Abstract
Background Since the first emergence of Omicron BA.1 in England in November 2021, numerous sub-lineages have evolved. In September 2022, BA.5 dominated. The prevalence of BQ.1 increased from October, while the prevalence of CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5 increased from December 2022 and January 2023, respectively. Little is known about the effectiveness of the vaccines against hospitalisation with these sub-lineages, nor the relative severity.
Methods A test-negative case-control study was used to estimate the incremental effectiveness of the bivalent BA.1 booster vaccines against hospitalisation, relative to those with waned immunity where the last dose was at least 6 months prior. The odds of hospital admission for those testing PCR positive on the day of an attendance to accident and emergency departments and the odds of intensive care unit admission or death amongst COVID-19 admissions were compared between variants. Additionally, a Cox proportional hazards survival regression was used to investigate length of stay amongst hospitalised cases by variant.
Findings There was no difference in incremental vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with BQ.1, CH.1.1 or XBB.1.5, nor was there a difference in the severity of these variants. Effectiveness against hospitalisation was 48.0% (95% C.I.; 38.5-56.0%), 29.7% (95% C.I.; 7.5-46.6%) and 52.7% (95% C.I.; 24.6-70.4%) against BQ.1, CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5, respectively, at 5 to 9 weeks post booster vaccination. Compared to BQ.1, the odds of hospital admission were 0.87 (95% C.I.; 0.77-0.99) and 0.88 (95% C.I.; 0.75-1.02) for CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5 cases attending accident and emergency departments, respectively. There was no significant difference in the odds of admission to intensive care units or death for those with CH.1.1 (OR 0.96, 95% C.I.; 0.71–1.30) or XBB.1.5 (OR 0.67, 95% C.I.; 0.44-1.02) compared to BQ.1. There was also no significant difference in the length of hospital stay by variant.
Interpretation Together, these results provide reassuring evidence that the bivalent BA.1 booster vaccines provide similar protection against hospitalisation with BQ.1, CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5, and that the emergent CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5 sub-lineages do not cause more severe disease than BQ.1.
Funding None.
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.
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:
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 (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 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.
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. Data cannot be made publicly available for ethical and legal reasons, i.e. public availability would compromise patient confidentiality as data tables list single counts of individuals rather than aggregated data.
