BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against Death from the Delta Variant.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sheikh A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8552534 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background Both BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) vaccines have shown high efficacy against COVID-19 in randomized controlled trials. However, their comparative effectiveness against COVID-19 is unclear in the real world. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against COVID-19 in the UK general population. Methods We emulated a target trial using IQVIA Medical Research Database (IMRD), an electronic primary care database from the UK (2021). We included 1,311,075 participants, consisting of 637,549 men and 673,526 women age≥18 years, who received vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 between January 1 and August 31, 2021. The outcomes consisted of confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalisation for COVID-19 and death from COVID-19 in the IMRD. We performed a cox-proportional hazard model to compare the risk of each outcome variable between the two vaccines adjusting for potential confounders with time-stratified overlap weighting of propensity score (PS). Results During a mean of 6.7 months of follow-up, 20,070 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in individuals who received BNT162b2 vaccine (PS weighted incidence rate: 3.65 per 1000 person-months), and 31,611 SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in those who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (PS weighted incidence rate: 5.25 per 1000 person-months). The time-stratified PS weighted rate difference of SARS-CoV-2 infection for BNT162b2 group vs. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group was -1.60 per 1000 person-months (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.76 to -1.43 per 1000 person-months), and the hazard ratio was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.71). The results were similar across the stratum of sex, age (<65 and ≥65 years), and study periods (i.e., alpha-variant predominance period and delta-variant predominance period). The PS weighted incidence of hospitalisation for COVID-19 was also lower in the BNT162b2 vaccine group than that in the ChAdOx1 vaccine group (RD: -0.09, 95%CI: -0.13 to -0.05 per 1000 person-months; HR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.57 to 0.74). No significant difference in the risk of death from COVID-19 was observed between the two comparison groups. Conclusions In this population-based study, the BNT162b2 vaccine appears to be more efficacious than the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation for COVID-19 but not death from COVID-19. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-023-02795-w.
| S-EPMC9974059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heterologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccine approaches with a second mRNA-based vaccine have been favored in the recommendations of many countries over homologous vector-based ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination after reports of thromboembolic events and lower efficacy of this regimen. In the middle of 2021, the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant of concern (VoC) has become predominant in many countries worldwide. Data addressing the neutralization capacity of a heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/mRNA-based vaccination approach against the Delta VoC in comparison to the widely used homologous mRNA-based vaccine regimen are limited. Here, we compare serological immune responses of a cohort of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2-vaccinated participants with those of BNT162b2/BNT162b2 vaccinated ones and show that neutralization capacity against the Delta VoC is significantly increased in sera of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2-vaccinated participants. This overall effect can be attributed to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2-vaccinated women, especially those with more severe adverse effects leading to sick leave following second immunization.
| S-EPMC8730691 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8552532 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAssessment of the safety and efficacy of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations is essential, as is investigation of the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including the B.1.351 (501Y.V2) variant first identified in South Africa.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in people not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Participants 18 to less than 65 years of age were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of vaccine containing 5×1010 viral particles or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) 21 to 35 days apart. Serum samples obtained from 25 participants after the second dose were tested by pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays against the original D614G virus and the B.1.351 variant. The primary end points were safety and efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus 2019 illness (Covid-19) more than 14 days after the second dose.ResultsBetween June 24 and November 9, 2020, we enrolled 2026 HIV-negative adults (median age, 30 years); 1010 and 1011 participants received at least one dose of placebo or vaccine, respectively. Both the pseudovirus and the live-virus neutralization assays showed greater resistance to the B.1.351 variant in serum samples obtained from vaccine recipients than in samples from placebo recipients. In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], -49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (95.1% of 41 with sequencing data) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, -76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups.ConclusionsA two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04444674; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR202006922165132).
| S-EPMC7993410 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8381713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evaluation of the safety and immunogenicity of new vaccine platforms is needed to increase public acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Here, we evaluated the association between reactogenicity and immunogenicity in healthy adults following vaccination by analyzing blood samples before and after sequential two-dose vaccinations of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Outcomes included anti-S IgG antibody and neutralizing antibody responses, adverse events, and proinflammatory cytokine responses. A total of 59 and 57 participants vaccinated with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, respectively, were enrolled. Systemic adverse events were more common after the first ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 dose than after the second. An opposite trend was observed in BNT162b2 recipients. Although the first ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 dose significantly elevated the median proinflammatory cytokine levels, the second dose did not, and neither did either dose of BNT162b2. Grades of systemic adverse events in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients were significantly associated with IL-6 and IL-1β levels. Anti-S IgG and neutralizing antibody titers resulting from the second BNT162b2 dose were significantly associated with fever. In conclusion, systemic adverse events resulting from the first ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 dose may be associated with proinflammatory cytokine responses rather than humoral immune responses. Febrile reactions after second BNT162b2 dose were positively correlated with vaccine-induced immune responses rather than with inflammatory responses.
