Relative Effectiveness and Waning of a Third Dose of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Medicare Beneficiaries Aged 65 Years and Older during the BA.1/BA.2 Omicron Period.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the added benefit and waning effectiveness of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose (original formula) for preventing COVID-19-related outcomes. METHODS: We used Medicare claims data to conduct a retrospective cohort study in U.S. community-dwelling Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years during the BA.1/BA.2 Omicron period (December 19, 2021 - March 26, 2022). We estimated relative vaccine effectiveness (RVE) of 3 versus 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines using marginal structural Cox regression models. RESULTS: Among 8,135,020 eligible beneficiaries, 73.3% were 3-dose vaccinated by March 26, 2022. At 14-60 days since vaccination, a third dose provided significant added benefit against COVID-19-related hospitalization for Moderna (RVE: 77.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 76.0%, 78.4%) and Pfizer-BioNTech (RVE: 72.5%; 95% CI: 70.8%, 74.0%). Added benefit was lower >120 days. For those with prior medically attended COVID-19 diagnoses, Pfizer-BioNTech provided an added benefit for 120 days, while Moderna provided some added benefit >120 days. Added benefit for either vaccine was higher against death compared to less severe outcomes, which still decreased >120 days. CONCLUSIONS: A third dose COVID-19 vaccine provided significant added benefit against COVID-19-related hospitalization and death, even for beneficiaries with prior medically attended COVID-19 diagnoses. This added benefit decreased after 4 months.

Relative Effectiveness of the Cell-derived Inactivated Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Versus Egg-derived Inactivated Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Influenza-related Medical Encounters During the 2018-2019 Influenza Season in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The cell-propagated inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (ccIIV4) may offer improved protection in seasons where egg-derived influenza viruses undergo mutations that affect antigenicity. This study estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of ccIIV4 versus egg-derived inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (eIIV4) in preventing influenza-related medical encounters in the 2018-2019 US season. METHODS: A dataset linking primary care electronic medical records with medical claims data was used to conduct a retrospective cohort study among individuals ≥ 4 years old vaccinated with ccIIV4 or eIIV4 during the 2018-2019 season. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were derived from a doubly robust inverse probability of treatment-weighted approach adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, vaccination week, and health status. rVE was estimated by (1 - OR) × 100 and presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Following the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, the study cohort included 2 125 430 ccIIV4 and 8 000 903 eIIV4 recipients. Adjusted analyses demonstrated a greater reduction in influenza-related medical encounters with ccIIV4 versus eIIV4, with the following rVE: overall, 7.6% (95% CI, 6.5-8.6); age 4-17 years, 3.9% (95% CI, .9-7.0); 18-64 years, 6.5% (95% CI, 5.2-7.9); 18-49 years, 7.5% (95% CI, 5.7-9.3); 50-64 years, 5.6% (95% CI, 3.6-7.6); and ≥65 years, -2.2% (95% CI, -5.4 to .9). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted analyses demonstrated statistically significantly greater reduction in influenza-related medical encounters in individuals vaccinated with ccIIV4 versus eIIV4 in the 2018-2019 US influenza season. These results support ccIIV4 as a potentially more effective public health measure against influenza than an egg-based equivalent.

Comparative Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines Among US Medicare Beneficiaries Ages 65 Years and Older During the 2019-2020 Season.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50 000 influenza-associated deaths occur annually in the United States, overwhelmingly among individuals aged ≥65 years. Although vaccination is the primary prevention tool, investigations have shown low vaccine effectiveness (VE) in recent years, particularly among the elderly. We analyzed the relative VE (RVE) of all influenza vaccines among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years to prevent influenza hospital encounters during the 2019-2020 season. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using Poisson regression and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Exposures included egg-based high-dose trivalent (HD-IIV3), egg-based adjuvanted trivalent (aIIV3), egg-based standard dose (SD) quadrivalent (IIV4), cell-based SD quadrivalent (cIIV4), and recombinant quadrivalent (RIV4) influenza vaccines. RESULTS: We studied 12.7 million vaccinated beneficiaries. Following IPTW, cohorts were well balanced for all covariates and health-seeking behavior indicators. In the adjusted analysis, RIV4 (RVE, 13.3%; 95% CI, 7.4-18.9%), aIIV3 (RVE, 8.2%; 95% CI, 4.2-12.0%), and HD-IIV3 (RVE, 6.8%; 95% CI, 3.3-10.1%) were significantly more effective in preventing hospital encounters than the reference egg-based SD IIV4, while cIIV4 was not significantly more effective than IIV4 (RVE, 2.8%; 95% CI, -2.8%, 8.2%). Our results were consistent across all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this influenza B-Victoria and A(H1N1)-dominated season, RIV4 was moderately more effective than other vaccines, while HD-IIV3 and aIIV3 were more effective than the IIV4 vaccines, highlighting the contributions of antigen amount and adjuvant use to VE. Egg adaptation likely did not substantially affect our RVE evaluation. Our findings, specific to the 2019-2020 season, should be evaluated in other studies using virological case confirmation.

