Assessment of breakthrough infections among post-vaccinated healthcare workers in a Tertiary Dental Hospital in New Delhi, India

  1. Deepamala Maurya
  2. Arundeep Kaur
  3. Farrukh Faraz
  4. Shruti Tandon
  5. Anju Rana
  6. Shekhar Grover

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

COVID-19 vaccination in India has been rolled out on a national level, with healthcare workers (HCWs) becoming the first recipient of both Covishield and Covaxin. However, concerns over efficacy of vaccines have been much debated. This study highlights COVID-19 infections among vaccinated HCWs in a teaching dental hospital in Delhi, India.

Methodology

This cross-sectional survey was conducted using a pretested, validated, self-instituted questionnaire assessing COVID-19 like symptoms and/or confirmed infections among partially or fully vaccinated HCWs (all faculty, staff and students) of the institute from 16 th January to 31 st July 2021. The number of infections was also matched with hospital records.

Results

Out of 397 HCWs, 386 (97.2%) were vaccinated and 355 (89.4%) had received both doses. COVID-19 like symptoms appeared in 21 HCWs (5.4%) post any dose of vaccine. Symptomatic breakthrough infections >14 days after second dose occurred was seen in 16 HCWs (4.5%). Except one (required hospitalization), all other cases had mild infection. No significant difference was observed between Covishield and Covaxin. Most common symptom was fever and body ache.

Conclusion

The study identifies the possibility of breakthrough infections among vaccinated HCWs, and ensures the impact of vaccination in limiting disease severity. The findings suggest that COVID-19 preventive measures should be continued even among vaccinated individuals.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2021.11.15.21266333v2 on medRxiv
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.15.21266333: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIACUC: Ethical clearance was provided by the Institutional Ethical Committee, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, Central Delhi, Delhi (India) (File No. EC/NEW/INST/2020/1207, dated 23/12/2020).
    IRB: The Institutional Ethical Committee approved the study.
    Consent: An informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the distribution of questionnaires.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The descriptive (frequency distribution) and inferential (chi-square test) analysis was conducted using SPSS v23.0 (IBM, New York, USA).
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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 found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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 10.1101/2021.11.15.21266333v1 on medRxiv