Comparative safety and effectiveness of Pfizer BA.4-5 versus Sanofi during the spring 2023 COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England: a matched cohort study in OpenSAFELY-TPP (preprint)

Introduction: The spring 2023 COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England used both Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccines. All people aged 75 years or over and the clinically vulnerable were eligible to receive a booster dose. Direct comparisons of the effectiveness of these two vaccines in boosting protection against severe COVID-19 events have not been made in trials or observational data. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database to compare effectiveness of the Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccines during the spring 2023 booster programme, between 1 April and 30 June 2023. We investigated two cohorts separately: those aged 75 or over (75+); and those aged 50 or over and clinically vulnerable (CV). In each cohort, vaccine recipients were matched on date of vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine history, age, and other characteristics. Effectiveness outcomes were COVID-19 hospital admission, COVID-19 critical care admission, and COVID-19 death up to 16 weeks after vaccination. Safety outcomes were pericarditis and myocarditis up to 4 weeks after vaccination. We report the cumulative incidence of each outcome, and compare safety and effectiveness using risk differences (RD), relative risks (RR), and incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Results 492,642 people were 1-1 matched in the CV cohort, and 673,926 in the 75+ cohort, contributing a total of 7,423,251 and 10,173,230 person-weeks of follow-up, respectively. The incidence of COVID-19 hospital admission was higher for Sanofi than for Pfizer BA.4-5. In the CV cohort, 16-week risks per 10,000 people were 22.3 (95%CI 20.4 to 24.3) for Pfizer BA.4-5 and 26.4 (24.4 to 28.7) for Sanofi, with an IRR of 1.19 (95%CI 1.06 to 1.34). In the 75+ cohort, these were 17.5 (16.1 to 19.1) for Pfizer BA.4-5 and 20.4 (18.9 to 22.1) for Sanofi, with an IRR of 1.18 (1.05-1.32). These findings were similar across all pre-specified subgroups. More severe COVID-19 related outcomes (critical care admission and death), and safety outcomes at 4 weeks, were rare in both vaccines so we could not reliably compare effectiveness of the two vaccines. Conclusion This observational study comparing effectiveness of Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccine during the spring 2023 programme in England in the two main eligible cohorts - people aged 75 and over and in clinically vulnerable people - found some evidence of superior effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission for Pfizer BA.4-5 compared with Sanofi within 16 weeks after vaccination.

Waning effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines over six months since second dose: a cohort study using linked electronic health records (preprint)

Summary Background The rate at which COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness wanes over time is crucial for vaccination policies, but is incompletely understood with conflicting results from different studies. Methods This cohort study, using the OpenSAFELY-TPP database and approved by NHS England, included individuals without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection assigned to vaccines priority groups 2-12 defined by the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. We compared individuals who had received two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 with unvaccinated individuals during six 4-week comparison periods, separately for subgroups aged 65+ years; 16-64 years and clinically vulnerable; 40-64 years and 18-39 years. We used Cox regression, stratified by first dose eligibility and geographical region and controlled for calendar time, to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated individuals, and quantified waning vaccine effectiveness as ratios of aHRs per-4-week period. The outcomes were COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death, positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and non-COVID-19 death. Findings The BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 and unvaccinated groups comprised 1,773,970, 2,961,011 and 2,433,988 individuals, respectively. Waning of vaccine effectiveness was similar across outcomes and vaccine brands: e.g. in the 65+ years subgroup ratios of aHRs versus unvaccinated for COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and positive SARS-CoV-2 test ranged from 1.23 (95% CI 1.15-1.32) to 1.27 (1.20-1.34) for BNT162b2 and 1.16 (0.98-1.37) to 1.20 (1.14-1.27) for ChAdOx1. Despite waning, rates of COVID-19 hospitalisation and COVID-19 death were substantially lower among vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to 26 weeks after second dose, with estimated aHRs <0.20 (>80% vaccine effectiveness) for BNT162b2, and <0.26 (>74%) for ChAdOx1. By weeks 23-26, rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated individuals were similar to or higher than those in unvaccinated individuals: aHRs ranged from 0.85 (0.78-0.92) to 1.53 (1.07-2.18) for BNT162b2, and 1.21 (1.13-1.30) to 1.99 (1.94-2.05) for ChAdOx1. Interpretation The rate at which estimated vaccine effectiveness waned was strikingly consistent for COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and similar across subgroups defined by age and clinical vulnerability. If sustained to outcomes of infection with the Omicron variant and to booster vaccination, these findings will facilitate scheduling of booster vaccination doses.

Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Pregnancy (preprint)

Background: As mass vaccination campaigns against COVID-19 accelerate worldwide, there remains only limited evidence regarding vaccine effectiveness (VE) among pregnant women. Pregnant women have been shown to be at risk for severe COVID-19, resulting in adverse obstetrics outcomes, and their immune system is known to undergo alterations during pregnancy. Phase III clinical trials of the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines excluded pregnant women, yet current guidelines encourage offering the vaccine to pregnant women. In this study, we examine data from Israel’s largest healthcare organization to evaluate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine among pregnant women. Methods: : We conducted an observational cohort study of pregnant women 16 years or older, with no history of SARS-CoV-2, who were vaccinated between December 20, 2020 and June 3, 2021. Vaccinated subjects were matched to unvaccinated controls according to a set of demographic and clinical characteristics. Study outcomes included documented infection with SARS-CoV-2, symptomatic COVID-19, COVID-19-related hospitalization, severe illness and death. For each outcome, VE was estimated at several periods following vaccination as one minus the risk ratio using the Kaplan–Meier estimator. Results: : 10,861 vaccinated women were matched to an identical number of unvaccinated controls. Estimated VE from 7 through 28 days after the second dose was 97% (95% CI 91%-100%) for any documented infection, 96% (86-100%) for infections with documented symptoms, and 85% (32%-100%) for COVID-19-related hospitalization. Only one event of severe illness was observed in the unvaccinated group, and no deaths were observed in either group -- insufficient incidence for estimating VE for these outcomes. Discussion: The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was found to have high VE among pregnant women. Since high VE has been reported as one of the strongest predictors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among pregnant women, the high VE estimates found in this study have the potential to increase vaccine acceptance in this group. In addition, the present VE estimates are similar to those reported in the general population for the same variants, suggesting that it may be possible to infer the VE for pregnant women from studies in the general population for both current and future variants.

Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG in asymptomatic and pauci-symptomatic people over a 5 month survey in Argentina.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the seroprevalence of COVID-19 infection in pauci-symptomatic and asymptomatic people, the associated epidemiological factors, and IgG antibody kinetic over a 5-month period to get a better knowledge of the disease transmissibility and the rate of susceptible persons that might be infected. METHODS: Seroprevalence was evaluated by a cross-sectional study based on the general population of Santa Fe, Argentina (non-probabilistic sample) carried out between July and November 2020. A subgroup of 20 seropositive individuals was followed-up to analyze IgG persistence. For the IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detection, the COVID-AR IgG® ELISA kit was used. RESULTS: 3 000 individuals were included conforming asymptomatic and pauci-symptomatic groups (n=1 500 each). From the total sample, only 8.83% (n=265) presented reactivity for IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2. A significant association was observed between positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and a history of contact with a confirmed case; the transmission rate within households was approximately 30%. In the pauci-symptomatic group, among the seropositive ones, anosmia and fever presented an OR of 16.8 (95% CI 9.5-29.8) and 2.7 (95% CI 1.6-4.6), respectively (p <0.001). In asymptomatic patients, IgG levels were lower compared to pauci-symptomatic patients, tending to decline after 4 months since the symptoms onset. CONCLUSION: We observed a low seroprevalence, suggestive of a large population susceptible to the infection. Anosmia and fever were independent significant predictors for seropositivity. Asymptomatic patients showed lower levels of antibodies during the 5-month follow-up. IgG antibodies tended to decrease over the end of this period regardless of symptoms.

