RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Efficacy of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine against severe COVID-19 in those with risk conditions and residual risk to the clinically extremely vulnerable: the REACT-SCOT case-control study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.09.13.21262360
DO 10.1101/2021.09.13.21262360
A1 Paul M McKeigue
A1 David A McAllister
A1 Chris Robertson
A1 Sharon Hutchinson
A1 Stuart McGurnaghan
A1 Diane Stockton
A1 Helen M Colhoun
A1 for the PHS COVID-19 Epidemiology and Research Cell
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/16/2021.09.13.21262360.abstract
AB Objectives To determine whether COVID-19 efficacy varies with clinical risk category and to investigate risk factors for severe COVID-19 in those who have received two doses of vaccine.Design Matched case-control study (REACT-SCOT).Setting Population of Scotland from 1 December 2020 to 19 August 2021.Main outcome measure Severe COVID-19, defined as cases with entry to critical care or fatal outcome.Results Efficacy against severe COVID-19 of two doses of vaccine was 93% (95 percent CI 90% to 95%) in those without designated risk conditions, 89% (95 percent CI 85% to 92%) in those with moderate risk conditions, but only 66% (95 percent CI 52% to 76%) in those designated as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) and eligible for shielding. Of the 330 cases of severe COVID-19 in double-vaccinated individuals, 47% had moderate risk conditions and 41% were CEV. In the double-vaccinated CEV group, the rate ratio for severe disease (with no risk condition as reference category) was highest in solid organ transplants at 98 (95% CI 29 to 332) but even in this subgroup the absolute risk of severe COVID-19 was low (14 cases in 16079 person-months of follow-up).Conclusions Two doses of vaccine protect against severe COVID-19 in CEV individuals but the residual risk in double-vaccinated individuals remains far higher in those who are CEV than in those who are not. These results suggest that any policy of offering booster doses to doubly-vaccinated individuals should focus initially on the clinically vulnerable, and lay a basis for determining eligibility for passive immunization to protect those at highest risk.Competing Interest StatementHC receives research support and honoraria and is a member of advisory panels or speaker bureaus for Sanofi Aventis, Regeneron, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk and Eli Lilly. HC receives or has recently received non-binding research support from AstraZeneca and Novo-Nordisk. SH received honoraria from Gilead.Funding StatementNo specific funding was received for this study. HC is supported by an endowed chair from the AXA Research Foundation.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was performed within Public Health Scotland as part of its statutory duty to monitor and investigate public health problems. Under the [UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research](https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/uk-policy-framework-health-social-care-research/) set out by the NHS Health Research Authority, this does not fall within the definition of research and ethical review was therefore not required. This has been confirmed in writing by the NHS West of Scotland Research Ethics Service. Individual consent is not required for Public Health Scotland staff to process personal data to perform specific tasks in the public interest that fall within its statutory role. The statutory basis for this is set out in Public Health Scotland's [privacy notice](https://www.publichealthscotland.scot/our-privacy-notice/personal-data-processing/). All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe component datasets used here are available via the Public Benefits and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care at https://www.informationgovernance.scot.nhs.uk/pbpphsc/ for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. All source code used for derivation of variables, statistical analysis and generation of this manuscript is available on https://github.com/pmckeigue/covid-scotland_public.