) and 52.0% (−1.2–77.3%) at 14–60 days and 61–120 days, respectively. rVE against XBB at 14–60 days and 121–180 days was 48.8% (33.4–60.7%) and −3.9% (−18.1–11.3%) for infection, 70.7% (52.4–82.0%) and 15.7% (−6.0–33.2%) for ED/UC encounters, and 87.9% (43.8–97.4%) and 57.1% (17.0–77.8%) for hospitalization. VE and subgroup analyses (age, immunocompromised status, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection) results were similar to rVE analyses. rVE of mRNA-1273 bivalent vaccine against BA.4/BA.5 and XBB infections, ED/UC encounters, and hospitalizations waned over time. Periodic revaccination with vaccines targeting emerging variants may be important in reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

Relative Effectiveness of the MF59®-Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine Versus High-Dose and Non-Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Cardiorespiratory Hospitalizations During the 2019-2020 US Influenza Season.

Adults ≥ 65 years of age have suboptimal influenza vaccination responses compared to younger adults due to age-related immunosenescence. Two vaccines were specifically developed to enhance protection: MF59-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV3) and high-dose egg-based trivalent influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3e). In a retrospective cohort study conducted using US electronic medical records linked to claims data during the 2019-2020 influenza season, we compared the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of aIIV3 with HD-IIV3e and a standard-dose non-adjuvanted egg-based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4e) for the prevention of cardiorespiratory hospitalizations, including influenza hospitalizations. We evaluated outcomes in the "any" diagnosis position and the "admitting" position on the claim. A doubly robust methodology using inverse probability of treatment weighting and logistic regression was used to adjust for covariate imbalance. rVE was calculated as 100 * (1 - ORadjusted). The study included 4,299,594 adults ≥ 65 years of age who received aIIV3, HD-IIV3e, or IIV4e. Overall, aIIV3 was associated with lower proportions of cardiorespiratory hospitalizations with diagnoses in any position compared to HD-IIV3e (rVE = 3.9% [95% CI, 2.7-5.0]) or IIV4e (9.0% [95% CI, 7.7-10.4]). Specifically, aIIV3 was more effective compared with HD-IIV3e and IIV4e in preventing influenza hospitalizations (HD-IIV3e: 9.7% [95% CI, 1.9-17.0]; IIV4e: 25.3% [95% CI, 17.7-32.2]). Consistent trends were observed for admitting diagnoses. Relative to both HD-IIV3e and IIV4e, aIIV3 provided improved protection from cardiorespiratory or influenza hospitalizations.

Estimates of Seasonal Influenza Burden That Could Be Averted by Improved Influenza Vaccines in the Australian Population Aged Under 65 Years, 2015-2019.

The interpretation of relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of improved influenza vaccines is complex. Estimation of burden averted is useful to contextualise their potential impact across different seasons. For the population aged under 65 years in Australia, this study estimated the additional morbidity and mortality that could be averted using improved influenza vaccines. We used observed, season-specific (2015-2019) influenza notification and influenza-coded hospitalisation frequencies and published modelled estimates of influenza-associated hospitalisations and deaths that occurred under the prevailing influenza vaccination coverage scenario. After back-calculating to the estimated burden in the population without vaccination, we applied published standard influenza vaccine effectiveness and coverage estimates to calculate the burden potentially averted by standard and improved influenza vaccines. A plausible range of rVE values were used, assuming 50% coverage. The percentage point difference in absolute vaccine effectiveness (VE) of an improved vaccine compared to a standard vaccine is directly proportional to its rVE and inversely proportional to the effectiveness of the standard vaccine. The incremental burden averted by an improved vaccine is a function of both its difference in absolute VE and the severity of the influenza season. Assuming an rVE of 15% with 50% coverage, the improved vaccine was estimated to additionally avert 1517 to 12,641 influenza notifications, 287 to 1311 influenza-coded hospitalisations and 9 to 33 modelled all-cause influenza deaths per year compared to the standard vaccine. Improved vaccines can have substantial clinical and population impact, particularly when the effectiveness of standard vaccines is low, and burden is high.

Real-world Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Among US Nursing Home Residents Aged ≥65 Years in the Pre-Delta and High Delta Periods.

