Abstract
Background In England, the Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation recommended a spring 2023 booster programme for all adults aged 75 years and older and the immunosuppressed. The vaccines advised were the Sanofi/GSK AS03-adjuvanted monovalent beta variant (VidPrevtyn Beta) booster vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA (Comirnaty Original/Omicron BA.4-5) bivalent vaccine. This is the first time an adjuvanted COVID-19 vaccine has been administered as part of a UK COVID-19 vaccination programme. In clinical trials, the antibody levels generated by the Sanofi/GSK vaccine were comparable to levels generated by COVID-19 mRNA vaccines but to date there are no real-world data on the effectiveness or duration of protection of this vaccine.
Methods We used a test-negative case-control study design to estimate the incremental vaccine effectiveness of the Sanofi/GSK and Pfizer bivalent BA.4-5 boosters against hospitalisation amongst those aged 75 years and older in England. The study period for tests contributing to all analyses was from 3rd April 2022 to 27th August 2023. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated relative to those who had received at least two doses prior to their spring booster, with their last dose being an autumn 2022 booster given at least 3 months prior.
Findings Overall, there were 14,174 eligible tests from hospitalised individuals aged 75 years and older, with 3,005 being cases and 11,169 being controls. Effectiveness against hospitalisation was highest in the period 9 to 13 days post vaccination for both manufacturers at about 50%; 43.6% (95% C.I.; 20.1 to 60.2%) and 56.4% (95% C.I; 25.8 to 74.4%) for Sanofi/GSK and Pfizer BA.4-5, respectively. There was some evidence of waning with a reduction to about 30% for both manufacturers 5-9 weeks post vaccination.
Interpretation Together, these results provide reassuring evidence that both the adjuvanted Sanofi/GSK and Pfizer BA.4-5 booster vaccines provided a good boost to protection against hospitalisation amongst adults aged 75 years and older. The finding that the adjuvanted vaccine targeting the now distant Beta strain had similar effectiveness to the mRNA vaccine targeting more closely matched Omicron sub-lineages BA.4-5 during a period of Omicron circulation may reflect improved protection due to the adjuvant in the Sanofi/GSK product.
Funding No external funding.
Competing Interest Statement
The Immunisation Department provides vaccine manufacturers (including Pfizer) with post-marketing surveillance reports about pneumococcal and meningococcal disease which the companies are required to submit to the UK Licensing authority in compliance with their Risk Management Strategy. A cost recovery charge is made for these reports. GD's predecessor employer, Public Health England, received funding from GlaxoSmithKline for a research project related to seasonal influenza and antiviral treatment; this project preceded and had no relation to COVID-19, and GD had no role in and received no funding from the project.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive external 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 study protocol was subject to an internal review by the UK Health Security Agency 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. UKHSA has legal permission, provided by Regulation 3 of The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, to process patient confidential information for national surveillance of communicable diseases and as such, individual patient consent is not required to access records.
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
This work is carried out under Regulation 3 of The Health Service (Control of Patient Information; Secretary of State for Health, 2002) using patient identification information without individual patient consent as part of the UKHSA legal requirement for public health surveillance and monitoring of vaccines. As such, authors cannot make the underlying dataset publicly available for ethical and legal reasons. However, all the data used for this analysis is included as aggregated data in the manuscript tables and appendix. Applications for relevant anonymised data should be submitted to the UKHSA Office for Data Release at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessing-ukhsa-protected-data.
