Effectiveness of different booster regimens for preventing infection and adverse outcomes in Puerto Rico

  1. M.M. Robles-Fontán
  2. R.A. Irizarry

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

Recent laboratory and observational studies have demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness wanes over time. In response, several jurisdictions have authorized the administration of booster doses. Since August 13, 2021, Puerto Rico has administered 540,140 booster shots. We used data collected and made public by the Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDH) to evaluate the effectiveness of four different booster regimens at preventing SARS-CoV-2 laboratory confirmed infections and adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, we analyzed data from all 115,995 SARS-CoV-2 infections occurring since the vaccination process commenced on December 15, 2020. We combined vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 test results, and COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths data, and fit a statistical model that adjusted for time-varying incidence rates and age group, to estimate time-varying vaccine effectiveness against infection and adverse outcomes. We find that, after 6 months, the mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 effectiveness against infection wanes substantially to 61% (58%-63%) and 36% (34%-39%), respectively, while the Ad26.COV2.S wanes to 35% (31%-39%) after two months. However, after a booster shot of the corresponding initial vaccine manufacturer, effectiveness increased to 87% (83%-91%) and 82% (79%-85%) for mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2, respectively. The effectiveness for Ad26.COV2.S followed by either a mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 booster increased to 88% (71%-100%), substantially higher than 65% (59%-70%), the peak effectiveness reached with just one shot. We also found that heterologous booster regimens restored effectiveness. Furthermore, we did not observe waning after two months of the booster shot. Finally, we found that all booster regimens provided increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. Code and data to reproduce the analyses are provided here: https://github.com/rafalab/booster-eff-pr .

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.19.21268070: (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: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    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 10.1101/2021.12.19.21268070 on medRxiv