Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in a prison: Low effectiveness of a single dose of the adenovirus vector ChAdOx1 vaccine in recently vaccinated inmates
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Introduction
To analyse the effectiveness of a dose of adenovirus vector ChAdOx1 vaccine (AVChOx1) in an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 detected in a prison.
Methods
Observational study carried out at Brians-1 Prison, Barcelona. After detecting a case of infection, rt-PCR was administered to all prisoners (some of whom had been vaccinated 21-23 days previously with a dose of AVChOx1) and to staff. Infection rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations were calculated, as was vaccine effectiveness.
Results
One hundred and eighty-four asymptomatic prisoners (50.3% vaccinated) and 33 staff were screened. Forty-eight (25.9%) infections by the SCV-B.1.17 variant were recorded in prisoners and none in staff. Infection rates were higher in younger prisoners, immigrants, and those admitted ≥7 days previously. In all, 22.6% of vaccinated subjects were infected vs. 29.3% of unvaccinated. Vaccine effectiveness was 23%. Only 6.2 cases would have been prevented by vaccinating the unvaccinated individuals. At seven days, the rt-PCR was negative in 46.2% of vaccinated subjects vs. 13.6% of unvaccinated (p = 0.02).
Discussion
In a prison outbreak, a dose of AVChAdOx1 administered 21-23 days earlier did not significantly prevent the occurrence of infections, but did reduce the duration of rt-PCR positivity. Maintaining post-vaccination preventive measures is essential.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.03.21258337: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: However, the patients were informed of the purpose of data collection and their written informed consent was requested.
IRB: The study was evaluated and approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Jordi Gol Foundation (CEI: 21/169-PCV).Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.03.21258337: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: However, the patients were informed of the purpose of data collection and their written informed consent was requested.
IRB: The study was evaluated and approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Jordi Gol Foundation (CEI: 21/169-PCV).Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not 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: 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.
-
