RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparative effectiveness of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines in Health and Social Care workers in England: a cohort study using OpenSAFELY
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.10.13.21264937
DO 10.1101/2021.10.13.21264937
A1 William J Hulme
A1 Elizabeth J Williamson
A1 Amelia Green
A1 Krishnan Bhaskaran
A1 Helen I McDonald
A1 Christopher T Rentsch
A1 Anna Schultze
A1 John Tazare
A1 Helen J Curtis
A1 Alex J Walker
A1 Laurie Tomlinson
A1 Tom Palmer
A1 Elsie Horne
A1 Brian MacKenna
A1 Caroline E Morton
A1 Amir Mehrkar
A1 Louis Fisher
A1 Seb Bacon
A1 Dave Evans
A1 Peter Inglesby
A1 George Hickman
A1 Simon Davy
A1 Tom Ward
A1 Richard Croker
A1 Rosalind M Eggo
A1 Angel YS Wong
A1 Rohini Mathur
A1 Kevin Wing
A1 Harriet Forbes
A1 Daniel Grint
A1 Ian J Douglas
A1 Stephen JW Evans
A1 Liam Smeeth
A1 Chris Bates
A1 Jonathan Cockburn
A1 John Parry
A1 Frank Hester
A1 Sam Harper
A1 Jonathan AC Sterne
A1 Miguel Hernán
A1 Ben Goldacre
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/18/2021.10.13.21264937.abstract
AB Objectives To compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines against infection and COVID-19 disease in health and social care workers.Design Cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial.Setting Linked primary care, hospital, and COVID-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform.Participants 317,341 health and social care workers vaccinated between 4 January and 28 February 2021, registered with a GP practice using the TPP SystmOne clinical information system in England, and not clinically extremely vulnerable.Interventions Vaccination with either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 administered as part of the national COVID-19 vaccine roll-out.Main outcome measures Recorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, or COVID-19 related Accident and Emergency attendance or hospital admission occurring within 20 weeks of vaccination.Results The cumulative incidence of each outcome was similar for both vaccines during the first 20 weeks post-vaccination. The cumulative incidence of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection 6 weeks after vaccination with BNT162b2 was 19.2 per 1000 people (95%CI 18.6 to 19.7) and with ChAdOx1 was 18.9 (95%CI 17.6 to 20.3), representing a difference of -0.24 per 1000 people (95%CI -1.71 to 1.22). The difference in the cumulative incidence per 1000 people of COVID-19 accident and emergency attendance at 6 weeks was 0.01 per 1000 people (95%CI -0.27 to 0.28). For COVID-19 hospital admission, this difference was 0.03 per 1000 people (95%CI -0.22 to 0.27).Conclusions In this cohort of healthcare workers where we would not anticipate vaccine type to be related to health status, we found no substantial differences in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 disease up to 20 weeks after vaccination. Incidence dropped sharply after 3-4 weeks and there were very few COVID-19 hospital attendance and admission events after this period. This is in line with expected onset of vaccine-induced immunity, and suggests strong protection against COVID-19 disease for both vaccines.Competing Interest StatementOver the past five years BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK (HDRUK), the Health Foundation, and the World Health Organisation; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. KB holds a Wellcome Senior Research Fellowship (220283/Z/20/Z). HIM is funded by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Immunisation, a partnership between Public Health England and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. AYSW holds a fellowship from the British Heart Foundation. EJW holds grants from MRC. RM holds a Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship funded by the Wellcome Trust (201375/Z/16/Z). HF holds a UKRI fellowship. IJD has grants from NIHR and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and holds shares in GSK.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Medical Research Council MR/V015737/1 and the Longitudinal Health and wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme. The OpenSAFELY platform is funded by the Wellcome Trust. TPP provided technical expertise and infrastructure within their data centre pro bono in the context of a national emergency. BG's work on clinical informatics is supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley. BG's work on better use of data in healthcare more broadly is currently funded in part by: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NHS England, and the Health Foundation; all DataLab staff are supported by BG's grants on this work. LS reports grants from Wellcome, MRC, NIHR, UKRI, British Council, GSK, British Heart Foundation, and Diabetes UK outside this work. KB holds a Wellcome Senior Research Fellowship (220283/Z/20/Z). HIM is funded by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Immunisation, a partnership between Public Health England and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. AYSW holds a fellowship from the British Heart Foundation. EJW holds grants from MRC. RM holds a Sir Henry Wellcome Fellowship funded by the Wellcome Trust (201375/Z/16/Z). HF holds a UKRI fellowship. IJD holds grants from NIHR and GSK. Funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report and in the decision to submit the article for publication. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS England, Public Health England or the Department of Health and Social Care. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission.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:NHS England is the data controller; TPP is the data processor; and the key researchers on OpenSAFELY are acting with the approval of NHS England. This implementation of OpenSAFELY is hosted within the TPP environment which is accredited to the ISO 27001 information security standard and is NHS IG Toolkit compliant @betad @datasec ; Patient data has been pseudonymised for analysis and linkage using industry standard cryptographic hashing techniques; all pseudonymised datasets transmitted for linkage onto OpenSAFELY are encrypted; access to the platform is via a virtual private network (VPN) connection, restricted to a small group of researchers; the researchers hold contracts with NHS England and only access the platform to initiate database queries and statistical models; all database activity is logged; only aggregate statistical outputs leave the platform environment following best practice for anonymisation of results such as statistical disclosure control for low cell counts @isb1523 . The OpenSAFELY research platform adheres to the obligations of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. In March 2020, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care used powers under the UK Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 (COPI) to require organisations to process confidential patient information for the purposes of protecting public health, providing healthcare services to the public and monitoring and managing the COVID-19 outbreak and incidents of exposure; this sets aside the requirement for patient consent @coronavi2020 . Taken together, these provide the legal bases to link patient datasets on the OpenSAFELY platform. GP practices, from which the primary care data are obtained, are required to share relevant health information to support the public health response to the pandemic, and have been informed of the OpenSAFELY analytics platform. This study was approved by the Health Research Authority (REC reference 20/LO/0651) and by the LSHTM Ethics Board (reference 21863).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.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.YesAll code is available at https://github.com/opensafely/comparative-ve-research, and is shared openly for review and re-use under MIT open license. Codelists are available at https://www.opencodelists.org/. No person-level data is shared. Any reported figures based on counts below 6 are redacted or rounded for disclosure control. https://github.com/opensafely/comparative-ve-research