ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of heterologous booster schedules with AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca, referred to as AZD), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech, BNT), and mRNA-1273 (Moderna, MOD) vaccines compared with primary schedules and with homologous mRNA-vaccine booster schedules during a period of omicron predominance.
Design Population-based cohort analyses.
Setting Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 27 December 2020 to 28 February 2022.
Participants Adults that had received at least a primary vaccination schedule (ie, two doses) of the AZD, BNT, and/or MOD vaccines during the study period.
Main outcome measures Using the Kaplan-Meier estimator, we compared country-specific risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes in heterologous booster vaccinated with primary schedule vaccinated (matched analyses) and homologous booster vaccinated (weighted analyses) since emergence of omicron.
Results Heterologous booster schedules improved protection against all outcomes compared with primary schedules, with the largest and most robust effects observed for severe COVID-19. Risk differences for documented infection ranged from -22.4% to -3.1% (comparative vaccine effectiveness [CVE] 9.7% to 60.9%; >63.2% for COVID-19 hospitalisation) across countries for AZD1BNT2BNT3 (AZD as primary dose followed by two doses of BNT) vs AZD1BNT2 and -22.2% to -3.2% (CVE 37.4% to 67.8%; >34.6% for hospitalisation) for BNT1BNT2MOD3 vs BNT1BNT2, the two most common heterologous booster schedules. Heterologous- and homologous booster schedules had comparable effectiveness. Risk differences of documented infection ranged from -0.4% to 4.4% (CVE -20.0% to 2.4%) for AZD1BNT2BNT3 vs BNT1BNT2BNT3 and -19.8% to 1.7% (CVE -14.6% to 53.8%) for BNT1BNT2MOD3 vs BNT1BNT2BNT3; for most comparisons, risk differences for severe COVID-19 outcomes were smaller than 1 per 1000 vaccinated. Previous infection followed by a booster dose conferred the greatest protection.
Conclusion Heterologous booster vaccine schedules are associated with an increased protection against omicron-related COVID-19 outcomes that is comparable to that afforded by homologous booster schedules.
Competing Interest Statement
LL reports participation in research projects funded by Menarini Pharmaceuticals and LEO Pharma with funds paid to his institution and receiving personal fees for teaching epidemiological methods related to COVID-19 research from Atrium, the Danish association of the pharmaceutical industry; all outside this submitted work. Man reports previous participation in research projects funded by Pfizer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, H Lundbeck, and Mertz, and Novartis with grants paid to the institution (Karolinska Institutet; no personal fees); MAn reports having received personal fees for teaching from Atrium and his institution, Pharmacovigilance Research Center, has been supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF15SA0018404) to the University of Copenhagen; all outside this submitted work. JH reports participation in regulator-mandated phase IV-studies funded by Alcon, Almirall, Astellas, Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Servier, and LEO Pharma with funds paid to the his institution; all outside this submitted work. RL reports receiving grants from Sanofi Aventis paid to his institution and receiving personal fees from Pfizer; all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare not competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by the European Medicines Agency.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Danish study was performed as a surveillance study as part of the governmental institution Statens Serum Institut's (SSI) advisory tasks for the Danish Ministry of Health. SSI's purpose is to monitor and fight the spread of disease in accordance with section 222 of the Danish Health Act. According to Danish law, national surveillance activities conducted by SSI do not require approval from an ethics committee. It was approved by the Danish Governmental law firm and SSI's compliance department that the study is fully compliant with all legal, ethical and IT-security requirements and there are no further approval procedures regarding such studies. For the Finnish study, by Finnish law, the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) is the national expert institution to carry out surveillance on the impact of vaccinations in Finland (Communicable Diseases Act, https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2016/en20161227.pdf). Neither specific ethical approval (a waiver of ethical approval was received from Professor Mika Salminen, Director of the Department for Health Security Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare) of this study nor informed consent from the participants was needed. The Norwegian study was approved by the Norwegian Regional Committee for Health Research Ethics South East (REK Soer-Oest A, ref 122745), and has conformed to the principles embodied in the Declaration of Helsinki. The emergency preparedness register was established according to the Health Preparedness Act paragraph 2-4. Consent to participate was not applicable as this is a register-based study. The Swedish study is approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2020-06859, 2021-02186) and has conformed to the principles embodied in the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent to participate is not applicable as this is a register-based study. Due to the nature of this research, there was no involvement of patients or members of the public in the design or reporting of this study.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
No additional data available. Owing to data privacy regulations in each country, the raw data cannot be shared.
