11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Can high COVID-19 vaccination rates in adults help protect unvaccinated children? Evidence from a unique mass vaccination campaign, Schwaz/Austria, March 2021

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          After an outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 Beta variant in the district of Schwaz/Austria, vaccination with Comirnaty vaccine (BNT162b2 mRNA, BioNTech-Pfizer) had been offered to all adult inhabitants (≥ 16 years) in March 2021. This made Schwaz one of the most vaccinated regions in Europe at that time (70% of the adult population took up the offer). In contrast, all other Austrian districts remained with low vaccine coverage.

          Aim

          We studied whether this rapid mass vaccination campaign provided indirect protection to unvaccinated individuals such as children (< 16 years) living in the same district.

          Methods

          To study the effect of the campaign we used two complementary approaches. We compared infection rates among the population of children (< 16 years) in Schwaz with (i) the child population from similar districts (using the synthetic control method), and (ii) with the child population from municipalities along the border of Schwaz not included in the campaign (using an event study approach).

          Results

          Before the campaign, we observed very similar infection spread across the cohort of children in Schwaz and the control regions. After the campaign, we found a significant reduction of new cases among children of −64.5% (95%-CI: −82.0 to −30.2%) relative to adjacent border municipalities (using the event study model). Employing the synthetic control method, we observed a significant reduction of −42.8% in the same cohort.

          Conclusion

          Our results constitute novel evidence of an indirect protection effect from a group of vaccinated individuals to an unvaccinated group.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant

            Background A rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) cases due to the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in highly vaccinated populations has aroused concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines. Methods We used a test-negative case–control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated after primary immunization with two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine and after a booster dose of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or mRNA-1273. Results Between November 27, 2021, and January 12, 2022, a total of 886,774 eligible persons infected with the omicron variant, 204,154 eligible persons infected with the delta variant, and 1,572,621 eligible test-negative controls were identified. At all time points investigated and for all combinations of primary course and booster vaccines, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease was higher for the delta variant than for the omicron variant. No effect against the omicron variant was noted from 20 weeks after two ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 doses, whereas vaccine effectiveness after two BNT162b2 doses was 65.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.9 to 67.0) at 2 to 4 weeks, dropping to 8.8% (95% CI, 7.0 to 10.5) at 25 or more weeks. Among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% (95% CI, 61.8 to 63.0) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before decreasing to 39.6% (95% CI, 38.0 to 41.1) at 10 or more weeks. Among BNT162b2 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% (95% CI, 66.5 to 67.8) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before declining to 45.7% (95% CI, 44.7 to 46.7) at 10 or more weeks. Vaccine effectiveness after a ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course increased to 70.1% (95% CI, 69.5 to 70.7) at 2 to 4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster and decreased to 60.9% (95% CI, 59.7 to 62.1) at 5 to 9 weeks. After a BNT162b2 primary course, the mRNA-1273 booster increased vaccine effectiveness to 73.9% (95% CI, 73.1 to 74.6) at 2 to 4 weeks; vaccine effectiveness fell to 64.4% (95% CI, 62.6 to 66.1) at 5 to 9 weeks. Conclusions Primary immunization with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine provided limited protection against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron variant. A BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster after either the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 primary course substantially increased protection, but that protection waned over time. (Funded by the U.K. Health Security Agency.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Parents’ and guardians’ views on the acceptability of a future COVID-19 vaccine: a multi-methods study in England

              Highlights • Most parents stated they would likely accept a COVID-19 vaccine for themselves and their children. • Ethnicity and household income were predictors of COVID-19 vaccine refusal. • The main motivation for vaccine acceptance was for self-protection against COVID-19. • Foremost concerns were around the safety and efficacy of a ‘rushed’ new vaccine.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Euro Surveill
                Euro Surveill
                eurosurveillance
                Eurosurveillance
                European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
                1025-496X
                1560-7917
                29 September 2022
                : 27
                : 39
                : 2101027
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Salzburg, Department of Economics, Salzburg, Austria
                [2 ]Institute of Virology, Department of Hygiene, Microbiology and Public Health, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
                [3 ]Department of Microbiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
                Author notes
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this article and share last authorship.

                Correspondence: Janine Kimpel ( Janine.Kimpel@ 123456i-med.ac.at )

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9350-6892
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5210-7905
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5825-7237
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1894-4432
                Article
                2101027 2101027
                10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.39.2101027
                9524054
                36177866
                3c15c212-6b84-4c37-9103-c7a8c0382fa1
                This article is copyright of the authors or their affiliated institutions, 2022.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) Licence. You may share and adapt the material, but must give appropriate credit to the source, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 26 October 2021
                : 30 June 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                4

                covid-19,mass vaccination,indirect protective effect,population immunity

                Comments

                Comment on this article