Effectiveness of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BNT162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazil: a test-negative, case-control study

  1. Thiago Cerqueira-Silva
  2. Jason R Andrews
  3. Viviane S Boaventura
  4. Otavio T Ranzani
  5. Vinicius de Araújo Oliveira
  6. Enny S Paixão
  7. Juracy Bertoldo Júnior
  8. Tales Mota Machado
  9. Matt D T Hitchings
  10. Murilo Dorion
  11. Margaret L Lind
  12. Gerson O Penna
  13. Derek A T Cummings
  14. Natalie E Dean
  15. Guilherme Loureiro Werneck
  16. Neil Pearce
  17. Mauricio L Barreto
  18. Albert I Ko
  19. Julio Croda
  20. Manoel Barral-Netto

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00140-2
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.21.21268058: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The research protocol was approved by the Brazilian National Commission in Research Ethics (CONEP) (approval number 4.921.308).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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:
    This study was subject to several limitations. First, we were not powered to assess vaccine effectiveness by age groups. We compared effectiveness in individuals above and below the age of 50 and did not observe major differences. Second, there were differences in the timing of introduction and eligibility for each of the vaccines. This should prompt some caution in the comparison of effectiveness between vaccines, as the calendar period and median duration from second dose differed somewhat between vaccines. For example, if effectiveness wanes over time, vaccines used earlier would have lower effectiveness than those introduced later. Additionally, changes in variant distribution during the study period could alter effectiveness by time since vaccination. We did not have individual level data on variants, which precluded assessment of variant-specific vaccine effectiveness. We used a matched, test-negative design with multivariable regression to reduce non-vaccine related differences between the cases and controls; however, there could be unmeasured differences that lead to confounding. Finally, an important question is when vaccines should be given to individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and our study was unable to address this. To avoid misclassification of reinfections, we only considered tests performed at least 90 days after the initial infection. We examined whether individuals vaccinated from 91-180 days after initial infection had differential protection f...

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.12.21.21268058 on medRxiv