Effect of Age on Relative Effectiveness of High-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Influenza Vaccines Among US Medicare Beneficiaries Aged ≥65 Years.

BACKGROUND: Studies have found that the high-dose influenza vaccine has a higher relative vaccine effectiveness (RVE) versus standard-dose vaccines in some seasons. We evaluated the effect of age on the RVE of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: A 6-season retrospective cohort study from 2012 to 2018 among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years was performed. Poisson regression was used to evaluate the effect of age on the RVE of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations. RESULTS: The study included >19 million vaccinated beneficiaries in a community pharmacy setting. The Poisson models indicated a slightly increasing trend in RVE with age in all seasons. The high-dose vaccine was more effective than standard-dose vaccines in preventing influenza-related hospital encounters (ie, influenza-related inpatient stays and emergency department visits) in the 2012-2013 (RVE, 23.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 17.6%-28.3%), 2013-2014 (RVE, 15.3%; 95% CI, 7.8%-22.3%), 2014-2015 (RVE, 8.9%; 95% CI, 5.6%-12.1%), and 2016-2017 (RVE, 12.6%; 95% CI, 6.3%-18.4%) seasons and was at least as effective in all other seasons. We also found that the high-dose vaccine was consistently more effective than standard-dose vaccines across all seasons for people aged ≥85 years. Similar trends were observed for influenza-related inpatient stays. CONCLUSIONS: The RVE of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines increases with age.

Relative Effectiveness of Cell-Cultured and Egg-Based Influenza Vaccines Among Elderly Persons in the United States, 2017-2018.

BACKGROUND: The low influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) observed during the A(H3N2)-dominated 2017-2018 season may be due to vaccine virus adaptation to growth in eggs. We compared the effectiveness of cell-cultured and egg-based vaccines among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study on Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who received an influenza vaccine (cell-cultured, egg-based quadrivalent; egg-based high-dose, adjuvanted, or standard-dose trivalent) during the 2017-2018 season. We used Poisson regression to evaluate relative VE (RVE) in preventing influenza-related hospital encounters. RESULTS: Of >13 million beneficiaries, RVE for cell-cultured vaccines relative to egg-based quadrivalent vaccines was 10% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7%-13%). In a midseason interim analysis, this estimate was 16.5% (95% CI, 10.3%-22.2%). In a 5-way comparison, cell-cultured (RVE, 11%; 95% CI, 8%-14%) and egg-based high-dose (RVE, 9%; 95% CI, 7%-11%) vaccines were more effective than egg-based quadrivalent vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: The modest VE difference between cell-cultured and egg-based vaccines only partially explains the low overall VE reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suggesting that egg adaptation was not the main contributor to the low VE found among individuals aged ≥65 years. The midseason interim analysis we performed demonstrates that our methods can be used to evaluate VE actively during the influenza season.

A clinical and economic assessment of adjuvanted trivalent versus standard egg-derived quadrivalent influenza vaccines among older adults in the United States during the 2018-19 and 2019-20 influenza seasons.

