Interim findings from first-dose mass COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and COVID-19 hospital admissions in Scotland: a national prospective cohort study.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for CoV-19 and found that the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85-94) for reduced COVID19 hospital admission at 28-34 days post-vaccination.
About: This article is published in The Lancet.The article was published on 2021-05-01 and is currently open access. It has received 437 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Cohort study & Vaccination.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the real-world effectiveness of two doses of BNT162b2 against a range of SARS-CoV-2 outcomes and to evaluate the nationwide public-health impact following the widespread introduction of the vaccine was estimated.
1,242 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the overall and variant-specific effectiveness of BNT162b2 (tozinameran, Pfizer BioNTech) against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19-related hospital admissions by time since vaccination among members of a large US health-care system was evaluated.
855 citations
830 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the proportion and probability of self-reported systemic and local side-effects within 8 days of vaccination in individuals using the COVID Symptom Study app who received one or two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine or one dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine.
Abstract: Summary Background The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy in phase 3 trials. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines in a UK community setting. Methods In this prospective observational study, we examined the proportion and probability of self-reported systemic and local side-effects within 8 days of vaccination in individuals using the COVID Symptom Study app who received one or two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine or one dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. We also compared infection rates in a subset of vaccinated individuals subsequently tested for SARS-CoV-2 with PCR or lateral flow tests with infection rates in unvaccinated controls. All analyses were adjusted by age (≤55 years vs >55 years), sex, health-care worker status (binary variable), obesity (BMI Findings Between Dec 8, and March 10, 2021, 627 383 individuals reported being vaccinated with 655 590 doses: 282 103 received one dose of BNT162b2, of whom 28 207 received a second dose, and 345 280 received one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were reported by 13·5% (38 155 of 282 103) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 22·0% (6216 of 28 207) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 33·7% (116 473 of 345 280) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Local side-effects were reported by 71·9% (150 023 of 208 767) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 68·5% (9025 of 13 179) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 58·7% (104 282 of 177 655) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were more common (1·6 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 2·9 times after the first dose of BNT162b2) among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those without known past infection. Local effects were similarly higher in individuals previously infected than in those without known past infection (1·4 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 1·2 times after the first dose of BNT162b2). 3106 of 103 622 vaccinated individuals and 50 340 of 464 356 unvaccinated controls tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Significant reductions in infection risk were seen starting at 12 days after the first dose, reaching 60% (95% CI 49–68) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 69% (66–72) for BNT162b2 at 21–44 days and 72% (63–79) for BNT162b2 after 45–59 days. Interpretation Systemic and local side-effects after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination occur at frequencies lower than reported in phase 3 trials. Both vaccines decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12 days. Funding ZOE Global, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Research and Innovation, American Gastroenterological Association.
670 citations
TL;DR: A snapshot of ongoing vaccine efficacy studies, as well as real-world data on vaccine effectiveness and the impact of virus variants of concern are provided in this paper, where they have been deployed in a high proportion of the adult population, the currently approved vaccines have been extremely effective in preventing COVID-19, particularly severe disease.
Abstract: Where 2020 saw the development and testing of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at an unprecedented pace, the first half of 2021 has seen vaccine rollout in many countries. In this Progress article, we provide a snapshot of ongoing vaccine efficacy studies, as well as real-world data on vaccine effectiveness and the impact of virus variants of concern. Where they have been deployed in a high proportion of the adult population, the currently approved vaccines have been extremely effective in preventing COVID-19, particularly severe disease. Nonetheless, there are still significant challenges in ensuring equitable vaccine access around the globe and lessons that can be learned for controlling this pandemic and for the next pandemic.
566 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older and safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines.
Abstract: Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a world...
10,274 citations
TL;DR: The propensity score is a balancing score: conditional on the propensity score, the distribution of observed baseline covariates will be similar between treated and untreated subjects, and different causal average treatment effects and their relationship with propensity score analyses are described.
Abstract: The propensity score is the probability of treatment assignment conditional on observed baseline characteristics. The propensity score allows one to design and analyze an observational (nonrandomized) study so that it mimics some of the particular characteristics of a randomized controlled trial. In particular, the propensity score is a balancing score: conditional on the propensity score, the distribution of observed baseline covariates will be similar between treated and untreated subjects. I describe 4 different propensity score methods: matching on the propensity score, stratification on the propensity score, inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score. I describe balance diagnostics for examining whether the propensity score model has been adequately specified. Furthermore, I discuss differences between regression-based methods and propensity score-based methods for the analysis of observational data. I describe different causal average treatment effects and their relationship with propensity score analyses.
7,895 citations
University of Oxford1, Federal University of São Paulo2, University of the Witwatersrand3, Stellenbosch University4, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine5, University of Sheffield6, University of London7, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust8, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust9, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust10, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust11, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust12, St George's, University of London13, AstraZeneca14, North Bristol NHS Trust15, University College Hospital16, University of Hull17, Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública18, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte19, Northwest University (China)20, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria21, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School22, Boston Children's Hospital23, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul24, Western General Hospital25, University of Glasgow26, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust27, University of Cambridge28, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust29, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board30
TL;DR: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials.
3,741 citations
Brigham and Women's Hospital1, Baylor College of Medicine2, Emory University3, University of Maryland, Baltimore4, Saint Louis University5, University of Illinois at Chicago6, George Washington University7, University of California, San Diego8, Vanderbilt University9, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center10
TL;DR: The mRNA-1273 vaccine as discussed by the authors is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19.
Abstract: Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.).
2,721 citations
TL;DR: This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of theRECORD checklist, and examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein.
Abstract: Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting.
2,644 citations