| S-EPMC9480614 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8321428 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFrom January to May 2021 the alpha variant (B.1.1.7) of SARS-CoV-2 was the most commonly detected variant in the UK. Following this, the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) then became the predominant variant. The UK COVID-19 vaccination programme started on 8th December 2020. Prior to the Delta variant, most vaccine effectiveness studies focused on the alpha variant. We therefore aimed to estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic infection with respect to the Delta variant in a UK setting.MethodsWe used anonymised public health record data linked to infection data (PCR) using the Combined Intelligence for Population Health Action resource. We then constructed an SIR epidemic model to explain SARS-CoV-2 infection data across the Cheshire and Merseyside region of the UK. Vaccines were assumed to be effective after 21 days for 1 dose and 14 days for 2 doses.ResultsWe determined that the effectiveness of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in reducing susceptibility to infection is 39% (95% credible interval [34, 43]) and 64% (95% credible interval [61, 67]) for a single dose and a double dose respectively. For the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the effectiveness is 20% (95% credible interval [10, 28]) and 84% (95% credible interval [82, 86]) for a single-dose and a double dose respectively.ConclusionVaccine effectiveness for reducing susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection shows noticeable improvement after receiving two doses of either vaccine. Findings also suggest that a full course of the Pfizer-BioNTech provides the optimal protection against infection with the Delta variant. This reinforces the need to complete the full course programme to maximise individual protection and reduce transmission.
| S-EPMC8934524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesHealthcare workers (HCWs) at increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were among the primary targets for vaccine campaigns. We aimed to estimate the protective efficacy of the first three COVID-19 vaccines available in Western Europe.MethodsWe merged two prospective databases that systematically recorded, in our institution: (a) HCWs positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples, and (b) HCWs who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. We excluded HCWs with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6 months prior to the study. HCWs were categorized as non-vaccinated if they received no vaccine and until the first injection +13 days, partially vaccinated from the first injection +14 days to the second injection +13 days, and fully vaccinated thereafter.ResultsOf the 8165 HCWs employed in our institution, 360 (4.4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR during the study period (4th January to 17th May 2021). Incidence was 9.1% (8.2-10.0) in non-vaccinated HCWs, 1.2% (0.7-1.9) after one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 1.4% (0.6-2.3) and 0.5% (0.1-1.0) after one and two doses of mRNA BNT162b2, 0.7% (0.1-1.9) and 0% after one and two doses of mRNA-1273 (p < 0.0001). Vaccine effectiveness (Cox model) was estimated at, respectively, 86.2% (76.5-91.0), 38.2% (6.3-59.2), and 49.2% (19.1-68.1) 14 days after the first dose for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, mRNA-1273, and mRNA-BNT162b2, and 100% (ND) and 94.6% (61.0-99.2) 14 days after the second dose for mRNA-1273 and mRNA-BNT162b2.ConclusionsIn this real-world study, the observed effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in HCWs was in line with the efficacy reported in pivotal randomized trials.
| S-EPMC8275842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fractional dose is an important strategy to increase access to vaccines. This study evaluated the effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity of half dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. A non-inferiority non-randomized controlled trial compared a half dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with the full dose, with an interval of 8 to 10 weeks, in individuals aged 18-49 years. The primary endpoints were the incidence rate of new cases/1,000 person-year at 90 days after 14 days of the second dose, confirmed by RT-PCR and new cases registered at SUS National Health Surveillance Database (e-SUS VS). The anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein receptor binding domain (RBD) by chemiluminescence and the neutralizing antibodies by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) were titrated. The soluble biomarkers were quantified with a multiplex immunoassay. Follow-up was 90 days after 14 days of the second dose. A total of 29,598 individuals were vaccinated. After exclusion, 16,570 individuals who received half a dose and 6,402 who received full doses were analyzed. The incidence of new cases confirmed by RT-PCR of half dose was non-inferior to full dose (23.7 vs. 25.7 cases per 1,000 persons-year [coefficient group -0.09 CI95%(-0.49 to 0.31)], even after adjusting for age and sex. There were no deaths or hospitalization after immunization of either group. Immunogenicity was evaluated in a subsample (N=558) compared to 154 healthcare workers who received a full dose. The seroconversion rate in seronegative individuals at baseline half dose was 99.8%, similar to that of the full dose (100%). Geometric mean concentration (95% CI; BAU/mL) were half dose = 188 (163-217) and full dose = 529 (423-663) (p < 0.001). In seropositive subjects at baseline (pre-immune individuals), the first dose induced very high and similar IgG-S in half dose 1,359 (1,245-1,483) and full dose 1,354 (1,048-1,749) BAU/mL. A half dose induced a high increase in plasma chemokines, pro-inflammatory/regulatory cytokines, and growth factors. The frequency of adverse events was similar. No serious adverse events or deaths were reported. A half dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is as effective, safe, and immunogenic as the full dose. The immune response in pre-immune (seropositive in the baseline) individuals indicates that the half dose may be a booster dose schedule.
| S-EPMC9464812 | biostudies-literature