Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission in South African health care workers who received a homologous booster of Ad26.COV2 during an Omicron COVID19 wave: Preliminary Results of the Sisonke 2 Study

  1. Glenda E Gray
  2. Shirley Collie
  3. Nigel Garrett
  4. Ameena Goga
  5. Jared Champion
  6. Matthew Zylstra
  7. Tarylee Reddy
  8. Nonhlanhla Yende
  9. Ishen Seocharan
  10. Azwi Takalani
  11. Ian Sanne
  12. Fatima Mayat
  13. Jacky Odhiambo
  14. Lesley Bamford
  15. Harry Moultrie
  16. Lara Fairall
  17. Linda-Gail Bekker

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Following the results of the ENSEMBLE 2 study, which demonstrated improved vaccine efficacy of a two-dose regimen of Ad26.COV.2 vaccine given 2 months apart, we expanded the Sisonke study which had provided single dose Ad26.COV.2 vaccine to almost 500 000 health care workers (HCW) in South Africa to include a booster dose of the Ad26.COV.2. Sisonke 2 enrolled 227 310 HCW from the 8 November to the 17 December 2021. Enrolment commenced before the onset of the Omicron driven fourth wave in South Africa affording us an opportunity to evaluate early VE in preventing hospital admissions of a homologous boost of the Ad26.COV.2 vaccine given 6-9 months after the initial vaccination in HCW.

We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine booster in 69 092 HCW as compared to unvaccinated individuals enrolled in the same managed care organization using a test negative design. We compared VE against COVID19 admission for omicron during the period 15 November to 20 December 2021. After adjusting for confounders, we observed that VE for hospitalisation increased over time since booster dose, from 63% (95%CI 31-81%); to 84% (95% CI 67-92%) and then 85% (95% CI: 54-95%), 0-13 days, 14-27 days, and 1-2 months post-boost.

We provide the first evidence of the effectiveness of a homologous Ad26.COV.2 vaccine boost given 6-9 months after the initial single vaccination series during a period of omicron variant circulation. This data is important given the increased reliance on the Ad26.COV.2 vaccine in Africa.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.28.21268436: (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.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT05148845RecruitingSisonke 2 - A COVID-19 Vaccine Boost Open Label Study.

    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 10.1101/2021.12.28.21268436v1 on medRxiv