Objectives: This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not. Results: We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1−odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusion Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not. Results: We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1−odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusion Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not. Results: We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1−odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusion Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not. Results: We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1−odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusion Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not. Results: We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1−odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization. Conclusion Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: This retrospective observational matched cohort study assessed the differences in critical infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV-2) during the omicron-predominant period of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We evaluated the vaccine effectiveness of bivalent mRNA vaccine compared to unvaccinated individuals. Methods: We collected COVID-19 case data from the Korean COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness cohort. We calculated the probability of critical COVID-19 cases by comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Results: The risk of being critically infected due to SAR-CoV-2 infection was 5.96 times higher (95% confidence interval, 5.63–6.38) among older individuals who were unvaccinated compared to those who received the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusion Our findings indicate that the bivalent vaccine reduces the disease burden of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant, particularly among the older population. Further studies are warranted to determine the effectiveness of booster doses of vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

As of September 3, 2022, 5,388,338 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 46 deaths (3 in 2021 and 43 in 2022) were reported in children ≤ 18 years in Korea. Cumulative confirmed cases accounted for 67.3% of the population aged ≤ 18 years and case fatality rate was 0.85/100,000. Among 46 fatal cases, 58.7% were male and median age was 7 years.Underlying diseases were present in 47.8%; neurologic diseases (63.6%) and malignancy (13.6%) most common. Only four had history of COVID-19 immunization. COVID-19 associated deaths occurred at median 2 days from diagnosis (range: −1 to 21). Among COVID-19 deaths, 41.3% occurred before admission; 2 before hospital arrival and 17 in the emergency department. Among children whose cause was documented, myocarditis, respiratory and multiorgan failure were most common. COVID-19 associated death was seen early after diagnosis in children and public health policies to provide access to medical care for children with COVID-19 are essential during the pandemic.

Objectives: This study aimed to classify coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related deaths according to whether COVID-19 was listed as the cause of death, and to investigate thedifferences in demographic characteristics and risk factors for COVID-19 death classifications. Methods: A total of 5,625 deaths in South Korea among patients with confirmed COVID-19 from January 20, 2020 to December 31, 2021 were selected. Excluding false reports and unnatural deaths, 5,597 deaths were analyzed. Based on death report data, deaths were classified according to whether the cause of death was listed as COVID-19 (CD) or not (NCD). The epidemiological characteristics and causes of deaths were investigated using descriptive, univariate, and multivariate statistical analyses. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to analyze the risk factors. Results: The case fatality ratio was 0.89% and increased with age. Additionally, 96.4% of the subjects had an underlying disease, and 53.4% died in winter. The proportion of NCDs was 9.3%, of whom 19.1% died at home and 39.0% were confirmed to have COVID-19 after death. Malignant neoplasms (102/416 vs. 637/4,442; OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36−2.16; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with NCD. Conclusion This is the first study to analyze risk factors by cause of death using COVID-19death report data in South Korea. These results are expected to be used as evidence forestablishing a death monitoring system that can collect timely information in a new infectiousdisease pandemic.

Objectives: The incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) changed significantly during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Emerging reports suggest that viral vector-based vaccines may be associated with an elevated risk of GBS. Methods: In this nationwide time-series correlation study, we examined the age-specific incidence of GBS from January 2011 to August 2022, as well as data on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccinations and infections from February 2021 to August 2022. We compared the forecasted estimates of age-specific GBS incidence, using the pre-SARS-CoV-2 period as a benchmark, with the actual incidence observed during the post-vaccination period of the pandemic. Furthermore, we assessed the temporal association between GBS, SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, and COVID-19 for different age groups. Results: In the age group of 60 and older, the rate ratio was significantly elevated during June-August and November 2021. A significant, strong positive association was observed between viral vector-based vaccines and GBS incidence trends in this age group (r=0.52, p=0.022). For the 30 to 59 years age group, the rate ratio was notably high in September 2021. A statistically significant, strong positive association was found between mRNA-based vaccines and GBS incidence in this age group (r=0.61, p=0.006). Conclusion Viral vector-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were found to be temporally associated with an increased risk of GBS, particularly in older adults. To minimize age-specific and biological mechanism-specific adverse events, future vaccination campaigns should adopt a more personalized approach, such as recommending homologous mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for older adults to reduce the heightened risk of GBS.

Objectives: Healthcare facilities are high-risk sites for infection. This study analyzed the epidemiological characteristics of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in a tertiary hospital after COVID-19 vaccination had been introduced in Republic of Korea. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) and shared anti-infection strategies are also assessed. Methods: The risk levels for 4,074 contacts were evaluated. The epidemiological characteristics of confirmed cases were evaluated using the chi-square test. The “1 minus relative risk” method was used to determine VE in preventing infection, progression to severe disease, and death. In the largest affected area (the 8th floor), a separate relative risk analysis was conducted. A multivariate logistic regression analysis (with 95% confidence interval [CIs]) was used to identify transmission risk factors with a significance level <10% via the backward elimination method. Results: In total, 181 cases of COVID-19 were confirmed, with an attack rate of 4.4%. Of those cases, 12.7% progressed to severe disease, and 8.3% died. In the cohort isolation area on the 8th floor, where 79.0% of the confirmed cases occurred, the adjusted odds ratio was 6.55 (95% CI, 2.99–14.33) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.24–3.88) for caregivers and the unvaccinated group, respectively. VE analysis revealed that 85.8% of the cases that progressed to severe disease and 78.6% of the deaths could be prevented by administering a second vaccine. Conclusion Caregiver training for infection prevention and control is necessary to reduce infection risk. Vaccination is an important intervention to reduce the risk of progression to severe disease and death.