What we talk about when we talk about COVID-19 vaccination campaign impact: a narrative review.

Background: The lack of precise definitions and terminological consensus about the impact studies of COVID-19 vaccination leads to confusing statements from the scientific community about what a vaccination impact study is. Objective: The present work presents a narrative review, describing and discussing COVID-19 vaccination impact studies, mapping their relevant characteristics, such as study design, approaches and outcome variables, while analyzing their similarities, distinctions, and main insights. Methods: The articles screening, regarding title, abstract, and full-text reading, included papers addressing perspectives about the impact of vaccines on population outcomes. The screening process included articles published before June 10, 2022, based on the initial papers' relevance to this study's research topics. The main inclusion criteria were data analyses and study designs based on statistical modelling or comparison of pre- and post-vaccination population. Results: The review included 18 studies evaluating the vaccine impact in a total of 48 countries, including 32 high-income countries (United States, Israel, and 30 Western European countries) and 16 low- and middle-income countries (Brazil, Colombia, and 14 Eastern European countries). We summarize the main characteristics of the vaccination impact studies analyzed in this narrative review. Conclusion: Although all studies claim to address the impact of a vaccination program, they differ significantly in their objectives since they adopt different definitions of impact, methodologies, and outcome variables. These and other differences are related to distinct data sources, designs, analysis methods, models, and approaches.

Effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to face the COVID-19 pandemic in Rio de Janeiro's favelas: difference-in-differences analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Few community-based interventions addressing the transmission control and clinical management of COVID-19 cases have been reported, especially in poor urban communities from low-income and middle-income countries. Here, we analyse the impact of a multicomponent intervention that combines community engagement, mobile surveillance, massive testing and telehealth on COVID-19 cases detection and mortality rates in a large vulnerable community (Complexo da Maré) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. METHODS: We performed a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis to estimate the impact of the multicomponent intervention in Maré, before (March-August 2020) and after the intervention (September 2020 to April 2021), compared with equivalent local vulnerable communities. We applied a negative binomial regression model to estimate the intervention effect in weekly cases and mortality rates in Maré. RESULTS: Before the intervention, Maré presented lower rates of reported COVID-19 cases compared with the control group (1373 vs 1579 cases/100 000 population), comparable mortality rates (309 vs 287 deaths/100 000 population) and higher case fatality rates (13.7% vs 12.2%). After the intervention, Maré displayed a 154% (95% CI 138.6% to 170.4%) relative increase in reported case rates. Relative changes in reported death rates were -60% (95% CI -69.0% to -47.9%) in Maré and -28% (95% CI -42.0% to -9.8%) in the control group. The case fatality rate was reduced by 77% (95% CI -93.1% to -21.1%) in Maré and 52% (95% CI -81.8% to -29.4%) in the control group. The DID showed a reduction of 46% (95% CI 17% to 65%) of weekly reported deaths and an increased 23% (95% CI 5% to 44%) of reported cases in Maré after intervention onset. CONCLUSION: An integrated intervention combining communication, surveillance and telehealth, with a strong community engagement component, could reduce COVID-19 mortality and increase case detection in a large vulnerable community in Rio de Janeiro. These findings show that investment in community-based interventions may reduce mortality and improve pandemic control in poor communities from low-income and middle-income countries.

Change in covid-19 risk over time following vaccination with CoronaVac: test negative case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the change in odds of covid-19 over time following primary series completion of the inactivated whole virus vaccine CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech) in São Paulo State, Brazil. DESIGN: Test negative case-control study. SETTING: Community testing for covid-19 in São Paulo State, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years who were residents of São Paulo state, had received two doses of CoronaVac, did not have a laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination, and underwent reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 from 17 January to 14 December 2021. Cases were matched to test negative controls by age (in 5 year bands), municipality of residence, healthcare worker status, and epidemiological week of RT-PCR test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: RT-PCR confirmed symptomatic covid-19 and associated hospital admissions and deaths. Conditional logistic regression was adjusted for sex, number of covid-19 associated comorbidities, race, and previous acute respiratory illness. RESULTS: From 202 741 eligible people, 52 170 cases with symptomatic covid-19 and 69 115 test negative controls with covid-19 symptoms were formed into 43 257 matched sets. Adjusted odds ratios of symptomatic covid-19 increased with time since completion of the vaccination series. The increase in odds was greater in younger people and among healthcare workers, although sensitivity analyses suggested that this was in part due to bias. In addition, the adjusted odds ratios of covid-19 related hospital admission or death significantly increased with time compared with the odds 14-41 days after series completion: from 1.25 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.51) at 70-97 days up to 1.94 (1.41 to 2.67) from 182 days onwards. CONCLUSIONS: Significant increases in the risk of moderate and severe covid-19 outcomes occurred three months after primary vaccination with CoronaVac among people aged 65 and older. These findings provide supportive evidence for the implementation of vaccine boosters in these populations who received this inactivated vaccine. Studies of waning should include analyses designed to uncover common biases.

