Progress of the Delta variant and erosion of vaccine effectiveness, a warning from Utah

  1. Lindsay T. Keegan
  2. Shaun Truelove
  3. Justin Lessler

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, vaccines have been heralded as the best way to curtail the pandemic. Clinical trials have shown SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to be highly efficacious against both disease and infection. However, those currently in use were primarily tested against early lineages. Data on vaccine effectiveness (VE) against variants of concern (VOC), including the Delta variant (B.1.617.2), remain limited. To examine the effectiveness of vaccination in Utah we compared the proportion of cases reporting vaccination to that expected at different VEs, then estimated the combined daily vaccine effectiveness using a field evaluation approach. Delta has rapidly outcompeted all other variants and, as of June 20th, represents 70% of all SARS-CoV-2 viruses sequenced in Utah. If we attribute the entire change in VE to the Delta variant, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against Delta would be 82% (95% CI: 78%, 85%). We show a modest reduction in vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 in Utah corresponding to the expansion of the Delta lineage in the state. This reduction in the effectiveness of available vaccines correlated with the arrival of novel VOCs, rather than waning immunity, is highly concerning.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.09.21261554: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.08.09.21261554 on medRxiv