Back

Distinct Vaccine Efficacy Rates Among Health Care Workers During a COVID-19 Outbreak in Jordan

Sultan, I.; Tbakhi, A.; Abuatta, O.; Mubarak, S.; Alsmadi, O.; Edilbi, A.; Al-Ani, R.; Makhlouf, M.; Hajir, R.; Khresat, O.; Al Ruzeieh, M. A.; Abdelrazeq, H.; Mansour, A.

2022-01-16 infectious diseases
10.1101/2022.01.15.22269356 medRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUNDWe aimed to assess the efficacy of 3 COVID-19 vaccines in a population of health care workers at a tertiary cancer center in Amman, Jordan. METHODSWe evaluated the records of 2855 employees who were fully vaccinated with 1 of 3 different vaccines and those of 140 employees who were not vaccinated. We measured the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections that occurred at least 14 days after the second vaccine dose. RESULTSThe 100-day cumulative incidence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections was 19.3% {+/-} 3.3% for unvaccinated employees and 1.7% {+/-} 0.27% for fully vaccinated employees. The 100-day cumulative infection rates were 0.7% {+/-} 0.22% in BNT162b2 vaccine recipients (n = 1714), 3.6% {+/-} 0.77% in BBIBP-CorV recipients (n = 680), and 2.3% {+/-} 0.73% in ChAdOx1 recipients (n = 456). We used Cox regression analyses to compare the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection among the different vaccine recipient groups and found a significantly higher infection risk in BBIBP-CorV (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.9 {+/-} 0.31) and ChAdOx1 recipients (HR = 3.0 {+/-} 0.41) compared to BNT162b2 recipients (P = .00039 and .0074, respectively). Vaccinated employees who had no previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were at a markedly higher risk for breakthrough infections than those who experienced prior infections (HR = 5.7 {+/-} 0.73, P = .0178). CONCLUSIONSOur study offers a real-world example of differential vaccine efficacy among a high-risk population during a national outbreak. We also show the important synergism between a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. FundingNone

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.