BACKGROUND: Clinical evidence supports use of enhanced influenza vaccines in older adults. Few economic outcome studies have compared adjuvanted trivalent inactivated (aIIV3) and standard egg-derived quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4e). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted leveraging deidentified US hospital data linked to claims data during the 2018-19 and 2019-20 influenza seasons. Relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) was compared in adults aged ≥ 65 years receiving aIIV3 or IIV4e using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and Poisson regression. An economic assessment quantified potential real-world cost savings. RESULTS: The study included 715,807 aIIV3 and 320,991 IIV4e recipients in the 2018-19 and 844,169 aIIV3 and 306,270 IIV4e recipients in the 2019-20 influenza seasons. aIIV3 was significantly more effective than IIV4e in preventing cardiorespiratory disease (2018-19 rVE = 6.2%; and 2019-20 rVE = 6.0%) and respiratory disease (2018-19 rVE = 8.9%; and 2019-20 rVE = 10.1%). During the 2018-19 influenza season cardiorespiratory hospitalization cost savings for the aIIV3 population were $392 M, and $221 M for the 2019-20 season. Respiratory hospitalization cost savings for the aIIV3 population were $145 M and $97 M, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that aIIV3 provides clinical and economic advantages versus IIV4e in the elderly.

Flu vaccines do not work as well in older adults due to the aging of their immune system. One approach to improving vaccine efficacy is the addition of a substance, or adjuvant, to the vaccine in order to boost an individual's immune response. This study evaluated an adjuvanted vaccine compared to an unadjuvanted vaccine for preventing cardiorespiratory hospitalizations and hospitalization costs. The findings demonstrated that the adjuvanted flu vaccine, compared to the unadjuvanted vaccine, prevented more hospitalizations and greatly reduced associated hospital costs.

Relative vaccine effectiveness of ChAdOx1/AZD1222 vaccines as booster dose via intradermal injection with a one-fifth dose compared with the intramuscular injection in the prevention of SAR-CoV-2 infections in Phuket: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the real-world relative vaccine effectiveness of the ChAdOx1/AZD1222 vaccine given intradermally at one-fifth dose compared to the standard intramuscular injection, following the completion of 2 doses of CoronaVac, due to limited vaccine availability in Thailand during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study used 138,264 records from Vachira Phuket Hospital, Phuket, Thailand. The records were divided into 2 groups: 49,387 recipients received one-fifth doses via intradermal injections, and 88,877 recipients received standard-dose intramuscular injections from September 14 to October 3, 2021, with follow-up until December 31, 2021. Relative vaccine effectiveness for the cohorts was estimated using Cox regression, adjusting for demographic and clinical risk factors. RESULTS: The adjusted hazard ratio between the intradermal and intramuscular groups was 0.88 (95% Confidence Interval 0.76-1.02, P = 0.09), indicating a nonsignificant protective factor for the intradermal group. Further stratified analysis revealed no significant difference between the 2 groups. The 21 and 28-day postvaccination periods minimized the possibility of confounding due to differences in the cohorts' timeframes. CONCLUSION: A booster dose of ChAdOx1/AZD1222 given intradermally at one-fifth dose did not show a significant difference compared to the standard intramuscular injection.

Relative vaccine effectiveness of MF59-adjuvanted vs high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines for prevention of test-confirmed influenza hospitalizations during the 2017-2020 influenza seasons.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of MF59-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aTIV) vs high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-TIV) for prevention of test-confirmed influenza emergency department visits and/or inpatient admissions ("ED/IP") and for IP admissions alone pooled across the 2017-2020 influenza seasons. Exploratory individual season analyses were also performed. METHODS: This retrospective test-negative design study included United States (US) adults age ≥65 years vaccinated with aTIV or HD-TIV who presented to an ED or IP setting with acute respiratory or febrile illness during the 2017-2020 influenza seasons. Test-positive cases and test-negative controls were grouped by vaccine received. The rVE of aTIV vs HD-TIV was evaluated using a combination of inverse probability of treatment weighting and logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: Pooled analyses over the three seasons found no significant differences in the rVE of aTIV vs HD-TIV for prevention of test-confirmed influenza ED/IP (-2.5% [-19.6, 12.2]) visits and admissions or IP admissions alone (-1.6% [-22.5, 15.7]). The exploratory individual season analyses also showed no significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the 2017-2020 influenza seasons indicates aTIV and HD-TIV are comparable for prevention of test-confirmed influenza ED/IP visits in US adults age ≥65 years.

Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Cell- vs Egg-Based Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Against Test-Confirmed Influenza Over 3 Seasons Between 2017 and 2020 in the United States.

