Search

Despite the progress in medical data collection the actual burden of SARS‐CoV‐2 remains unknown due to under‐ascertainment of cases. This was apparent in the acute phase of the pandemic and the use of reported deaths has been pointed out as a more reliable source of information, likely less prone to under‐reporting. Since daily deaths occur from past infections weighted by their probability of death, one may infer the total number of infections accounting for their age distribution, using the data on reported deaths. We adopt this framework and assume that the dynamics generating the total number of infections can be described by a continuous time transmission model expressed through a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations where the transmission rate is modeled as a diffusion process allowing to reveal both the effect of control strategies and the changes in individuals behavior. We develop this flexible Bayesian tool in Stan and study 3 pairs of European countries, estimating the time‐varying reproduction number (Rt$$ {R}_t $$) as well as the true cumulative number of infected individuals. As we estimate the true number of infections we offer a more accurate estimate of Rt$$ {R}_t $$. We also provide an estimate of the daily reporting ratio and discuss the effects of changes in mobility and testing on the inferred quantities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Background: Whilst other studies have reported the effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against hospitalisation, including emergency department or intensive care admission, few have assessed effectiveness against other more clinically robust indices of COVID-19 severity., Methods: A prospective single-centre test-negative design case-control study of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 disease or other acute respiratory disease between 1 June 2021 and 20 July 2022. We assessed VE (vaccine effectiveness) against hospitalisation, length of stay [LOS] >3 days, WHO COVID Score >5 and supplementary oxygen FiO 2 (fraction inspired oxygen) >28%, conducting regression analyses controlling for age, gender, index of multiple deprivation, Charlson comorbidity index, time, and community infection prevalence., Findings: 935 controls and 546 cases were hospitalised during the Delta period, with 721 controls and 372 cases hospitalised during the Omicron study period. Two-dose BNT162b2 was associated with VE 82.5% [95% confidence interval 76.2%-87.2%] against hospitalisation following Delta infection, 63.3% [26.9-81.8%], 58.5% [24.8-77.3%], and 51.5% [16.7-72.1%] against LOS >3 days, WHO COVID Score >5, and requirement for FiO2 >28% respectively. Three-dose BNT162b2 protection against hospitalisation with Omicron infection was 30.9% [5.9-49.3%], with sensitivity analyses ranging from 28.8-72.6%. Protection against LOS >3 days, WHO COVID Score >5 and requirement for FiO2 >28% was 56.1% [20.6-76.5%], 58.8% [31.2-75.8%], and 41.5% [-0.4-66.3%], respectively. In the UK, BNT162b2 was prioritised for high-risk individuals and those aged >75 years. In the latter group we found a higher estimate of VE against hospitalisation of 47.2% [16.8-66.6%]., Interpretation: BNT162b2 vaccination results in risk reductions for hospitalisation and multiple patient outcomes following Delta and Omicron COVID-19 infection, particularly in older adults. BNT162b2 remains effective against severe SARS-CoV-2 disease., Funding: AvonCAP is an investigator-led project funded under a collaborative agreement by Pfizer., Competing Interests: CH is Principal Investigator of the AvonCAP study which is an investigator-led University of Bristol study funded by 10.13039/100004319Pfizer and has previously received support from the NIHR in an Academic Clinical Fellowship. JO and LD are Co-Investigators on the AvonCAP Study. AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) and chair of the World Health Organization European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (ETAGE) committee. In addition to receiving funding from 10.13039/100004319Pfizer as Chief Investigator of this study, he leads another project investigating transmission of respiratory bacteria in families jointly funded by 10.13039/100004319Pfizer and the Gates Foundation. The other authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to declare., (© 2022 The Author(s).)