Near real-time surveillance of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic with incomplete data (preprint)

Designing public health responses to outbreaks requires close monitoring of population-level health indicators in real-time. Thus an accurate estimation of the epidemic curve is critical. We propose an approach to reconstruct epidemic curves in near real time. We apply this approach to characterize the early SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in two Spanish regions between the months of March and April 2020. We address two data collection problems that affected the reliability of the available real-time epidemiological data, namely, the frequent missing information documenting when a patient first experienced symptoms, and the frequent retrospective revision of historical information (including right censoring). This is done by using a novel back-calculating procedure based on imputing patients dates of symptom onset from reported cases, according to a dynamically-estimated backward reporting delay conditional distribution, and adjusting for right censoring using an existing package, NobBS, to estimate in real time (nowcast) cases by date of symptom onset. This process allows us to obtain an approximation of the time-varying reproduction number (Rt) in real-time. At each step, we evaluate how different assumptions affect the recovered epidemiological events and compare the proposed approach to the alternative procedure of merely using curves of case counts, by report day, to characterize the time-evolution of the outbreak. Finally, we assess how these real-time estimates compare with subsequently documented epidemiological information that is considered more reliable and complete that became available weeks to months later in time. Our approach may help improve accuracy, quantify uncertainty, and evaluate frequently unstated assumptions when recovering the epidemic curves from limited data obtained from public health surveillance systems in other locations.

Lockdown measures and relative changes in the age-specific incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain (preprint)

BackgroundThe first months of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Spain resulted in high incidence and mortality. A national sero-epidemiological survey suggests higher cumulative incidence of infection in older individuals than in younger individuals. However, little is known about the epidemic dynamics in different age groups, including the relative effect of the lockdown measures introduced on March 15, and strengthened on March 30 to April 14, 2020 when only essential workers continued to work. MethodsWe used data from the National Epidemiological Surveillance Network (RENAVE in Spanish) on the daily number of reported COVID-19 cases (by date of symptom onset) in eleven 5-year age groups: 15-19y through 65-69y. For each age group g, we computed the proportion E(g) of individuals in age group g among all reported cases aged 15-69y during the pre-lockdown period (March 1-10, 2020) and the corresponding proportion L(g) during two lockdown periods (March 25-April 3 and April 8-17, 2020). For each lockdown period, we computed the proportion ratios PR(g)= L(g)/E(g). For each pair of age groups g1,g2, PR(g1)>PR(g2) implies a relative increase in the incidence of detected SARS-CoV-2 infection in the age group g1 compared with g2 for the later vs. early period. ResultsFor the first lockdown period, the highest PR values were in age groups 50-54y (PR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.12,1.30) and 55-59y (PR=1.19; 1.11,1.27). For the second lockdown period, the highest PR values were in age groups 15-19y (PR=1.26; 0.95,1.68) and 50-54y (PR=1.20; 1.09,1.31). ConclusionsOur results suggest that different outbreak control measures led to different changes in the relative incidence by age group. During the first lockdown period, when non-essential work was allowed, individuals aged 40-64y, particularly those aged 50-59y presented with higher COVID-19 relative incidence compared to pre-lockdown period, while younger adults/older adolescents (together with persons aged 50-59y) had increased relative incidence during the later, strengthened lockdown. The role of different age groups during the epidemic should be considered when implementing future mitigation efforts.

A cohort of patients with COVID-19 in a major teaching hospital in Europe (preprint)

BACKGROUND Since the confirmation of the first patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Spain in January 2020, the epidemic has grown rapidly, with the greatest impact on the Madrid region. This article describes the first 2226 consecutive adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the La Paz University Hospital in Madrid. METHODS Our cohort included all consecutively admitted patients who were hospitalized and who had a final outcome (death or discharge) in a 1286-bed hospital of Madrid (Spain) from February 25th (first case admitted) to April 19th, 2020. Data was entered manually into an electronic case report form, which was monitored prior to the analysis. RESULTS We consecutively included 2226 adult patients admitted to the hospital who either died (460) or were discharged (1766). The patients median age was 61 years; 51.8% were women. The most common comorbidity was arterial hypertension (41.3%). The most common symptoms on admission were fever (71.2%). The median time from disease onset to hospital admission was 6 days. Overall mortality was 20.7% and was higher in men (26.6% vs 15.1%). Seventy-five patients with a final outcome were transferred to the ICU (3.4%). Most patients admitted to the ICU were men, and the median age was 64 years. Baseline laboratory values on admission were consistent with an impaired immune-inflammatory profile. CONCLUSIONS We provide a description of the first large cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Europe. Advanced age, male gender, the presence of comorbidities and abnormal laboratory values were more common among the patients with fatal outcomes.