Association between primary or booster COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and Omicron lineage BA.1 SARS-CoV-2 infection in people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection: A test-negative case-control analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of primary and booster vaccination in people who experienced a prior Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. The objective of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of primary (two-dose series) and booster (third dose) mRNA vaccination against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with a prior documented infection. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study of reverse transcription PCRs (RT-PCRs) analyzed with the TaqPath (Thermo Fisher Scientific) assay and recorded in the Yale New Haven Health system from November 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Overall, 11,307 cases (positive TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs with S-gene target failure [SGTF]) and 130,041 controls (negative TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs) were included (median age: cases: 35 years, controls: 39 years). Among cases and controls, 5.9% and 8.1% had a documented prior infection (positive SARS-CoV-2 test record ≥90 days prior to the included test), respectively. We estimated the effectiveness of primary and booster vaccination relative to SGTF-defined Omicron (lineage BA.1) variant infection using a logistic regression adjusted for date of test, age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, comorbidities, social venerability index, municipality, and healthcare utilization. The effectiveness of primary vaccination 14 to 149 days after the second dose was 41.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 14.1% to 59.4%, p 0.006) and 27.1% (95% CI: 18.7% to 34.6%, p < 0.001) for people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. The effectiveness of booster vaccination (≥14 days after booster dose) was 47.1% (95% CI: 22.4% to 63.9%, p 0.001) and 54.1% (95% CI: 49.2% to 58.4%, p < 0.001) in people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. To test whether booster vaccination reduced the risk of infection beyond that of the primary series, we compared the odds of infection among boosted (≥14 days after booster dose) and booster-eligible people (≥150 days after second dose). The odds ratio (OR) comparing boosted and booster-eligible people with a documented prior infection was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.54 to 1.16, p 0.222), whereas the OR comparing boosted and booster-eligible people without a documented prior infection was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.59, p < 0.001). This study's limitations include the risk of residual confounding, the use of data from a single system, and the reliance on TaqPath analyzed RT-PCR results. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that primary vaccination provided significant but limited protection against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with and without a documented prior infection. While booster vaccination was associated with additional protection against Omicron BA.1 infection in people without a documented prior infection, it was not found to be associated with additional protection among people with a documented prior infection. These findings support primary vaccination in people regardless of documented prior infection status but suggest that infection history may impact the relative benefit of booster doses.

Effectiveness of an inactivated Covid-19 vaccine with homologous and heterologous boosters against Omicron in Brazil.

The effectiveness of inactivated vaccines (VE) against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 caused by omicron is unknown. We conducted a nationwide, test-negative, case-control study to estimate VE for homologous and heterologous (BNT162b2) booster doses in adults who received two doses of CoronaVac in Brazil in the Omicron context. Analyzing 1,386,544 matched-pairs, VE against symptomatic disease was 8.6% (95% CI, 5.6-11.5) and 56.8% (95% CI, 56.3-57.3) in the period 8-59 days after receiving a homologous and heterologous booster, respectively. During the same interval, VE against severe Covid-19 was 73.6% (95% CI, 63.9-80.7) and 86.0% (95% CI, 84.5-87.4) after receiving a homologous and heterologous booster, respectively. Waning against severe Covid-19 after 120 days was only observed after a homologous booster. Heterologous booster might be preferable to individuals with completed primary series inactivated vaccine.

