Effect of the 2022 COVID-19 booster vaccination campaign in 50 year olds in England: regression discontinuity analysis in OpenSAFELY (preprint)

Background: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are highly effective in preventing severe COVID-19 but require boosting to maintain protection. Changes to circulating variants and prevalent natural immunity may impact on real-world effectiveness of boosters in different time periods and in different populations. Methods: With NHS England approval, we used linked routine clinical data from >24 million patients to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2022 combined COVID-19 autumn booster and influenza vaccine campaign in non-clinically vulnerable 50-year-olds in England using a regression discontinuity design. Our primary outcome was a composite of 6-week COVID-19 emergency attendance, COVID-19 unplanned hospitalisation, or death. The secondary outcomes were: respiratory hospitalisations or death; any unplanned hospitalisation; and any death. Results: Our study included 1,917,375 people aged 45-54 years with no evidence of being in a high-risk group prioritised for vaccination. By 26 November 2022, booster vaccine coverage was 11.1% at age 49.75 years increasing to 39.7% at age 50.25 years. The estimated effect of the campaign on the risk of the primary outcome in 50-year-olds during weeks 7-12 after the campaign start was -0.4 per 100,000 (95% CI -7.8, 7.1). For the secondary outcomes the estimated effects were: -0.6 per 100,000 (95%CI -13.5, 12.3) for respiratory outcomes; 5.0 per 100,000 (95%CI -40.7, 50.8) for unplanned hospitalisations; and 3.0 per 100,000 (95%CI -2.7, 8.6) for any death. The results were similar when using different follow-up start dates, different bandwidths, or when estimating the effect of vaccination (rather than the campaign). Conclusion: This study found little evidence that the autumn 2022 vaccination campaign in England was associated with a reduction in severe COVID-19-related outcomes among non-clinically vulnerable 50-year-olds. Possible explanations include the low risk of severe outcomes due to substantial pre-existing vaccine- and infection-induced immunity. Modest booster coverage reduced the precision with which we could estimate effectiveness. The booster campaign may have had effects beyond those estimated, including reducing virus transmission and incidence of mild or moderate COVID-19.

The imprinting effect of COVID-19 vaccines: an expected selection bias in observational studies (preprint)

Findings of recent observational studies have been interpreted as supporting immune imprinting of COVID-19 vaccines. In this work, we clarify that the current discussion can be mapped to an attempt to estimate the direct effect of vaccine boosters on SARS-CoV-2 reinfections, and that such direct effect cannot be correctly estimated with observational data. We conclude that recent observational estimates regarding immune imprinting are fundamentally biased, and that the increased risk of reinfection in individuals vaccinated with a vaccine booster compared to no booster is expected even if the immune imprinting hypothesis is false. We use graphical methods (directed acyclic graphs), data simulations and analysis of real-life data to illustrate the mechanism and magnitude of this bias.

Comparative effectiveness of BNT162b2 versus mRNA-1273 boosting in England: a cohort study in OpenSAFELY-TPP (preprint)

Introduction The COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England used both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines. Direct comparisons of the effectiveness against severe COVID-19 of these two vaccines for boosting have not been made in trials or observational data. Methods On behalf of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database to match adult recipients of each vaccine type on date of vaccination, primary vaccine course, age, and other characteristics. Recipients were eligible if boosted between 29 October 2021 and 31 January 2022, and followed up for 12 weeks. Outcomes were positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death. We estimated the cumulative incidence of each outcome, and quantified comparative effectiveness using risk differences (RD) and hazard ratios (HRs). Results 1,528,431 people were matched in each group, contributing a total 23,150,504 person-weeks of follow-up. The 12-week risks per 1,000 people of positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 103.2 (95%CI 102.4 to 104.0) for BNT162b2 and 96.0 (95.2 to 96.8) for mRNA-1273: the HR comparing mRNA-1273 with BNT162b2 was 0.92 (95%CI 0.91 to 0.92). For COVID-19 hospitalisations the 12-week risks per 1,000 were 0.65 (95%CI 0.56 to 0.75) and 0.44 (0.36 to 0.54): HR 0.67 (95%CI 0.58 to 0.78). COVID-19 deaths were rare: the 12-week risks per 1,000 were 0.03 (95%CI 0.02 to 0.06) and 0.01 (0.01 to 0.02): HR 1.23 (95%CI 0.59 to 2.56). Comparative effectiveness was generally similar within subgroups. Conclusion Booster vaccination with mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine was more effective than BNT162b2 in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation during the first 12 weeks after vaccination.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 booster doses in England: an observational study in OpenSAFELY-TPP (preprint)