Long-term care residents were among the most vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimated vaccine effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in Medicare nursing home residents aged ≥65 years during pre-Delta and high Delta periods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study from 13 December 2020 to 20 November 2021 using Medicare claims data. Exposures included 2 and 3 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. We used inverse probability weighting and Cox proportional hazards models to estimate absolute and relative vaccine effectiveness. Two-dose vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related death was 69.8% (95% CI, 65.9%‒73.3%) during the pre-Delta period and 55.7% (49.5%‒61.1%) during the high Delta period, without adjusting for time since vaccination. We observed substantial waning of effectiveness from 65.1% (54.2%‒73.5%) within 6 months from second-dose vaccination to 45.2% (30.6%‒56.7%) ≥6 months after second-dose vaccination in the high Delta period. Three doses provided 88.7% (73.5%‒95.2%) vaccine effectiveness against death, and the incremental benefit of 3 vs 2 doses was 74.6% (40.4%‒89.2%) during high Delta. Among beneficiaries with a prior COVID-19 infection, 3-dose vaccine effectiveness for preventing death was 78.6% (50.0%‒90.8%), and the additional protection of 3 vs 2 doses was 70.0% (30.1%‒87.1%) during high Delta. Vaccine effectiveness estimates against less severe outcomes (eg, infection) were lower. This nationwide real-world study demonstrated that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines provided substantial protection against COVID-19-related death. Two-dose protection waned after 6 months. Third doses during the high Delta period provided significant additional protection for individuals with or without a prior COVID-19 infection.

Relative vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation in persons aged ≥ 65 years: results from a VEBIS network, Europe, October 2021 to July 2023.

To monitor relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) against COVID-19-related hospitalisation of the first, second and third COVID-19 booster (vs complete primary vaccination), we performed monthly Cox regression models using retrospective cohorts constructed from electronic health registries in eight European countries, October 2021-July 2023. Within 12 weeks of administration, each booster showed high rVE (≥ 70% for second and third boosters). However, as of July 2023, most of the relative benefit has waned, particularly in persons ≥ 80-years-old, while some protection remained in 65-79-year-olds.

Cell-based influenza vaccines: An effective vaccine option for under 60-year-olds.

Seasonal influenza poses a significant burden of disease, affecting not only older adults but also individuals under the age of 60. It carries a high economic burden, mainly driven by influenza-associated productivity losses in the working population. Conventional egg-based influenza vaccines may have reduced effectiveness due to antigen adaptation in eggs. In contrast, cell-based influenza vaccines are less likely to be affected by such antigen adaptation. This review aims to present real-world data (RWD) comparing the effectiveness of quadrivalent cell-based (QIVc) and egg-based (QIVe) influenza vaccines over three consecutive seasons. A comprehensive review was conducted, analyzing RWD from retrospective cohort and case-control studies on the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of QIVc versus QIVe during the 2017/18-2019/20 seasons. This study included six retrospective cohort studies and one case-control study, with a combined total of approximately 29 million participants. A cohort study involving people aged ≥4 years during the 2017/18 season showed a statistically significant rVE of QIVc compared to QIVe in preventing influenza-like illness, with a value of 36.2%. QIVc demonstrated statistically significant superiority over QIVe in preventing outpatient and inpatient medical encounters as observed in two cohort studies conducted during the 2018/19 and 2019/20 seasons. The rVE of QIVc compared to QIVe was found to be 7.6% in individuals aged ≥4 years and 9.5% in individuals aged ≥18 years. Three additional cohort studies conducted between 2017/18-2019/20 reported a statistically significant improvement in rVE (5.3-14.4%) of QIVc compared to QIVe in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations and emergency department visits due to influenza in individuals aged 4-64 years. In a case-control study across all three seasons, QIVc showed statistically significantly higher effectiveness compared to QIVe in preventing test-confirmed influenza, with rVEs of 10.0-14.8%. RWD from the 2017/18-2019/20 seasons demonstrated that QIVc is more effective than QIVe in preventing influenza-related outcomes in individuals aged 4-64 years. Preferential use of cell-based influenza vaccines, as opposed to conventional egg-based vaccines, could reduce the burden of influenza-related symptoms on individuals and alleviate the economic impact on the German population under 60 years of age.