Urban-rural differences in hypertension prevalence in low-income and middle-income countries, 1990-2020: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The influence of urbanicity on hypertension prevalence remains poorly understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the difference in hypertension prevalence between urban and rural areas in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the most pronounced urbanisation is underway. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase, from 01/01/1990 to 10/03/2022. We included population-based studies with ≥400 participants 15 years and older, selected by using a valid sampling technique, from LMICs that reported the urban-rural difference in hypertension prevalence using similar blood pressure measurements. We excluded abstracts, reviews, non-English studies, and those with exclusively self-reported hypertension prevalence. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers following a standardised protocol. Our primary outcome was the urban minus rural prevalence of hypertension. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure as ≥90 mm Hg and could include use of antihypertensive medication, self-reported diagnosis, or both. We investigated heterogeneity using study-level and socioeconomic country-level indicators. We conducted meta-analysis and meta-regression using random-effects models. This systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018091671). We included 299 surveys from 66 LMICs, including 19,770,946 participants (mean age 45.4 ± SD = 9 years, 53.0% females and 63.1% from rural areas). The pooled prevalence of hypertension was 30.5% (95% CI, 28.9, 32.0) in urban areas and 27.9% (95% CI, 26.3, 29.6) in rural areas, resulting in a pooled urban-rural difference of 2.45% (95% CI, 1.57, 3.33, I-square: 99.71%, tau-square: 0.00524, Pheterogeneity < 0.001). Hypertension prevalence increased over time and the rate of change was greater in rural compared to urban areas, resulting in a pooled urban-rural difference of 5.75% (95% CI, 4.02, 7.48) in the period 1990 to 2004 and 1.38% (95% CI, 0.40, 2.37) in the period 2005 to 2020, p < 0.001 for time period. We observed substantial heterogeneity in the urban-rural difference of hypertension, which was partially explained by urban-rural definition, probably high risk of bias in sampling, country income status, region, and socioeconomic indicators. The urban-rural difference was 5.67% (95% CI, 4.22, 7.13) in low, 2.74% (95% CI, 1.41, 4.07) in lower-middle and -1.22% (95% CI, -2.73, 0.28) in upper-middle-income countries in the period 1990 to 2020, p < 0.001 for country income. The urban-rural difference was highest for South Asia (7.50%, 95% CI, 5.73, 9.26), followed by sub-Saharan Africa (4.24%, 95% CI, 2.62, 5.86) and reversed for Europe and Central Asia (-6.04%, 95% CI, -9.06, -3.01), in the period 1990 to 2020, p < 0.001 for region. Finally, the urban-rural difference in hypertension prevalence decreased nonlinearly with improvements in Human Development Index and infant mortality rate. Limitations included lack of data available from all LMICs and variability in urban and rural definitions in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of hypertension in LMICs increased between 1990 and 2020 in both urban and rural areas, but with a stronger trend in rural areas. The urban minus rural hypertension difference decreased with time, and with country-level socioeconomic development. Focused action, particularly in rural areas, is needed to tackle the burden of hypertension in LMICs.

Effectiveness of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BNT162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazil: a test-negative, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines have proven highly effective among individuals without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, but their effectiveness in preventing symptomatic infection and severe outcomes among individuals with previous infection is less clear. We aimed to estimate the effectiveness of four COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic infection, hospitalisation, and death for individuals with laboratory-confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Using national COVID-19 notification, hospitalisation, and vaccination datasets from Brazil, we did a test-negative, case-control study to assess the effectiveness of four vaccines (CoronaVac [Sinovac], ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [AstraZeneca], Ad26.COV2.S [Janssen], and BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNtech]) for individuals with laboratory-confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. We matched cases with RT-PCR positive, symptomatic COVID-19 with up to ten controls with negative RT-PCR tests who presented with symptomatic illnesses, restricting both groups to tests done at least 90 days after an initial infection. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to compare the odds of test positivity and the odds of hospitalisation or death due to COVID-19, according to vaccination status and time since first or second dose of vaccines. FINDINGS: Between Feb 24, 2020, and Nov 11, 2021, we identified 213 457 individuals who had a subsequent, symptomatic illness with RT-PCR testing done at least 90 days after their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection and after the vaccination programme started. Among these, 30 910 (14·5%) had a positive RT-PCR test consistent with reinfection, and we matched 22 566 of these cases with 145 055 negative RT-PCR tests from 68 426 individuals as controls. Among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection 14 or more days from vaccine series completion was 39·4% (95% CI 36·1-42·6) for CoronaVac, 56·0% (51·4-60·2) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 44·0% (31·5-54·2) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 64·8% (54·9-72·4) for BNT162b2. For the two-dose vaccine series (CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and BNT162b2), effectiveness against symptomatic infection was significantly greater after the second dose than after the first dose. Effectiveness against hospitalisation or death 14 or more days from vaccine series completion was 81·3% (75·3-85·8) for CoronaVac, 89·9% (83·5-93·8) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 57·7% (-2·6 to 82·5) for Ad26.COV2.S, and 89·7% (54·3-97·7) for BNT162b2. INTERPRETATION: All four vaccines conferred additional protection against symptomatic infections and severe outcomes among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The provision of a full vaccine series to individuals after recovery from COVID-19 might reduce morbidity and mortality. FUNDING: Brazilian National Research Council, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, JBS, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and Generalitat de Catalunya.

