Vaccine effectiveness against COVID‐19 among symptomatic persons aged ≥12 years with reported contact with COVID‐19 cases, February–September 2021
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
Individuals in contact with persons with COVID‐19 are at high risk of developing COVID‐19; protection offered by COVID‐19 vaccines in the context of known exposure is poorly understood.
Methods
Symptomatic outpatients aged ≥12 years reporting acute onset of COVID‐19‐like illness and tested for SARS‐CoV‐2 between February 1 and September 30, 2021 were enrolled. Participants were stratified by self‐report of having known contact with a COVID‐19 case in the 14 days prior to illness onset. Vaccine effectiveness was evaluated using the test‐negative study design and multivariable logistic regression.
Results
Among 2229 participants, 283/451 (63%) of those reporting contact and 331/1778 (19%) without known contact tested SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49%–83%) among fully vaccinated participants reporting a known contact versus 80% (95% CI, 72%–86%) among those with no known contact ( p ‐value for interaction = 0.2).
Conclusions
This study contributes to growing evidence of the benefits of vaccinations in preventing COVID‐19 and support vaccination recommendations and the importance of efforts to increase vaccination coverage.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.30.21267928: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: This research activity involving human subjects was reviewed by the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Baylor Scott and White Health, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, University of Michigan, Henry Ford Health System, and University of Pittsburgh and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy (See 45 C.F.R. part 46; 21 C.F.R. part 56). Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). S…SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.30.21267928: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: This research activity involving human subjects was reviewed by the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Baylor Scott and White Health, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, University of Michigan, Henry Ford Health System, and University of Pittsburgh and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy (See 45 C.F.R. part 46; 21 C.F.R. part 56). Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). SAS Institutesuggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Our study was subject to at least five limitations. First, we did not assess the nature of reported contact and do not have information about whether the exposure was a household member, occupational, or other type of exposure. Second, we did not collect information about the timing of the reported known contact within the 14 days prior to illness onset. Participants could have been infected prior to the reported exposure. Third, some participants might have been aware of their SARS-CoV-2 test status when they completed the enrollment questionnaire, which could have influenced responses to the known contact question [11]. While the test-negative design reduces bias due to differences in healthcare-seeking behavior among vaccinated and unvaccinated persons [9], vaccinated cases could have been more motivated to participate in this study. Fourth, we did not ask about NPIs or duration of contact of the known exposure. Differences in exposures and prevention measures among vaccinated and unvaccinated participants could have been associated with likelihood of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Finally, our study was unable to account for differences in timing of vaccination. This study contributes to growing evidence of COVID-19 VE against symptomatic illness, including sustained protection in the Delta-variant period, among members of the general population who have contact with persons with COVID-19 disease. These findings support recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination...
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.
-