Background The UK COVID-19 vaccination programme delivered its first "booster" doses in September 2021, initially in groups at high risk of severe disease then across the adult population. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, with Moderna mRNA-1273 subsequently also used. Methods We used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database, covering 40% of English primary care practices and linked to national coronavirus surveillance, hospital episodes, and death registry data, to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses between 16 September and 16 December 2021 when the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 was dominant. Follow up was for up to 10 weeks. Each booster recipient was matched with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior immunisation. Additional factors were adjusted for in Cox models estimating hazard ratios (HRs). Outcomes were positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and non-COVID-9 death. Booster vaccine effectiveness was defined as 1-HR. Results Among 4,352,417 BNT162b2 booster recipients matched with unboosted controls, estimated effectiveness of a booster dose compared with two doses only was 50.7% (95% CI 50.1-51.3) for positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 80.1% (78.3-81.8) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, 88.5% (85.0-91.1) for COVID-19 death, and 80.3% (79.0-81.5) for non-COVID-19 death. Estimated effectiveness was similar among those who had received a BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S two-dose primary vaccination course, but effectiveness against severe COVID-19 was slightly lower in those classified as clinically extremely vulnerable (76.3% (73.1-79.1) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, and 85.1% (79.6-89.1) for COVID-19 death). Estimated effectiveness against each outcome was lower in those aged 18-65 years than in those aged 65 and over. Conclusion Our findings are consistent with strong protection of BNT162b2 boosting against positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death.

Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and severity of COVID-19 in people with HIV infection (preprint)

Background Effective, safe, and affordable antivirals are needed for COVID-19. Tenofovir has not been studied in randomized trials despite evidence consistent with its effectiveness against COVID-19. Methods We studied HIV-positive individuals on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in 2020 at 69 HIV clinics in Spain. We collected data on sociodemographics, ART, CD4-cell count, HIV-RNA viral load, comorbidities and the following outcomes: laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. We compared the 48-week risks for individuals receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/ FTC, abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC), and other regimes. All estimates were adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic characteristics via inverse probability weighting. Results Of 51,558 eligible individuals, 39.6% were on TAF/FTC, 11.9% on TDF/FTC, 26.6% on ABC/3TC, 21.8% on other regimes. There were 2,402 documented SARS-CoV-2 infections (425 hospitalizations, 45 ICU admissions, 37 deaths). Compared with TAF/FTC, the estimated risk ratios (RR) (95% CI) of hospitalization were 0.66 (0.43, 0.91) for TDF/FTC and 1.29 (1.02, 1.58) for ABC/3TC, the RRs of ICU admission were 0.28 (0.11, 0.90) for TDF/FTC and 1.39 (0.70, 2.80) for ABC/3TC, and the RRs of death were 0.37 (0.23, 1.90) for TDF/FTC and 2.02 (0.88-6.12) for ABC/3TC. The corresponding RRs of hospitalization for TDF/FTC were 0.49 (0.24, 0.81) in individuals [≥]50 years and 1.15 (0.59, 1.93) in younger individuals. Conclusion Our findings suggest that, compared with other antiretrovirals, TDF/FTC lowers COVID-19 severity among HIV-positive individuals with virological control. This protective effect may be restricted to individuals aged 50 years and older.

Comparative effectiveness of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines in Health and Social Care workers in England: a cohort study using OpenSAFELY (preprint)

Background: The UK COVID-19 vaccination programme delivered both the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines during overlapping periods, providing a rare opportunity to emulate a trial that directly compares both vaccines using routinely-collected NHS data. Frontline Health and Social Care workers comprise a useful population to assess comparative effectiveness due to early vaccine eligibility and relatively high post-vaccination transmission risk due to occupational exposure. Methods: With the approval of NHS England we used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database, covering 40% of GP practices in England and linked to national coronavirus surveillance, hospital episodes, and death registry data, to compare the effectiveness of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 in 1/3 million health and social care workers vaccinated between 4 January and 28 February 2021. Recipients were followed-up for 20 weeks. Second-dose effects were estimated under an intention-to-treat strategy. Primary outcomes were recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related accident and emergency attendance, and COVID-19-related hospital admission. Results: The cumulative incidence of each outcome was similar for both vaccines during the first 20 weeks post-vaccination. The cumulative incidence of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection 6 weeks after vaccination with BNT162b2 was 19.2 per 1000 people (95%CI 18.6 to 19.7) and with ChAdOx1 was 18.9 (95%CI 17.6 to 20.3), representing a difference of -0.24 per 1000 people (95%CI -1.71 to 1.22). The difference in the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 accident and emergency attendance at 6 weeks was 0.01 per 1000 people (95%CI -0.27 to 0.28). For COVID-19 hospital admission, this difference was 0.03 per 1000 people (95%CI -0.22 to 0.27). Conclusion: In this cohort of healthcare workers where we would not anticipate vaccine type to be related to health status, we found no substantial differences in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 disease up to 20 weeks after vaccination. Incidence dropped sharply after 3-4 weeks and there were very few COVID-19 hospital attendance and admission events after this period. This is in line with expected onset of vaccine-induced immunity, and suggests strong protection against COVID-19 disease for both vaccines.