Primary healthcare protects vulnerable populations from inequity in COVID-19 vaccination: An ecological analysis of nationwide data from Brazil.

Background: There is limited information on the inequity of access to vaccination in low-and-middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we described the progression of the Brazilian immunisation program for COVID-19, and the association of socioeconomic development with vaccination rates, considering the potential protective effect of primary health care coverage. Methods: We performed an ecological analysis of COVID-19 immunisation data from the Brazilian National Immunization Program from January 17 to August 31, 2021. We analysed the dynamics of vaccine coverage in the adult population of 5,570 Brazilian municipalities. We estimated the association of human development index (HDI) levels (low, medium, and high) with age-sex standardised first dose coverage using a multivariable negative binomial regression model. We evaluated the interaction between the HDI and primary health care coverage. Finally, we compared the adjusted monthly progression of vaccination rates, hospital admission and in-hospital death rates among HDI levels. Findings: From January 17 to August 31, 2021, 202,427,355 COVID-19 vaccine doses were administered in Brazil. By the end of the period, 64·2% of adults had first and 31·4% second doses, with more than 90% of those aged ≥60 years with primary scheme completed. Four distinct vaccine platforms were used in the country, ChAdOx1-S/nCoV-19, Sinovac-CoronaVac, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, composing 44·8%, 33·2%, 19·6%, and 2·4% of total doses, respectively. First dose coverage differed between municipalities with high, medium, and low HDI (Median [interquartile range] 72 [66, 79], 68 [61, 75] and 63 [55, 70] doses per 100 people, respectively). Municipalities with low (Rate Ratio [RR, 95% confidence interval]: 0·87 [0·85-0·88]) and medium (RR [95% CI]: 0·94 [0·93-0·95]) development were independently associated with lower vaccination rates compared to those with high HDI. Primary health care coverage modified the association of HDI and vaccination rate, improving vaccination rates in those municipalities of low HDI and high primary health care coverage. Low HDI municipalities presented a delayed decrease in adjusted in-hospital death rates by first dose coverage compared to high HDI locations. Interpretation: In Brazil, socioeconomic disparities negatively impacted the first dose vaccination rate. However, the primary health care mitigated these disparities, suggesting that the primary health care coverage guarantees more equitable access to vaccines in vulnerable locations. Funding: This work is part of the Grand Challenges ICODA pilot initiative, delivered by Health Data Research UK and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Minderoo Foundation. This study was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) - Finance Code 001, Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) and the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro.

Use of Recently Vaccinated Individuals to Detect Bias in Test-Negative Case-Control Studies of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness.

Postauthorization observational studies play a key role in understanding COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness following the demonstration of efficacy in clinical trials. Although bias due to confounding, selection bias, and misclassification can be mitigated through careful study design, unmeasured confounding is likely to remain in these observational studies. Phase III trials of COVID-19 vaccines have shown that protection from vaccination does not occur immediately, meaning that COVID-19 risk should be similar in recently vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, in the absence of confounding or other bias. Several studies have used the estimated effectiveness among recently vaccinated individuals as a negative control exposure to detect bias in vaccine effectiveness estimates. In this paper, we introduce a theoretical framework to describe the interpretation of such a bias indicator in test-negative studies, and outline strong assumptions that would allow vaccine effectiveness among recently vaccinated individuals to serve as a negative control exposure.