Background: Influenza vaccine viruses grown in eggs may acquire egg-adaptive mutations that may reduce antigenic similarity between vaccine and circulating influenza viruses and decrease vaccine effectiveness. We compared cell- and egg-based quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVc and QIVe, respectively) for preventing test-confirmed influenza over 3 US influenza seasons (2017-2020). Methods: Using a retrospective test-negative design, we estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of QIVc vs QIVe among individuals aged 4 to 64 years who had an acute respiratory or febrile illness and were tested for influenza in routine outpatient care. Exposure, outcome, and covariate data were obtained from electronic health records linked to pharmacy and medical claims. Season-specific rVE was estimated by comparing the odds of testing positive for influenza among QIVc vs QIVe recipients. Models were adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, influenza test date, and additional unbalanced covariates. A doubly robust approach was used combining inverse probability of treatment weights with multivariable regression. Results: The study included 31 824, 33 388, and 34 398 patients in the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 seasons, respectively; ∼10% received QIVc and ∼90% received QIVe. QIVc demonstrated superior effectiveness vs QIVe in prevention of test-confirmed influenza: rVEs were 14.8% (95% CI, 7.0%-22.0%) in 2017-2018, 12.5% (95% CI, 4.7%-19.6%) in 2018-2019, and 10.0% (95% CI, 2.7%-16.7%) in 2019-2020. Conclusions: This study demonstrated consistently superior effectiveness of QIVc vs QIVe in preventing test-confirmed influenza over 3 seasons characterized by different circulating viruses and degrees of egg adaptation.

Relative Effectiveness of the MF59®-Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine Versus High-Dose and Non-Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Cardiorespiratory Hospitalizations During the 2019-2020 US Influenza Season.

BACKGROUND: Adults ≥ 65 years of age have suboptimal influenza vaccination responses compared to younger adults due to age-related immunosenescence. Two vaccines were specifically developed to enhance protection: MF59-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV3) and high-dose egg-based trivalent influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3e). METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study conducted using US electronic medical records linked to claims data during the 2019-2020 influenza season, we compared the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of aIIV3 with HD-IIV3e and a standard-dose non-adjuvanted egg-based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4e) for the prevention of cardiorespiratory hospitalizations, including influenza hospitalizations. We evaluated outcomes in the "any" diagnosis position and the "admitting" position on the claim. A doubly robust methodology using inverse probability of treatment weighting and logistic regression was used to adjust for covariate imbalance. rVE was calculated as 100 * (1 - ORadjusted). RESULTS: The study included 4,299,594 adults ≥ 65 years of age who received aIIV3, HD-IIV3e, or IIV4e. Overall, aIIV3 was associated with lower proportions of cardiorespiratory hospitalizations with diagnoses in any position compared to HD-IIV3e (rVE = 3.9% [95% CI, 2.7-5.0]) or IIV4e (9.0% [95% CI, 7.7-10.4]). Specifically, aIIV3 was more effective compared with HD-IIV3e and IIV4e in preventing influenza hospitalizations (HD-IIV3e: 9.7% [95% CI, 1.9-17.0]; IIV4e: 25.3% [95% CI, 17.7-32.2]). Consistent trends were observed for admitting diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Relative to both HD-IIV3e and IIV4e, aIIV3 provided improved protection from cardiorespiratory or influenza hospitalizations.

Vaccine effectiveness of recombinant and standard dose influenza vaccines against outpatient illness during 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 calculated using a retrospective test-negative design.

Newer influenza vaccine formulations have entered the market, but real-world effectiveness studies are not widely conducted until there is sufficient uptake. We conducted a retrospective test-negative case-control study to determine relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of recombinant influenza vaccine or RIV4, compared with standard dose vaccines (SD) in a health system with significant RIV4 uptake. Using the electronic medical record (EMR) and the Pennsylvania state immunization registry to confirm influenza vaccination, VE against outpatient medically attended visits was calculated. Immunocompetent outpatients ages 18-64 years seen in hospital-based clinics or emergency departments who were tested for influenza using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 influenza seasons were included. Propensity scores with inverse probability weighting were used to adjust for potential confounders and determine rVE. Among this mostly white and female cohort of 5,515 individuals, 510 were vaccinated with RIV4 and 557 were vaccinated with SD, with the balance of 4,448 (81%) being unvaccinated. Adjusted influenza VE estimates were 37% overall (95% CI = 27, 46), 40% (95% CI = 25, 51) for RIV4 and 35% (95% CI = 20, 47) for standard dose vaccines. Overall, rVE of RIV4 compared to SD was not significantly higher (11%; 95% CI = -20, 33). Influenza vaccines were moderately protective against medically attended outpatient influenza during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 seasons. Although the point estimates are higher for RIV4, the large confidence intervals around VE estimates suggest this study was underpowered to detect significant rVE of individual vaccine formulations.

