RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparing frequency of booster vaccination to prevent severe COVID-19 by risk group in the United States
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.07.10.23292473
DO 10.1101/2023.07.10.23292473
A1 Park, Hailey J.
A1 Gonsalves, Gregg S.
A1 Tan, Sophia T.
A1 Kelly, J. Daniel
A1 Rutherford, George W.
A1 Wachter, Robert M.
A1 Schechter, Robert
A1 Paltiel, A. David
A1 Lo, Nathan C.
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/23/2023.07.10.23292473.abstract
AB There is a public health need to understand how different frequencies of COVID-19 booster vaccines may mitigate the risk of severe COVID-19, while accounting for waning of protection and differential risk by age and immune status. By analyzing United States COVID-19 surveillance and seroprevalence data in a microsimulation model, here we show that more frequent COVID-19 booster vaccination (every 6-12 months) in older age groups and the immunocompromised population would effectively reduce the burden of severe COVID-19, while frequent boosters in the younger population may only provide modest benefit against severe disease. In persons 75+ years, the model estimated that annual boosters would reduce absolute annual risk of severe COVID-19 by 199 (uncertainty interval: 188-229) cases per 100,000 persons, compared to a one-time booster dose. In contrast, for persons 18-49 years, the model estimated that annual boosters would reduce this risk by 14 (11-19) cases per 100,000 persons. Those with prior infection had lower benefit of more frequent boosting, and immunocompromised persons had larger benefit. Scenarios with emerging variants with immune evasion increased the benefit of more frequent variant-targeted boosters. This study underscores the benefit of considering key risk factors to inform frequency of COVID-19 booster vaccines in public health guidance and ensuring at least annual boosters in high-risk populations.Competing Interest StatementNCL reports consulting fees from the World Health Organization related to guidelines on neglected tropical diseases, which are outside the scope of the present work. The remaining authors have no conflicts to declare.Funding StatementNCL is supported by the National Institutes of Health, NIAID New Innovator Award (DP2 AI170485). This study is supported by funding from the California Department of Public Health.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll analytic code and relevent data are available at [https://github.com/hailey-park/booster-timing]. https://github.com/hailey-park/booster-timing