Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine

View ORCID ProfileNabin K. Shrestha, Patrick C. Burke, Amy S. Nowacki, James F. Simon, Amanda Hagen, Steven M. Gordon
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625
Nabin K. Shrestha
1Departments of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nabin K. Shrestha
  • For correspondence: shrestn{at}ccf.org
Patrick C. Burke
2Infection Prevention, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amy S. Nowacki
3Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James F. Simon
4Enterprise Business Intelligence, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amanda Hagen
5Occupational Health, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven M. Gordon
1Departments of Infectious Diseases, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: gordons{at}ccf.org
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine protects against COVID-19.

Methods Employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment when the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine first became available, were included. Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 over the following 26 weeks was examined. Protection provided by vaccination (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression, with change in dominant circulating lineages over time accounted for by time-dependent coefficients. The analysis was adjusted for the pandemic phase when the last prior COVID-19 episode occurred, and the number of prior vaccine doses.

Results Among 51017 employees, COVID-19 occurred in 4424 (8.7%) during the study. In multivariable analysis, the bivalent vaccinated state was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 during the BA.4/5 dominant (HR, .71; 95% C.I., .63-.79) and the BQ dominant (HR, .80; 95% C.I., .69-.94) phases, but decreased risk was not found during the XBB dominant phase (HR, .96; 95% C.I., .82-.1.12). Estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) was 29% (95% C.I., 21%-37%), 20% (95% C.I., 6%-31%), and 4% (95% C.I., -12%-18%), during the BA.4/5, BQ, and XBB dominant phases, respectively. Risk of COVID-19 also increased with time since most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.

Conclusions The bivalent COVID-19 vaccine given to working-aged adults afforded modest protection overall against COVID-19 while the BA.4/5 lineages were the dominant circulating strains, afforded less protection when the BQ lineages were dominant, and effectiveness was not demonstrated when the XBB lineages were dominant.

Summary Among 51017 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was 29% effective in preventing infection while the BA.4/5 lineages were dominant, and 20% effective while the BQ lineages were. Effectiveness was not demonstrated when the XBB lineages were dominant.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding

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 Institutional Review Board of Cleveland Clinic gave ethical approval for this work.

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

Footnotes

  • The only difference from the immediate preceding version is that Figure legends for figures 1 and 2 were corrected.

    The data for this study were obtained from a living database. Vaccine information for vaccines received outside the Cleveland Clinic Health System populate the database when these data become available from other health systems or from the Ohio Department of Health. Additionally errors are corrected when identified. Because of these circumstances, data pulled on subsequent dates are more complete than those pulled earlier. Occasionally data on individual patients may differ from those pulled earlier because errors previously present have been corrected.

    The findings of this version of the study are based on data extracted on 2/21/2023.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted March 22, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine
Nabin K. Shrestha, Patrick C. Burke, Amy S. Nowacki, James F. Simon, Amanda Hagen, Steven M. Gordon
medRxiv 2022.12.17.22283625; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine
Nabin K. Shrestha, Patrick C. Burke, Amy S. Nowacki, James F. Simon, Amanda Hagen, Steven M. Gordon
medRxiv 2022.12.17.22283625; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (576)
  • Allergy and Immunology (868)
  • Anesthesia (306)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (4483)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (449)
  • Dermatology (385)
  • Emergency Medicine (615)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1528)
  • Epidemiology (15283)
  • Forensic Medicine (31)
  • Gastroenterology (1134)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (6651)
  • Geriatric Medicine (671)
  • Health Economics (1006)
  • Health Informatics (4606)
  • Health Policy (1378)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1624)
  • Hematology (545)
  • HIV/AIDS (1276)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (15965)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (1111)
  • Medical Education (626)
  • Medical Ethics (147)
  • Nephrology (675)
  • Neurology (6699)
  • Nursing (346)
  • Nutrition (1006)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (1153)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (961)
  • Oncology (3370)
  • Ophthalmology (989)
  • Orthopedics (370)
  • Otolaryngology (421)
  • Pain Medicine (437)
  • Palliative Medicine (131)
  • Pathology (670)
  • Pediatrics (1704)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (700)
  • Primary Care Research (717)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (5497)
  • Public and Global Health (9288)
  • Radiology and Imaging (2225)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1375)
  • Respiratory Medicine (1202)
  • Rheumatology (598)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (721)
  • Sports Medicine (536)
  • Surgery (722)
  • Toxicology (100)
  • Transplantation (290)
  • Urology (267)