COVID-19 vaccine booster doses provide increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with previously vaccinated individuals: Interim findings from the REFORCO-Brazil real-world effectiveness study during Delta and Omicron.

BACKGROUND: Although COVID-19 booster vaccination is widely recommended, there is limited long-term, population-level, real-world evidence on the magnitude of improved protection against severe COVID-19 conferred by boosting with monovalent COVID-19 vaccines developed against ancestral SARS-CoV-2, especially in low- or middle-income countries. We present interim results from the first large-scale assessment of the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of first and second booster doses against severe COVID-19 in a low-/middle-income country. METHODS: REFORCO-Brazil is an ongoing, test-negative case-control study (NCT05697705) utilizing Brazil national severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) surveillance and vaccination data. In SARS hospitalizations from August 1, 2021 to July 31, 2022, we matched test-positive (via SARS-CoV-2 antigen/reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]) cases and test-negative case-controls (via RT-PCR) based on admission date, preceding vaccinations, and age. We evaluated the rVEs of four monovalent COVID-19 vaccines (AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, CoronaVac, and BNT162b2) as second boosters compared with any first boosters received ≥4 months previously, and as first boosters compared with primary-series vaccinations completed ≥4 months previously. RESULTS: The overall rVE of second boosters, from 5668 (2238 test-positive) evaluated hospitalizations, was 24.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 12.6-35.1); the overall rVE of first boosters, from 30,272 (12,063 test-positive) hospitalizations, was 46.8 % (95 % CI: 43.3-50.0). The rVEs of AZD1222 and BNT162b2 were similar: 29.4 % (95 % CI: 8.6-45.5) and 25.5 % (95 % CI: 4.2-42.2), respectively, for second boosters; and 42.5 % (95 % CI: 28.0-54.0) and 50.8 % (95 % CI: 47.5-54.0), respectively, for first boosters. In general, rVEs were higher in elderly (≥80 years) and immunocompromised/high-risk individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of AZD1222 and other adenoviral/mRNA vaccine boosters to maintain protection against COVID-19 hospitalization from Omicron subvariants, including in elderly and immunocompromised individuals at increased risk of accelerated waning or severe outcomes.

Absolute and Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Series of COVID-19 Vaccines (mRNA and Adenovirus Vector) Against COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the United States, December 2021-April 2022.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE. Results: A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary. Conclusions: Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

Relative Effectiveness of the Cell-Based Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Preventing Cardiorespiratory Hospitalizations in Adults Aged 18-64 Years During the 2019-2020 US Influenza Season.

Background: The mammalian cell-based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4c) has advantages over egg-based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4e), as production using cell-derived candidate viruses eliminates the opportunity for egg adaptation. This study estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of IIV4c versus IIV4e in preventing cardiorespiratory hospitalizations during the 2019-2020 US influenza season. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records linked to claims data of US individuals aged 18-64 years. We assessed rVE against cardiorespiratory hospitalizations and against subcategories of this outcome, including influenza, pneumonia, myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, and respiratory hospitalizations. We used a doubly robust inverse probability of treatment weighting and logistic regression model to obtain odds ratios (ORs; odds of outcome among IIV4c recipients/odds of outcome among IIV4e recipients) adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, vaccination week, health status, frailty, and healthcare resource utilization. rVE was calculated as 100(1 - ORadjusted). Results: In total, 1 491 097 individuals (25.2%) received IIV4c, and 4 414 758 (74.8%) received IIV4e. IIV4c was associated with lower odds of cardiorespiratory (rVE, 2.5% [95% confidence interval, 0.9%-4.1%]), respiratory (3.7% [1.5%-5.8%]), and influenza (9.3% [0.4%-17.3%]) hospitalizations among adults 18-64 years of age. No difference was observed for the other outcomes. Conclusions: This real-world study conducted for the 2019-2020 season demonstrated that vaccination with IIV4c was associated with fewer cardiorespiratory, respiratory, and influenza hospitalizations compared with IIV4e.

