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.

Background: We aimed to analyze the risk factors for sudden death after diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in South Korea and to provide evidence for informing prevention and control interventions for patients at risk of sudden death. Methods: We included 30,302 COVID-19 related deaths registered in the patient management information system (Central Disease Control Headquarters) between January 1, 2021, and December 15, 2022. We collected their epidemiological data recorded by the reporting city, province, or country. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors for sudden death after diagnosis of COVID-19. Results: Among the 30,302 deaths, there were 7,258 (24.0%) and 23,044 (76.0%) sudden and non-sudden deaths, respectively. Sudden death means a person who died within 2 days of diagnosis and who did not receive inpatient treatment. Underlying condition, vaccination status, and place of death were significantly associated with the survival period in all age groups. Moreover, region, sex, and prescription were significantly associated with the survival period only in certain age groups. However, reinfection was not significantly associated with the survival period in any age group. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first study on the risk factors for sudden death after a diagnosis of COVID-19, which included age, underlying condition, vaccination status, and place of death. Additionally, individuals aged < 60 years without an underlying condition were at high risk for sudden death. However, this group has relatively low interest in health, as can be seen from the high non-vaccination rate (16.1% of the general population vs. 61.6% of the corresponding group). Therefore, there is a possibility for the presence of an uncontrolled underlying disease in this population. In addition, many sudden deaths occurred due to delayed hospital visits to continue economic activities even after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms (7 days overall vs. 10 days average for the group). In conclusion, ‘continued interest in health’ is a key factor in avoiding sudden death in the economically active group (under 60 years of age).

Background: This retrospective observational matched-cohort study of 2,151,216 individuals from the Korean coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness cohort aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the COVID-19 bivalent versus monovalent vaccines in providing additional protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, critical infection, and death in Korea. Methods: Among individuals, those vaccinated with COVID-19 bivalent vaccines were matched in a 1:1 ratio with those who were vaccinated with monovalent vaccines (bivalent vaccines non-recipients) during the observation period. We fitted a time-dependent Cox proportional-hazards model to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of COVID-19 outcomes for infection, critical infection, and death, and we defined vaccine effectiveness (VE) as 1–HR. Results: Compared with the bivalent vaccination group, the incidence proportions in the monovalent vaccination group were approximately three times higher for infection, nine times higher for critical infection, and 11 times higher for death. In the early stage of bivalent vaccination, relative VE of bivalent vaccine against monovalent vaccine was 42.4% against SARS-CoV-2 infection, 81.3% against critical infection, and 85.3% against death. In addition, VE against critical infection and death according to the elapsed period after bivalent vaccination was maintained at > 70%. Conclusion The bivalent booster dose provided additional protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, critical infections, and deaths during the omicron variant phase of the COVID-19 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.