Vaccine effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 in a socially vulnerable community in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: a test-negative design study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate vaccine effectiveness after the first and second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against symptomatic COVID-19 and infection in a socially vulnerable community in Brazil when Gamma and Delta were the predominant variants circulating. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative study in the community Complexo da Maré, the largest group of slums (n = 16) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from January 17, 2021 to November 27, 2021. We selected RT-qPCR positive and negative tests from a broad community testing program. The primary outcome was symptomatic COVID-19 (positive RT-qPCR test with at least one symptom) and the secondary outcome was infection (any positive RT-qPCR test). Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 1 - OR, which was obtained from adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: We included 10 077 RT-qPCR tests (6,394, 64% from symptomatic and 3,683, 36% from asymptomatic individuals). The mean age was 40 (SD: 14) years, and the median time between vaccination and RT-qPCR testing among vaccinated was 41 (25-75 percentile: 21-62) days for the first dose and 36 (25-75 percentile: 17-59) days for the second dose. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 was 31.6% (95% CI, 12.0-46.8) 21 days after the first dose and 65.1% (95% CI, 40.9-79.4) 14 days after the second dose. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection was 31.0% (95% CI, 12.7-45.5) 21 days after the first dose and 59.0% (95% CI, 33.1-74.8) 14 days after the second dose. DISCUSSION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was effective in reducing symptomatic COVID-19 in a socially vulnerable community in Brazil when Gamma and Delta were the predominant variants circulating.

Effectiveness of ChAdOx1 vaccine in older adults during SARS-CoV-2 Gamma variant circulation in São Paulo.

A two-dose regimen of the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) Covid-19 vaccine with an inter-dose interval of three months has been implemented in many countries with restricted vaccine supply. However, there is limited evidence for the effectiveness of ChAdOx1 by dose in elderly populations in countries with high prevalence of the Gamma variant of SARS-CoV-2. Here, we estimate ChAdOx1 effectiveness by dose against the primary endpoint of RT-PCR-confirmed Covid-19, and secondary endpoints of Covid-19 hospitalization and Covid-19-related death, in adults aged ≥60 years during an epidemic with high Gamma variant prevalence in São Paulo state, Brazil using a matched, test-negative case-control study. Starting 28 days after the first dose, effectiveness of a single dose of ChAdOx1 is 33.4% (95% CI, 26.4-39.7) against Covid-19, 55.1% (95% CI, 46.6-62.2) against hospitalization, and 61.8% (95% CI, 48.9-71.4) against death. Starting 14 days after the second dose, effectiveness of the two-dose schedule is 77.9% (95% CI, 69.2-84.2) against Covid-19, 87.6% (95% CI, 78.2-92.9) against hospitalization, and 93.6% (95% CI, 81.9-97.7) against death. Completion of the ChAdOx1 vaccine schedule affords significantly increased protection over a single dose against mild and severe Covid-19 outcomes in elderly individuals during widespread Gamma variant circulation.

Effectiveness of the CoronaVac vaccine in older adults during a gamma variant associated epidemic of covid-19 in Brazil: test negative case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of the inactivated whole virus vaccine, CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech), against symptomatic covid-19 in the elderly population of São Paulo state, Brazil during widespread circulation of the gamma variant. DESIGN: Test negative case-control study. SETTING: Community testing for covid-19 in São Paulo state, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: 43 774 adults aged ≥70 years who were residents of São Paulo state and underwent reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 from 17 January to 29 April 2021. 26 433 cases with symptomatic covid-19 and 17 622 test negative controls with covid-19 symptoms were formed into 13 283 matched sets, one case with to up to five controls, according to age, sex, self-reported race, municipality of residence, previous covid-19 status, and date of RT-PCR test (±3 days). INTERVENTION: Vaccination with a two dose regimen of CoronaVac. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: RT-PCR confirmed symptomatic covid-19 and associated hospital admissions and deaths. RESULTS: Adjusted vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic covid-19 was 24.7% (95% confidence interval 14.7% to 33.4%) at 0-13 days and 46.8% (38.7% to 53.8%) at ≥14 days after the second dose. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions was 55.5% (46.5% to 62.9%) and against deaths was 61.2% (48.9% to 70.5%) at ≥14 days after the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness ≥14 days after the second dose was highest for the youngest age group (70-74 years)-59.0% (43.7% to 70.2%) against symptomatic disease, 77.6% (62.5% to 86.7%) against hospital admissions, and 83.9% (59.2% to 93.7%) against deaths-and declined with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination with CoronaVac was associated with a reduction in symptomatic covid-19, hospital admissions, and deaths in adults aged ≥70 years in a setting with extensive transmission of the gamma variant. Vaccine protection was, however, low until completion of the two dose regimen, and vaccine effectiveness was observe to decline with increasing age among this elderly population.