Real-world effectiveness studies are important for monitoring performance of COVID-19 vaccination programmes and informing COVID-19 prevention and control policies. We aimed to synthesise methodological approaches used in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies, in order to evaluate which approaches are most appropriate to implement in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). For this rapid systematic review, we searched PubMed and Scopus for articles published from inception to July 7, 2021, without language restrictions. We included any type of peer-reviewed observational study measuring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, for any population. We excluded randomised control trials and modelling studies. All data used in the analysis were extracted from included papers. We used a standardised data extraction form, modified from STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Study quality was assessed using the REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021264658. Our search identified 3,327 studies, of which 42 were eligible for analysis. Most studies (97.5%) were conducted in high-income countries and the majority assessed mRNA vaccines (78% mRNA only, 17% mRNA and viral vector, 2.5% viral vector, 2.5% inactivated vaccine). Thirty-five of the studies (83%) used a cohort study design. Across studies, short follow-up time and limited assessment and mitigation of potential confounders, including previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and healthcare seeking behaviour, were major limitations. This review summarises methodological approaches for evaluating real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and highlights the lack of such studies in LMICs, as well as the importance of context-specific vaccine effectiveness data. Further research in LMICs will refine guidance for conducting real-world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies in resource-constrained settings.

Intradermal vaccination using fractional dosages of the standard vaccine dose is one strategy to improve access to COVID-19 immunization. We conducted a pilot study in healthy adults in Thailand to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of intradermal administration of fractional doses of ChAdOx1 (1/5th of standard dosage) or BNT162b2 (1/6th of standard dosage) to individuals previously vaccinated (prime) with two-dose intramuscular CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2. Following an initial immunogenicity exploratory phase for each vaccine combination group (n = 10), a total of 135 participants (n = 45 per group) were recruited to 3 groups (CoronaVac prime-intradermal BNT162b2 boost, CoronaVac prime-intradermal ChAdOx1 boost and ChAdOx1 prime-intradermal BNT162b2 boost) and their immunogenicity data were compared to a previous cohort who received the same vaccine intramuscularly. Two weeks following booster vaccination, neutralizing antibodies against the delta variant were similar between the participants who received intradermal and intramuscular vaccination. However, neutralizing antibodies against the omicron variant in the intradermal BNT162b2 boost groups were ~6-fold lower, while the levels in the ChAdOx1 boost group were similar compared to their respective vaccine regimen given intramuscularly. The intradermal booster significantly increased spike-specific T cell responses in all three groups from pre-booster levels. Local and systemic adverse reactions were milder in intradermal compared to intramuscular injections. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical relevance of these findings and the feasibility of administration of intradermal COVID-19 vaccines.

Intradermal vaccination using fractional dosage of the standard vaccine dose is one strategy to improve access to COVID-19 immunization. We conducted a pilot study in healthy adults in Thailand to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of intradermal administration of fractional dose of ChAdOx1 (1/5th of standard dosage) or BNT162b2 (1/6th of standard dosage) to individuals previously vaccinated (prime) with two-dose intramuscular CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2. Following an initial immunogenicity exploratory phase for each vaccine combination group (N=10), a total of 135 participants (N=45 per group) were recruited to three groups (CoronaVac prime-intradermal BNT162b2 boost, CoronaVac prime-intradermal ChAdOx1 boost and ChAdOx1 prime-intradermal BNT162b2 boost) and their immunogenicity data compared to a previous cohort who received the same vaccine intramuscularly. Two weeks following booster vaccination, neutralizing antibodies against the delta variant were similar between intradermal and intramuscular vaccination. However, neutralizing antibodies against the omicron variant in the intradermal BNT162b2 boost groups were ~6-fold lower, while the ChAdOx1 boost group was ~5-fold higher compared to their respective vaccine regimen given intramuscularly. The intradermal booster significantly increased spike-specific T cell responses in all three groups from pre-booster levels. Local and systemic adverse reactions were milder in intradermal compared to intramuscular injections. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical relevance of these findings and the feasibility of administration of intradermal COVID-19 vaccines.