Continued effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination among urban healthcare workers during delta variant predominance

  1. Fan-Yun Lan
  2. Amalia Sidossis
  3. Eirini Iliaki
  4. Jane Buley
  5. Neetha Nathan
  6. Lou Ann Bruno-Murtha
  7. Stefanos N. Kales

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) among healthcare workers (HCWs) during periods of delta variant predominance are limited.

Methods

We followed a population of urban Massachusetts HCWs (45% non-White) subject to epidemiologic surveillance. We accounted for covariates such as demographics and community background infection incidence, as well as information bias regarding COVID-19 diagnosis and vaccination status.

Results

During the study period (December 16, 2020 to September 30, 2021), 4615 HCWs contributed to a total of 1,152,486 person-days at risk (excluding 309 HCWs with prior infection) and had a COVID-19 incidence rate of 5.2/10,000 (114 infections out of 219,842 person-days) for unvaccinated person-days and 0.6/10,000 (49 infections out of 830,084 person-days) for fully vaccinated person-days, resulting in an adjusted VE of 82.3% (95% CI 75.1–87.4%). For the secondary analysis limited to the period of delta variant predominance in Massachusetts (i.e., July 1 to September 30, 2021), we observed an adjusted VE of 76.5% (95% CI 40.9–90.6%). Independently, we found no re-infection among those with prior COVID-19, contributing to 74,557 re-infection-free person-days, adding to the evidence base for the robustness of naturally acquired immunity.

Conclusions

We found a VE of 76.5% against the delta variant. Our work also provides further evidence of naturally acquired immunity.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1186/s12879-022-07434-y
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.15.21265753: (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: 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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.11.15.21265753v1 on medRxiv