ABSTRACT
Background Data on the comparative vaccine effectiveness (CVE) of the bivalent mRNA-booster vaccines containing the original SARS-CoV-2 and omicron BA.4-5 and BA.1 subvariants are limited.
Methods In a period of BA.4-5 subvariants predominance, we estimated the CVE of the bivalent Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) and Spikevax (Moderna) BA.4-5 and BA.1 mRNA-booster vaccines given as a fourth dose in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. From 1 July 2022 to 12 December 2022, we conducted nationwide cohort analyses using target trial emulation to compare risks of Covid-19 hospitalization and death in four-dose (second booster) with three-dose (first booster) vaccinated and between four-dose vaccinated individuals.
Results Compared with having received three vaccine doses, receipt of a bivalent BA.4-5 booster as a fourth dose was associated with a country-combined CVE against Covid-19 hospitalization of 80.5% (95% confidence interval, 69.5% to 91.5%). The corresponding CVE for bivalent BA.1 boosters was 74.0% (68.6% to 79.4%). CVE against Covid-19 death was 77.8% (48.3% to 100%) and 80.1% (72.0% to 88.2%) for bivalent BA.4-5 and BA.1 boosters as a fourth dose, respectively. The CVE of bivalent BA.4-5 vs. BA.1 boosters were 32.3% (10.6% to 53.9%) for Covid-19 hospitalization and 12.3% (−36.1% to 60.7%) for death (the latter estimable in Denmark only).
Conclusions Vaccination with bivalent BA.4-5 or BA.1 mRNA-booster vaccines as a fourth dose was associated with increased protection against Covid-19 hospitalization and death during a period of BA.4-5 predominance. Bivalent BA.4-5 boosters conferred moderately greater vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19 hospitalization compared with bivalent BA.1 boosters.
Competing Interest Statement
EP reports receiving a grant from The Finnish Medical Foundation outside the 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 Chief Doctor Otto Helve, 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 section sign 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.