Relative effectiveness and durability of booster doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis

&lt;p&gt;Billions of people worldwide have received booster doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Continuous monitoring of the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) and durability of booster vaccination over previous vaccinations is important for developing vaccination strategies during the post-pandemic era. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials and observational studies to determine the rVE of the 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; booster over no booster and that of the 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; booster over the 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; booster. Three trials and 91 observational studies were included in this systematic review. For the 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; booster homologous vaccination, the rVE at a median of 9 weeks after booster vaccination was 66.9% (95% confidence interval: 59.8%, 72.7%), 75.9% (62.6%, 84.5%), 74.1% (66.9%, 79.8%), 86.1% (78.7%, 90.9%) and 84.2% (78.3%, 88.5%) against overall infection, symptomatic infection, hospital admission, severe infection and COVID-19-related death, respectively. The rVE against overall infection was affected by variants of concern and vaccine types and waned by average of 4.3% (3.3%, 5.4%; &lt;i&gt;P-trend&lt;/i&gt;&lt;0.01) per week. Heterologous regimens for the 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; booster vaccination demonstrated effectiveness comparable to that of homologous regimens. The rVE of the 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; booster homologous vaccination at a median of 7 weeks after booster vaccination was 41.9% (31.2%, 51.0%), 53.1% (24.5%, 70.9%), 60.6% (55.3%, 65.3%), 56.4% (45.3%, 65.2%) and 68.2% (51.2%, 79.2%) against the five outcomes above, respectively, with no significant decrease in the rVE of 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; booster vaccination. In conclusion, both the 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; and 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; booster homologous vaccinations provided additional protection against mild and severe infections. The rVE of the 1&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; booster rapidly waned over time. The rVE of the 2&lt;sup&gt;nd&lt;/sup&gt; booster, including heterologous vaccination, its durability and the sources of heterogeneity, however, remains uncertain and more relevant studies are needed.&lt;/p&gt;

A clinical and economic assessment of adjuvanted trivalent versus standard egg-derived quadrivalent influenza vaccines among older adults in the United States during the 2018-19 and 2019-20 influenza seasons

ABSTRACT Background Clinical evidence supports use of enhanced influenza vaccines in older adults. Few economic outcome studies have compared adjuvanted trivalent inactivated (aIIV3) and standard egg-derived quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4e). Research Design and Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted leveraging deidentified US hospital data linked to claims data during the 2018–19 and 2019–20 influenza seasons. Relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) was compared in adults aged ≥ 65 years receiving aIIV3 or IIV4e using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and Poisson regression. An economic assessment quantified potential real-world cost savings. Results The study included 715,807 aIIV3 and 320,991 IIV4e recipients in the 2018–19 and 844,169 aIIV3 and 306,270 IIV4e recipients in the 2019–20 influenza seasons. aIIV3 was significantly more effective than IIV4e in preventing cardiorespiratory disease (2018–19 rVE = 6.2%; and 2019–20 rVE = 6.0%) and respiratory disease (2018–19 rVE = 8.9%; and 2019–20 rVE = 10.1%). During the 2018–19 influenza season cardiorespiratory hospitalization cost savings for the aIIV3 population were $392 M, and $221 M for the 2019–20 season. Respiratory hospitalization cost savings for the aIIV3 population were $145 M and $97 M, respectively. Conclusions Our findings suggest that aIIV3 provides clinical and economic advantages versus IIV4e in the elderly.

