Vaccine effectiveness of the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents of long-term care facilities in England (VIVALDI): a prospective cohort study

  1. Madhumita Shrotri
  2. Maria Krutikov
  3. Tom Palmer
  4. Rebecca Giddings
  5. Borscha Azmi
  6. Sathyavani Subbarao
  7. Christopher Fuller
  8. Aidan Irwin-Singer
  9. Daniel Davies
  10. Gokhan Tut
  11. Jamie Lopez Bernal
  12. Paul Moss
  13. Andrew Hayward
  14. Andrew Copas
  15. Laura Shallcross

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/s1473-3099(21)00289-9
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.26.21254391: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethical Approval: Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the South Central - Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee, Ref: 20/SC/0238.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Subject to informed consent, blood sampling to detect IgG antibodies to Nucleocapsid protein was offered to a subset of residents prior to vaccination.
    detect IgG
    suggested: None
    Covariates: Positive PCR results from before the analysis period, and positive anti-Nucleocapsid antibody results prior to vaccination, were combined into a binary variable for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
    anti-Nucleocapsid
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All analyses were pre-specified in a statistical analysis plan and were conducted in Stata version 16·0 (StataCorp, 2019, TX, USA).
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Strengths and Limitations: A major strength of our analysis is that we were able to access high-quality routine data for a large, well-defined cohort of LTCF residents who were tested regularly for SARS-CoV-2 throughout follow-up. This allowed us to estimate the impact of vaccination on all infections, in contrast to trials and most observational studies which have focused on symptomatic infections. The analysis period coincided with the second wave of the pandemic, making it possible to estimate vaccine effectiveness against infections in the context of rapid emergence of the highly transmissible B.1.1.7 variant. Our cohort included a range of LTCF types therefore we expect these findings to be generalisable across LTCF resident populations. Regarding limitations, as vaccines were rolled out rapidly in LTCFs in England and most resident vaccinations were completed over 1-2 days, we did not attempt to quantify indirect vaccine effects attributable to herd immunity. We were also unable to assess the proportion of LTCFs that deferred vaccination due to outbreaks. Though it is likely that we have underestimated prior infection due to low rates of PCR testing in the first wave of the pandemic, given that prior infection appears highly protective against reinfection we would expect this to attenuate our overall vaccine effectiveness estimates. In addition, we considered Ct values, which correlate with the ability to isolate virus,30to be indicative of infectivity. Although it is c...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.26.21254391v1 on medRxiv