Brief communication: A meta-analysis of randomized trials of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19 (preprint)

Background: There is disagreement about whether hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is effective as prophylaxis for COVID-19. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials that study the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19. Methods and Findings: A search of PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, and clinicaltrials.gov found three completed randomized trials: one pre-exposure prophylaxis trial and two post-exposure prophylaxis trials. We obtained or calculated the risk ratio of COVID-19 diagnosis for assignment to HCQ versus no HCQ (either placebo or usual care) for each trial, and then pooled the risk ratio estimates. The risk ratio estimated for each of the individual trials were 0.74 (95% CI 0.50-1.10), 0.83 (95% CI: 0.58-1.18), and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.35-1.37). The pooled risk ratio estimate was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.61-0.99). All three trials found a similar rate of adverse effects in the HCQ and no HCQ groups. Discussion: The available evidence indicates that HCQ reduces the risk of COVID-19 by about 20%. Yet the findings from the randomized trials were widely interpreted as evidence of lack of effectiveness of HCQ, simply because they were not statistically significant when taking them individually. Completion of the ongoing prophylaxis trials is needed to generate more precise estimates of the effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality risk in a nationwide seroepidemiological study (preprint)

ObjectiveTo estimate the range of the age- and sex-specific infection fatality risk (IFR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) based on confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths and excess all-cause deaths. DesignNationwide population-based seroepidemiological study combined with two national surveillance systems. Setting and participantsNon-institutionalized Spanish population of all ages. Main outcome measuresThe range of IFR was calculated as the observed number of COVID-19 deaths and excess deaths divided by the estimated number of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the non-institutionalized Spanish population. Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 deaths were obtained from the National Epidemiological Surveillance Network (RENAVE) and excess all-cause deaths from the Monitoring Mortality System (MoMo) up to July 15, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 infections were derived from the estimated seroprevalence by a chemiluminiscent microparticle immunoassay for IgG antibodies in 61,092 participants in the ENE-COVID nationwide serosurvey between April 27 and June 22, 2020. ResultsThe overall IFR (95% confidence interval) was 0.8% (0.8% to 0.9%) for confirmed COVID-19 deaths and 1.1% (1.0% to 1.2%) for excess deaths. The IFR ranged between 1.1% (1.0% to 1.2%) and 1.4% (1.3% to 1.5%) in men and between 0.6% (0.5% to 0.6%) and 0.8% (0.7% to 0.8%) in women. The IFR increased sharply after age 50, ranging between 11.6% (8.1% to 16.5%) and 16.4% (11.4% to 23.2%) in men [≥]80 years and between 4.6% (3.4% to 6.3%) and 6.5% (4.7% to 8.8%) in women [≥]80 years. ConclusionThe sharp increase in SARS-CoV-2 IFR after age 50 was more marked in men than in women. Fatality from COVID-19 is substantially greater than that reported for other common respiratory diseases such as seasonal influenza. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPICInfection fatality risk (IFR) for SARS-CoV-2 is a key indicator for policy decision making, but its magnitude remains under debate. Case fatality risk, which accounts for deaths among confirmed COVID-19 cases, overestimates SARS-CoV-2 fatality as it excludes a large proportion of asymptomatic and mild-symptomatic infections. Population-based seroepidemiological studies are a valuable tool to properly estimate the number of infected individuals, regardless of symptoms. Also, because ascertainment of deaths due to COVID-19 is often incomplete, the calculation of the IFR should be complemented with data on excess all-cause mortality. In addition, data on age- and sex-specific IFR are scarce, even though age and sex are well known modifiers of the clinical evolution of COVID-19. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDSUsing the ENE-COVID nationwide serosurvey and two national surveillance systems in Spain, this study provides a range of age- and sex-specific IFR estimates for SARS-CoV-2 based on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 deaths and excess all-cause deaths. The risk of death was very low among infected individuals younger than 50 years, but it increased sharply with age, particularly among men. In the oldest age group ([≥]80 years), it was estimated that 12% to 16% of infected men and 5% to 6% of infected women died during the first epidemic wave.