Durability of the Effectiveness of Heterologous COVID-19 Vaccine Regimens in Thailand: Retrospective Cohort Study Using National Registration Data.

BACKGROUND: The durability of heterologous COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been primarily studied in high-income countries, while evaluation of heterologous vaccine policies in low- and middle-income countries remains limited. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the duration during which the VE of heterologous COVID-19 vaccine regimens in mitigating serious outcomes, specifically severe COVID-19 and death following hospitalization with COVID-19, remains over 50%. METHODS: We formed a dynamic cohort by linking records of Thai citizens aged ≥18 years from citizen vital, COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 cases registry databases between May 2021 and July 2022. Encrypted citizen identification numbers were used to merge the data between the databases. This study focuses on 8 common heterologous vaccine sequences: CoronaVac/ChAdOx1, ChAdOx1/BNT162b2, CoronaVac/CoronaVac/ChAdOx1, CoronaVac/ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1, CoronaVac/ChAdOx1/BNT162b2, BBIBP-CorV/BBIBP-CorV/BNT162b2, ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1/BNT162b2, and ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1/mRNA-1273. Nonimmunized individuals were considered for comparisons. The cohort was stratified according to the vaccination status, age, sex, province location, month of vaccination, and outcome. Data analysis employed logistic regression to determine the VE, accounting for potential confounders and durability over time, with data observed over a follow-up period of 7 months. RESULTS: This study includes 52,580,841 individuals, with approximately 17,907,215 and 17,190,975 receiving 2- and 3-dose common heterologous vaccines (not mutually exclusive), respectively. The 2-dose heterologous vaccinations offered approximately 50% VE against severe COVID-19 and death following hospitalization with COVID-19 for 2 months; however, the protection significantly declined over time. The 3-dose heterologous vaccinations sustained over 50% VE against both outcomes for at least 8 months, as determined by logistic regression with durability time-interaction modeling. The vaccine sequence consisting of CoronaVac/CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 demonstrated >80% VE against both outcomes, with no evidence of VE waning. The final monthly measured VE of CoronaVac/CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 against severe COVID-19 and death following hospitalization at 7 months after the last dose was 82% (95% CI 80.3%-84%) and 86.3% (95% CI 83.6%-84%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In Thailand, within a 7-month observation period, the 2-dose regimens could not maintain a 50% VE against severe and fatal COVID-19 for over 2 months, but all of the 3-dose regimens did. The CoronaVac/CoronaVac/ChAdOx1 regimen showed the best protective effect against severe and fatal COVID-19. The estimated durability of 50% VE for at least 8 months across all 3-dose heterologous COVID-19 vaccine regimens supports the adoption of heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategies, with a primary series of inactivated virus vaccine and boosting with either a viral vector or an mRNA vaccine, to prevent similar pandemics in low- and middle-income countries.

Early treatment with fluvoxamine, bromhexine, cyproheptadine, and niclosamide to prevent clinical deterioration in patients with symptomatic COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.

Background: Repurposed drugs with host-directed antiviral and immunomodulatory properties have shown promise in the treatment of COVID-19, but few trials have studied combinations of these agents. The aim of this trial was to assess the effectiveness of affordable, widely available, repurposed drugs used in combination for treatment of COVID-19, which may be particularly relevant to low-resource countries. Methods: We conducted an open-label, randomized, outpatient, controlled trial in Thailand from October 1, 2021, to June 21, 2022, to assess whether early treatment within 48-h of symptoms onset with combinations of fluvoxamine, bromhexine, cyproheptadine, and niclosamide, given to adults with confirmed mild SARS-CoV-2 infection, can prevent 28-day clinical deterioration compared to standard care. Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment with fluvoxamine alone, fluvoxamine + bromhexine, fluvoxamine + cyproheptadine, niclosamide + bromhexine, or standard care. The primary outcome measured was clinical deterioration within 9, 14, or 28 days using a 6-point ordinal scale. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05087381). Findings: Among 1900 recruited, a total of 995 participants completed the trial. No participants had clinical deterioration by day 9, 14, or 28 days among those treated with fluvoxamine plus bromhexine (0%), fluvoxamine plus cyproheptadine (0%), or niclosamide plus bromhexine (0%). Nine participants (5.6%) in the fluvoxamine arm had clinical deterioration by day 28, requiring low-flow oxygen. In contrast, most standard care arm participants had clinical deterioration by 9, 14, and 28 days. By day 9, 32.7% (110) of patients in the standard care arm had been hospitalized without requiring supplemental oxygen but needing ongoing medical care. By day 28, this percentage increased to 37.5% (21). Additionally, 20.8% (70) of patients in the standard care arm required low-flow oxygen by day 9, and 12.5% (16) needed non-invasive or mechanical ventilation by day 28. All treated groups significantly differed from the standard care group by days 9, 14, and 28 (p < 0.0001). Also, by day 28, the three 2-drug treatments were significantly better than the fluvoxamine arm (p < 0.0001). No deaths occurred in any study group. Compared to standard care, participants treated with the combination agents had significantly decreased viral loads as early as day 3 of treatment (p < 0.0001), decreased levels of serum cytokines interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), and interleukin-1 beta (IL-1ß) as early as day 5 of treatment, and interleukin-8 (IL-8) by day 7 of treatment (p < 0.0001) and lower incidence of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) symptoms (p < 0.0001). 23 serious adverse events occurred in the standard care arm, while only 1 serious adverse event was reported in the fluvoxamine arm, and zero serious adverse events occurred in the other arms. Interpretation: Early treatment with these combinations among outpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 was associated with lower likelihood of clinical deterioration, and with significant and rapid reduction in the viral load and serum cytokines, and with lower burden of PASC symptoms. When started very soon after symptom onset, these repurposed drugs have high potential to prevent clinical deterioration and death in vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID-19 patients. Funding: Ped Thai Su Phai (Thai Ducks Fighting Danger) social giver group.

A systematic review of methodological approaches for evaluating real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: Advising resource-constrained settings.

Real-world effectiveness studies are important for monitoring performance of COVID-19 vaccination programmes and informing COVID-19 prevention and control policies. We aimed to synthesise methodological approaches used in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies, in order to evaluate which approaches are most appropriate to implement in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). For this rapid systematic review, we searched PubMed and Scopus for articles published from inception to July 7, 2021, without language restrictions. We included any type of peer-reviewed observational study measuring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, for any population. We excluded randomised control trials and modelling studies. All data used in the analysis were extracted from included papers. We used a standardised data extraction form, modified from STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Study quality was assessed using the REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021264658. Our search identified 3,327 studies, of which 42 were eligible for analysis. Most studies (97.5%) were conducted in high-income countries and the majority assessed mRNA vaccines (78% mRNA only, 17% mRNA and viral vector, 2.5% viral vector, 2.5% inactivated vaccine). Thirty-five of the studies (83%) used a cohort study design. Across studies, short follow-up time and limited assessment and mitigation of potential confounders, including previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and healthcare seeking behaviour, were major limitations. This review summarises methodological approaches for evaluating real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and highlights the lack of such studies in LMICs, as well as the importance of context-specific vaccine effectiveness data. Further research in LMICs will refine guidance for conducting real-world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies in resource-constrained settings.