Recombinant or Standard-Dose Influenza Vaccine in Adults under 65 Years of Age

BackgroundQuadrivalent recombinant influenza vaccines contain three times the amount of hemagglutinin protein as standard-dose egg-based vaccines, and the recombinant formulation is not susceptible to antigenic drift during manufacturing. Data are needed on the relative effectiveness of recombinant vaccines as compared with standard-dose vaccines against influenza-related outcomes in adults under the age of 65 years.MethodsIn this cluster-randomized observational study, Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities routinely administered either a high-dose recombinant influenza vaccine (Flublok Quadrivalent) or one of two standard-dose influenza vaccines during the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 influenza seasons to adults 50 to 64 years of age (primary age group) and 18 to 49 years of age. Each facility alternated weekly between the two vaccine formulations. The primary outcome was influenza (A or B) confirmed by polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) testing. Secondary outcomes included influenza A, influenza B, and influenza-related hospitalization outcomes. We used Cox regression analysis to estimate the hazard ratio of the recombinant vaccine as compared with the standard-dose vaccines against each outcome. We calculated the relative vaccine effectiveness as 1 minus the hazard ratio.ResultsThe study population included 1,630,328 vaccinees between the ages of 18 and 64 years (632,962 in the recombinant-vaccine group and 997,366 in the standard-dose group). During this study period, 1386 cases of PCR-confirmed influenza were diagnosed in the recombinant-vaccine group and 2435 cases in the standard-dose group. Among the participants who were 50 to 64 years of age, 559 participants (2.00 cases per 1000) tested positive for influenza in the recombinant-vaccine group as compared with 925 participants (2.34 cases per 1000) in the standard-dose group (relative vaccine effectiveness, 15.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9 to 23.8; P=0.002). In the same age group, the relative vaccine effectiveness against influenza A was 15.7% (95% CI, 6.0 to 24.5; P=0.002). The recombinant vaccine was not significantly more protective against influenza-related hospitalization than were the standard-dose vaccines.ConclusionsThe high-dose recombinant vaccine conferred more protection against PCR-confirmed influenza than an egg-based standard-dose vaccine among adults between the ages of 50 and 64 years. (Funded by Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03694392.)

Relative vaccine effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 boosters in people aged at least 75 years during the spring-summer (monovalent vaccine) and autumn-winter (bivalent vaccine) booster campaigns: a prospective test negative case-control study, United Kingdom, 2022.

BackgroundUnderstanding the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of new COVID-19 vaccine formulations against SARS-CoV-2 infection is a public health priority. A precise analysis of the rVE of monovalent and bivalent boosters given during the 2022 spring-summer and autumn-winter campaigns, respectively, in a defined population remains of interest.AimWe assessed rVE against hospitalisation for the spring-summer (fourth vs third monovalent mRNA vaccine doses) and autumn-winter (fifth BA.1/ancestral bivalent vs fourth monovalent mRNA vaccine dose) boosters.MethodsWe performed a prospective single-centre test-negative design case-control study in ≥ 75-year-old people hospitalised with COVID-19 or other acute respiratory disease. We conducted regression analyses controlling for age, sex, socioeconomic status, patient comorbidities, community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, vaccine brand and time between baseline dose and hospitalisation.ResultsWe included 682 controls and 182 cases in the spring-summer booster analysis and 572 controls and 152 cases in the autumn-winter booster analysis. A monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as fourth dose showed 46.6% rVE (95% confidence interval (CI): 13.9-67.1) vs those not fully boosted. A bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as fifth dose had 46.7% rVE (95% CI: 18.0-65.1), compared with a fourth monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose.ConclusionsBoth fourth monovalent and fifth BA.1/ancestral mRNA bivalent COVID-19 vaccine doses demonstrated benefit as a booster in older adults. Bivalent mRNA boosters offered similar protection against hospitalisation with Omicron infection to monovalent mRNA boosters given earlier in the year. These findings support immunisation programmes in several European countries that advised the use of BA.1/ancestral bivalent booster doses.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bivalent (Original/Omicron BA.4/BA.5) COVID-19 Vaccines in Adults.

The emergence of Omicron variants coincided with declining vaccine-induced protection against SARS-CoV-2. Two bivalent mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273.222 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 Bivalent (Pfizer-BioNTech), were developed to provide greater protection against the predominate circulating variants by including mRNA that encodes both the ancestral (original) strain and BA.4/BA.5. We estimated their relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) in preventing COVID-19-related outcomes in the US using a nationwide dataset linking primary care electronic health records and pharmacy/medical claims data. The study population (aged ≥18 years) received either vaccine between 31 August 2022 and 28 February 2023. We used propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences between groups. We estimated the rVE against COVID-19-related hospitalizations (primary outcome) and outpatient visits (secondary) for 1,034,538 mRNA-1273.222 and 1,670,666 BNT162b2 Bivalent vaccine recipients, with an adjusted rVE of 9.8% (95% confidence interval: 2.6-16.4%) and 5.1% (95% CI: 3.2-6.9%), respectively, for mRNA-1273.222 versus BNT162b2 Bivalent. The incremental relative effectiveness was greater among adults ≥ 65; the rVE against COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits in these patients was 13.5% (95% CI: 5.5-20.8%) and 10.7% (8.2-13.1%), respectively. Overall, we found greater effectiveness of mRNA-1273.222 compared with the BNT162b2 Bivalent vaccine in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits, with increased benefits in older adults.

The potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of the updated COVID-19 mRNA fall 2023 vaccines in the United States

Aims To assess the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines updated for fall 2023 in adults aged ≥18 years over a 1-year analytic time horizon (September 2023-August 2024). Materials and methods A compartmental Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered model was updated to reflect COVID-19 cases in summer 2023. The numbers of symptomatic infections, COVID-19–related hospitalizations and deaths, and costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated using a decision tree model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a Moderna updated mRNA fall 2023 vaccine (Moderna Fall Campaign) was compared to no additional vaccination. Potential differences between the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech fall 2023 vaccines were also examined. Results Base case results suggest that the Moderna Fall Campaign would decrease the expected 64.2 million symptomatic infections by 7.2 million (11%) to 57.0 million. COVID-19–related hospitalizations and deaths are expected to decline by 343,000 (-29%) and 50,500 (-33%), respectively. The Moderna Fall Campaign would increase QALYs by 740,880 and healthcare costs by $5.7 billion relative to no vaccine, yielding an ICER of $7700 per QALY gained. Using a societal cost perspective, the ICER is $2100. Sensitivity analyses suggest that vaccine effectiveness, COVID-19 incidence, hospitalization rates, and costs drive cost-effectiveness. With a relative vaccine effectiveness of 5.1% for infection and 9.8% for hospitalization for the Moderna vaccine versus the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, use of the Moderna vaccine is expected to prevent 24,000 more hospitalizations and 3300 more deaths than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Limitations and conclusions As COVID-19 becomes endemic, future incidence, including patterns of infection, are highly uncertain. The effectiveness of fall 2023 vaccines is unknown, and it is unclear when a new variant that evades natural or vaccine immunity will emerge. Despite these limitations, our model predicts the Moderna Fall Campaign vaccine is highly cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine third doses and previous infection in protecting against SARS-CoV-2 infections during the Delta and Omicron variant waves; the UK SIREN cohort study September 2021 to February 2022

Third doses of COVID-19 vaccines were widely deployed following primary vaccine course waning and emergence of the Omicron-variant. We investigated protection from third-dose vaccines and previous infection against SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta-variant and Omicron-variant (BA.1 & BA.2) waves in our frequently PCR-tested cohort of healthcare-workers.Relative effectiveness of BNT162b2 third doses and infection-acquired immunity was assessed by comparing the time to PCR-confirmed infection in boosted participants with those with waned dose-2 protection (≥254 days after dose-2), by primary series vaccination type. Follow-up time was divided by dominant circulating variant: Delta 07 September 2021 to 30 November 2021, Omicron 13 December 2021 to 28 February 2022. We used a Cox regression model with adjustment/stratification for demographic characteristics and staff-type. We explored protection associated with vaccination, infection and both.We included 19,614 participants, 29% previously infected. There were 278 primary infections (4 per 10,000 person-days of follow-up) and 85 reinfections (0.8/10,000 person-days) during the Delta period and 2467 primary infections (43/10,000 person-days) and 881 reinfections (33/10,000) during the Omicron period. Relative Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) 0-2 months post-3rd dose (3rd dose) (3-doses BNT162b2) in the previously uninfected cohort against Delta infections was 63% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 40%-77%) and was lower (35%) against Omicron infection (95% CI 21%-47%). The relative VE of 3rd dose (heterologous BNT162b2) was greater for primary course ChAdOX1 recipients, with VE 0-2 months post-3rd dose over ≥68% higher for both variants. Third-dose protection waned rapidly against Omicron, with no significant difference between two and three BNT162b2 doses observed after 4-months. Previous infection continued to provide additional protection against Omicron (67% (CI 56%-75%) 3-6 months post-infection), but this waned to about 25% after 9-months, approximately three times lower than against Delta.Infection rates surged with Omicron emergence. Third doses of BNT162b2 vaccine provided short-term protection, with rapid waning against Omicron infections. Protection associated with infections incurred before Omicron was markedly diminished against the Omicron wave. Our findings demonstrate the complexity of an evolving pandemic with potential emergence of immune-escape variants and the importance of continued monitoring.