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

Long-term duration of protection of ancestral-strain monovalent vaccines and effectiveness of the bivalent BA.1 boosters against COVID-19 hospitalisation during a period of BA.5, BQ.1, CH.1.1. and XBB.1.5 circulation in England

View ORCID ProfileFreja Cordelia Møller Kirsebom, Nick Andrews, Julia Stowe, Mary Ramsay, Jamie Lopez Bernal
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.31.23288018
Freja Cordelia Møller Kirsebom
1UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Freja Cordelia Møller Kirsebom
Nick Andrews
1UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom
2NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Vaccines and Immunisation, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julia Stowe
1UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mary Ramsay
1UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom
2NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Vaccines and Immunisation, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jamie Lopez Bernal
1UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom
2NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Vaccines and Immunisation, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
3NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Respiratory Infections, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Jamie.LopezBernal2@ukhsa.gov.uk
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Bivalent BA.1 booster vaccines were offered to adults aged 50 years and older and clinically vulnerable individuals as part of the autumn COVID-19 booster vaccination programme 2022 in England.

Methods A test-negative case-control study was used to estimate the duration of protection of the monovalent vaccines against hospitalisation as compared to those unvaccinated. In addition, the incremental VE of the bivalent BA.1 booster vaccines was estimated relative to those with waned immunity where the last dose was at least 6 months prior amongst those aged 50 years and older.

Findings The protection conferred by the monovalent vaccines was well maintained long-term: absolute VE against hospitalisation amongst those aged 65 years and older who had received at least 3 doses plateaued from 6 months after the last dose at around 50%. Incremental VE (in addition to the protection from earlier vaccines) of the bivalent BA.1 boosters against hospitalisation peaked at 53.0% (95% C.I.; 47.9-57.5%) (equivalent to an absolute VE of approximately 75%) before waning to around 35.9% (95% C.I.; 31.4-40.1%) after 10 or more weeks.

Interpretation This study provides evidence of the long-term duration of protection of the monovalent vaccines, suggesting individuals at lower risk of severe disease who did not receive a booster in autumn 2022 may not require regular re-vaccination. Furthermore, this study finds good evidence that the bivalent BA.1 booster vaccines are highly effective against hospitalisation amongst those aged 50 years and older with the sub-lineages of Omicron present in the autumn/winter of 2022 in England.

Funding None.

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:

PHE Research Ethics and Governance Group Statement: Surveillance of COVID-19 testing and vaccination is undertaken under Regulation 3 of The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 to collect confidential patient information (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1438/regulation/3/made) under Sections 3(i) (a) to (c), 3(i)(d) (i) and (ii) and 3(3). The study protocol was subject to an internal review by the PHE Research Ethics and Governance Group and was found to be fully compliant with all regulatory requirements. As no regulatory issues were identified, and ethical review is not a requirement for this type of work, it was decided that a full ethical review would not be necessary. All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.

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 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted March 31, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

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.
Long-term duration of protection of ancestral-strain monovalent vaccines and effectiveness of the bivalent BA.1 boosters against COVID-19 hospitalisation during a period of BA.5, BQ.1, CH.1.1. and XBB.1.5 circulation in England
(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
Long-term duration of protection of ancestral-strain monovalent vaccines and effectiveness of the bivalent BA.1 boosters against COVID-19 hospitalisation during a period of BA.5, BQ.1, CH.1.1. and XBB.1.5 circulation in England
Freja Cordelia Møller Kirsebom, Nick Andrews, Julia Stowe, Mary Ramsay, Jamie Lopez Bernal
medRxiv 2023.03.31.23288018; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.31.23288018
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Long-term duration of protection of ancestral-strain monovalent vaccines and effectiveness of the bivalent BA.1 boosters against COVID-19 hospitalisation during a period of BA.5, BQ.1, CH.1.1. and XBB.1.5 circulation in England
Freja Cordelia Møller Kirsebom, Nick Andrews, Julia Stowe, Mary Ramsay, Jamie Lopez Bernal
medRxiv 2023.03.31.23288018; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.31.23288018

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

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (243)
  • Allergy and Immunology (524)
  • Anesthesia (125)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1430)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (219)
  • Dermatology (158)
  • Emergency Medicine (292)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (588)
  • Epidemiology (10320)
  • Forensic Medicine (6)
  • Gastroenterology (532)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2649)
  • Geriatric Medicine (255)
  • Health Economics (499)
  • Health Informatics (1744)
  • Health Policy (791)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (679)
  • Hematology (269)
  • HIV/AIDS (569)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12111)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (649)
  • Medical Education (274)
  • Medical Ethics (83)
  • Nephrology (291)
  • Neurology (2476)
  • Nursing (145)
  • Nutrition (380)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (496)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (569)
  • Oncology (1330)
  • Ophthalmology (403)
  • Orthopedics (151)
  • Otolaryngology (238)
  • Pain Medicine (172)
  • Palliative Medicine (51)
  • Pathology (343)
  • Pediatrics (784)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (334)
  • Primary Care Research (296)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2414)
  • Public and Global Health (5025)
  • Radiology and Imaging (898)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (532)
  • Respiratory Medicine (686)
  • Rheumatology (309)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (257)
  • Sports Medicine (246)
  • Surgery (299)
  • Toxicology (45)
  • Transplantation (141)
  • Urology (108)