Effectiveness of ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 booster vaccination against the Omicron and Delta variants in England

  1. Freja Cordelia Møller Kirsebom
  2. Nick Andrews
  3. Ruchira Sachdeva
  4. Julia Stowe
  5. Mary Ramsay
  6. Jamie Lopez Bernal

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Despite the availability of the ChAdOx1-S booster vaccine, little is known about the real-world effectiveness although clinical trials have demonstrated enhanced immunity following a ChAdOx1-S booster. In England 43,171 individuals received a ChAdOx1-S booster whilst 13,038,908 individuals received BNT162b2 in the same period. ChAdOx1-S booster recipients were more likely to be female (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.67 (1.64-1.71)), in a clinical risk group (adjusted OR 1.58 (1.54-1.63)), in the clinically extremely vulnerable group (adjusted OR 1.84 (1.79-1.89)) or severely immunosuppressed (adjusted OR 2.05 (1.96-2.13)). The effectiveness of the ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 boosters is estimated here using a test-negative case-control study. Protection against symptomatic disease with the Omicron variant peaks at 66.1% (16.6 to 86.3%) and 68.5% (65.7 to 71.2%) for the ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 boosters in older adults. Protection against hospitalisation peaks at 82.3% (64.2 to 91.3%) and 90.9% (88.7 to 92.7%). For Delta, effectiveness against hospitalisation is 80.9% (15.6% to 95.7%) and 93.9% (92.8% to 94.9%) after ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 booster vaccination. This study supports the consideration of ChAdOx1-S booster vaccination for protection against severe COVID-19 in settings yet to offer boosters and suggests that individuals who received a ChAdOx1-S booster do not require re-vaccination ahead of others.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41467-022-35168-7
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.29.22274483: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationFor individuals who had more than one negative test, one was selected at random in the study period.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line AuthenticationAuthentication: Cases were defined as Delta or Omicron (BA.1 and BA.2) based on whole genome sequencing, genotyping or SGTF, with sequencing taking priority, followed by genotyping and SGTF status.

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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 10.1101/2022.04.29.22274483v1 on medRxiv