Relative Effectiveness of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S Vaccines and Homologous Boosting in Preventing COVID-19 in Adults in the US.

Background: Few head-to-head comparisons have been performed on the real-world effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccines. We evaluated the relative effectiveness (rVE) of a primary series of mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S and a homologous mRNA booster against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19. Methods: A data set linking primary care electronic medical records with medical claims data was used for this retrospective cohort study of US patients age ≥18 years vaccinated with a primary series between February and October 2021 (Part 1) and a homologous mRNA booster between October 2021 and January 2022 (Part 2). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were derived from 1:1 matching adjusted across potential covariates. rVE was (1 - HRadjusted) × 100. Additional analysis was performed across regions and age groups. Results: Following adjustment, Part 1 rVE for mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 was 23% (95% CI, 22%-25%), 23% (95% CI, 22%-25%), and 19% (95% CI, 14%-24%), while the rVE for mRNA-1273 vs Ad26.COV2.S was 50% (95% CI, 48%-51%), 50% (95% CI, 48%-52%), and 57% (95% CI, 53%-61%) against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19, respectively. The adjusted rVE in Part 2 for mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 was 14% (95% CI, 10%-18%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-17%), and 19% (95% CI, 1%-34%) against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19, respectively. rVE against medically attended COVID-19 was higher in adults age ≥65 years (35%; 95% CI, 24%-47%) than in those age 18-64 years (13%; 95% CI, 9%-17%) after the booster. Conclusions: In this study, mRNA-1273 was more effective than BNT162b2 or Ad26.COV2.S following a primary series during the Delta-dominant period and more effective than BNT162b2 as a booster during the Omicron-dominant period.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bivalent (Original/Omicron BA.4/BA.5) COVID-19 Vaccines in Adults.

The emergence of Omicron variants coincided with declining vaccine-induced protection against SARS-CoV-2. Two bivalent mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273.222 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 Bivalent (Pfizer-BioNTech), were developed to provide greater protection against the predominate circulating variants by including mRNA that encodes both the ancestral (original) strain and BA.4/BA.5. We estimated their relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) in preventing COVID-19-related outcomes in the US using a nationwide dataset linking primary care electronic health records and pharmacy/medical claims data. The study population (aged ≥18 years) received either vaccine between 31 August 2022 and 28 February 2023. We used propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences between groups. We estimated the rVE against COVID-19-related hospitalizations (primary outcome) and outpatient visits (secondary) for 1,034,538 mRNA-1273.222 and 1,670,666 BNT162b2 Bivalent vaccine recipients, with an adjusted rVE of 9.8% (95% confidence interval: 2.6-16.4%) and 5.1% (95% CI: 3.2-6.9%), respectively, for mRNA-1273.222 versus BNT162b2 Bivalent. The incremental relative effectiveness was greater among adults ≥ 65; the rVE against COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits in these patients was 13.5% (95% CI: 5.5-20.8%) and 10.7% (8.2-13.1%), respectively. Overall, we found greater effectiveness of mRNA-1273.222 compared with the BNT162b2 Bivalent vaccine in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits, with increased benefits in older adults.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against severe cases and deaths in Brazil from 2021 to 2022: a registry-based study.

Background: Brazil started the COVID-19 mass vaccination in January 2021 with CoronaVac and ChAdOx1, followed by BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines. By the end of 2021, more than 317 million vaccine doses were administered in the adult population. This study aimed at estimating the effectiveness of the primary series of COVID-19 vaccination and booster shots in protecting against severe cases and deaths in Brazil during the first year of vaccination. Methods: A cohort dataset of over 158 million vaccination and severe cases records linked from official national registries was analyzed via a mixed-effects Poisson model, adjusted for age, state of residence, time after immunization, and calendar time to estimate the absolute vaccine effectiveness of the primary series of vaccination and the relative effectiveness of the booster. The method permitted analysis of effectiveness against hospitalizations and deaths, including in the periods of variant dominance. Findings: Vaccine effectiveness against severe cases and deaths remained over 25% and 50%, respectively, after 19 weeks from primary vaccination of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, or CoronaVac vaccines. The boosters conferred greater protection than the primary series of vaccination, with heterologous boosters providing marginally greater protection than homologous. The effectiveness against hospitalization during the Omicron dominance in the 60+ years old population started at 61.7% (95% CI, 26.1-86.2) for ChAdOx1, 95.6% (95% CI, 82.4-99.9) for CoronaVac, and 72.3% (95% CI, 51.4-87.4) for the BNT162b2 vaccine. Interpretation: This study provides real-world evidence of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in Brazil, including during the Omicron wave, demonstrating protection even after waning effectiveness. Comparisons of the effectiveness among different vaccines require caution due to potential bias effects related to age groups, periods in the pandemic, and eventual behavioural changes. Funding: Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia da Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos em Saúde do Ministério da Saúde do Brasil (DECIT/SCTIE/MS).

Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Adjuvanted Trivalent Influenza Vaccine over Three Consecutive Influenza Seasons in the United States.

Traditional influenza vaccines may be less immunogenic in adults ≥65 years of age due to immunosenescence. Two influenza vaccines-MF59®-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV3) and high-dose influenza vaccine (HD-IIV3)-were developed to overcome this problem. We summarize estimates of the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of aIIV3 vs. HD-IIV3 and aIIV3 vs. standard, egg-based quadrivalent influenza vaccines (IIV4e) during the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 US influenza seasons using the same underlying electronic medical record and linked claims dataset for all three seasons. The primary outcome was influenza-related medical encounters (IRMEs), defined by diagnostic codes specific to influenza (ICD J09*-J11*). rVE was estimated using propensity score methods adjusting for demographics and health status. rVE estimates demonstrated consistent benefit for aIIV3 over IIV4e in the overall and at-risk populations. Relative to HD-IIV3, aIIV3 provided improved benefit in the overall study population and comparable benefit in the at-risk population across each season.

Influence of disease attenuation on relative influenza vaccine effectiveness by vaccine type.

Benefit conferred by "enhanced" influenza vaccines is often measured by relative vaccine effectiveness, (rVE), which compares disease risk among groups of people who received alternative vaccines. Differences in attenuation of illness severity by vaccine types could manifest as differences in rVE. Using a simulated VE study and cohort of adults aged ≥ 65 years, we examined how rVE varied with assumptions about attenuation of disease severity conferred by standard and enhanced vaccines and how this variation could lead to differing estimates of rVE for prevention of moderate (i.e., outpatient) versus severe (i.e., inpatient) influenza illness. We found that if enhanced vaccines attenuated severe illness more than moderate illness, then rVE observed against severe disease could be higher than rVE observed against moderate disease. Thus, if differences in disease attenuation by vaccine type occurs, estimates of rVE may vary for influenza outcomes of differing levels of severity.

A Real-World Clinical and Economic Analysis of Cell-Derived Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Compared to Standard Egg-Derived Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines During the 2019-2020 Influenza Season in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cell-derived influenza vaccines are not subject to egg-adaptive mutations that have potential to decrease vaccine effectiveness. This retrospective analysis estimated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of cell-derived quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4c) compared to standard egg-derived quadrivalent influenza vaccines (IIV4e) among recipients aged 4-64 years in the United States during the 2019-2020 influenza season. METHODS: The IQVIA PharMetrics Plus administrative claims database was utilized. Study outcomes were assessed postvaccination through the end of the study period (7 March 2020). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented to adjust for covariate imbalance. Adjusted rVE against influenza-related hospitalizations/emergency room (ER) visits and other clinical outcomes was estimated through IPTW-weighted Poisson regression models for the IIV4c and IIV4e cohorts and for the subgroup with ≥1 high-risk condition. Sensitivity analyses modifying the outcome assessment period as well as a doubly-robust analysis were also conducted. IPTW-weighted generalized linear models were used to estimate predicted annualized all-cause costs. RESULTS: The final sample comprised 1 150 134 IIV4c and 3 924 819 IIV4e recipients following IPTW adjustment. IIV4c was more effective in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits as well as respiratory-related hospitalizations/ER visits compared to IIV4e. IIV4c was also more effective for the high-risk subgroup and across the sensitivity analyses. IIV4c was also associated with significantly lower annualized all-cause total costs compared to IIV4e (-$467), driven by lower costs for outpatient medical services and inpatient hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: IIV4c was significantly more effective in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations/ER visits compared to IIV4e and was associated with significantly lower all-cause costs.