Abstract
Objectives To estimate the effectiveness of the CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine in a setting of SARS-CoV-2 P.1 variant transmission.
Design Matched test-negative case-control study to estimate the effectiveness of an inactivated vaccine, CoronaVac, with an early analysis of effectiveness following administration at least one vaccine dose and an analysis of effectiveness following administration of the complete two dose schedule.
Setting Cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs) in Manaus, where P.1 accounted for 75% of genotyped SARS-CoV-2 samples at the peak of its epidemic.
Participants For the early at-least-one-dose analysis, 53,176 HCWs residing in Manaus and aged 18 years or older, with complete information on age, residence, and vaccination status. For the two-dose analysis, 53,153 HCWs residing in Manaus and aged 18 years or older, with complete information on age, residence, and vaccination status.
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Results Among 53,153 HCWs eligible for the two-dose analysis, 47,170 (89%) received at least one dose of CoronaVac and 2,656 individuals (5%) underwent RT-PCR testing from 19 January, 2021 to 13 April, 2021. Of 3,195 RT-PCR tests, 885 (28%) were positive. 393 and 418 case-control pairs were selected for the early and two-dose analyses, respectively, matched on calendar time, age, and neighbourhood. In the early analysis, vaccination with at least one dose was associated with a 0.50-fold reduction (adjusted vaccine effectiveness, 49.6%, 95% CI 11.3 to 71.4) in the odds of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection during the period 14 days or more after receiving the first dose. However, we estimated low effectiveness (adjusted VE 36.8%, 95% CI −54.9 to 74.2) of the two-dose schedule against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection during the period 14 days or more after receiving the second dose. A finding that vaccinated individuals were much more likely to be infected than unvaccinated individuals in the period 0-13 days after first vaccination (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.36-3.27) suggests that among this population of healthcare workers, those at higher risk might take up vaccine earlier, leading to underestimation of its effectiveness.
Conclusions Evidence from this test-negative study of the effectiveness of CoronaVac was mixed, and likely affected by bias in this setting. Administration of at least one vaccine dose showed effectiveness against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the setting of epidemic P.1 transmission. However, the low estimated effectiveness of the two-dose schedule underscores the need to maintain non-pharmaceutical interventions while vaccination campaigns with CoronaVac are being implemented.
What is already known on this topic
Early studies have found plasma from convalescent COVID-19 patients and sera from vaccinated individuals have reduced neutralising activity against the SARS-CoV-2 variant, P.1, compared with strains isolated earlier in the pandemic. Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 are the only vaccines for which such data has been published to date.
None of the published studies reported data on neutralisation of P.1 by sera from individuals who received the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine, CoronaVac.
No studies reported effectiveness of any vaccine on reducing the risk of infection or disease among individuals exposed to P.1 or in settings of high P.1 transmission.
What this study adds
This study finds that vaccination with CoronaVac was 49.6% (95% CI 11.3 to 71.4) effective at preventing COVID-19 in a setting with likely high prevalence of P.1, a SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern.
However, an analysis of effectiveness by dose was underpowered and failed to find significant effectiveness of the two-dose schedule of CoronaVac (estimated VE 36.8%, 95% CI −54.9 to 74.2).
These findings are suggestive but must be strengthened by observational studies in other settings.
Based on this evidence, there is a need to implement sustained non-pharmaceutical interventions even as vaccination campaigns continue.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We are grateful for Pan American Health Organization’s support to the Fundação de Vigilância em Saúde from Amazonas State and the Municipal Health Secretary of Manaus in making the databases available for analysis. JC and AS are supported by the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Edital Covid-19 - resposta rápida: 48111668950485). OTR is funded by a Sara Borrell fellowship (CD19/00110) from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III. OTR acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through the Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa 2019-2023 Program and from the Generalitat de Catalunya through the CERCA Program.
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 was approved by the Ethical Committee for Research of Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (CAAE: 43289221.5.0000.0021).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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
Footnotes
After our initial submission, we continued to accrue eligible case-control pairs and have now reached power for a pre-specified analysis of the effectiveness of two doses against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, in the period starting 14 days after administration of the second dose. We had designed the sample size assuming that vaccine effectiveness would be 70%, based on trial results from the randomised controlled trial of CoronaVac in Brazil. The pre-specified analysis was incorporated in the protocol that was developed and uploaded onto a public access website before conducting the study and was attached as a supplement in the initial submission. Upon performing this final analysis, we found that the estimated effectiveness following administration of two vaccine doses was low - estimated vaccine effectiveness was 36.8% (95% CI −54.9 to 74.2), which was lower than the effectiveness after administering at least one dose in the early analysis (49.6%). Given the low precision for effectiveness after two doses, combined with the promising early analysis of effectiveness following at least one dose, we acknowledge that these findings are difficult to interpret. We believe that there is likely downward bias in this estimate because vaccinated individuals were much more likely to be infected than unvaccinated individuals in the period 0-13 days after first vaccination (OR 2.11, p<0.001). This suggests that, even after controlling for observable characteristics among this population of healthcare workers, those at higher risk might take up vaccine earlier, leading to underestimation of its effectiveness. Furthermore, we had no power to detect effect modification by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, in a sensitivity analysis excluding pairs where either individual had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before the study period, we estimated effectiveness of two doses to be 56.2% (95% CI −23.0 to 84.4).
Data Availability
Deidentified databases as well as the R codes will be deposited in the repository https://github.com/juliocroda/VebraCOVID-19
