We aimed to investigate and compare waning vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 infection, COVID-19 related ICU admission, and COVID-19-related death for BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines. We consolidated national data on COVID-19 vaccination and outcomes, and used cases from September 1^st–30^th, 2021 to compare VE between the ‘early’ (fully vaccinated in April–June 2021) and ‘late’ (July–August 2021) groups. We estimated VE against COVID-19 infection with a negative binomial regression and VE against ICU admission and death among confirmed COVID-19 cases with a logistic regression. For BNT162b2, VE against COVID-19 infections declined from 90.8% (95% CI 89.4, 92.1) in the ‘late’ group to 79.3% (95% CI 76.1, 82.1) in the ‘early’ group. VE for BNT162b2 against ICU admission and death were stable. For CoronaVac, VE waned against COVID-19 infections from 74.5% (95% CI 70.6, 78.0) to 30.4% (95% CI 18.8, 40.3). Effectiveness against ICU admission waned from 56.0% (95% CI 51.2, 60.2) to 28.7% (95% CI 12.2, 42.1). CoronaVac's effectiveness against death remained stable. VE against COVID-19 infection waned after 3–5 months of full vaccination for both BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines in Malaysia. For CoronaVac, protection against ICU admission also declined.

Given emerging evidence of immune escape in the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron viral variant, and its dominance, effectiveness of heterologous and homologous boosting schedules commonly used in low-to-middle income countries needs to be re-evaluated. We conducted a test-negative design using consolidated national administrative data in Malaysia to compare the effectiveness of homologous and heterologous BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and AZD1222 booster vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection in predominant-Delta and predominant-Omicron periods. Across both periods, homologous CoronaVac and AZD1222 boosting demonstrated lower effectiveness than heterologous boosting for CoronaVac and AZD1222 primary vaccination recipients and homologous BNT162b2 boosting (PPP). Broadly, marginal effectiveness was smaller by 40 to 50 percentage points in the Omicron period than the Delta period. Without effective and accessible second-generation vaccines, heterologous boosting using BNT162b2 for inactivated and vectored primary vaccination recipients is preferred.

Malaysia rolled out a diverse portfolio of predominantly three COVID-19 vaccines (AZD1222, BNT162b2, and CoronaVac) beginning 24 February 2021. We evaluated vaccine effectiveness with two methods, covering 1 April to 15 September 2021: (1) the screening method for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and symptomatic COVID-19; and (2) a retrospective cohort of confirmed COVID-19 cases for COVID-19 related ICU admission and death using logistic regression. The screening method estimated partial vaccination to be 48.8% effective (95% CI: 46.8, 50.7) against COVID-19 infection and 33.5% effective (95% CI: 31.6, 35.5) against symptomatic COVID-19. Full vaccination is estimated at 87.8% effective (95% CI: 85.8, 89.7) against COVID-19 infection and 85.4% effective (95% CI: 83.4, 87.3) against symptomatic COVID-19. Among the cohort of confirmed COVID-19 cases, partial vaccination with any of the three vaccines is estimated at 31.3% effective (95% CI: 28.5, 34.1) in preventing ICU admission, and 45.1% effective (95% CI: 42.6, 47.5) in preventing death. Full vaccination with any of the three vaccines is estimated at 79.1% effective (95% CI: 77.7, 80.4) in preventing ICU admission and 86.7% effective (95% CI: 85.7, 87.6) in preventing deaths. Our findings suggest that full vaccination with any of the three predominant vaccines (AZD1222, BNT162b2, and CoronaVac) in Malaysia has been highly effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, symptomatic COVID-19, COVID-19-related ICU admission, and death.

COVID-19 vaccines have been highly effective in reducing morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. While primary series vaccination rates are generally high in Southeast Asian (SEA) countries, v...

Background: Job satisfaction of doctors is an important factor determining quality and performance of a health system. The aim of this study was to assess job satisfaction among doctors of the public and private primary care clinics in Malaysia and evaluate factors that could influence the job satisfaction rating. Methods: This study was part of the Quality and Costs of Primary Care (QUALICOPC) Malaysia, a cross-sectional survey conducted between August 2015 and June 2016 in Malaysia. Data was collected from doctors recruited from public and private primary care clinics using a standardised questionnaire. Comparisons were made between doctors working in public and private clinics, and logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors influencing the likelihood of job satisfaction outcomes. Results: A total of 221 doctors from the public and 239 doctors from the private sector completed the questionnaire. Compared to private doctors, a higher proportion of public doctors felt they were being overloaded with the administrative task (59.7% vs 36.0%) and part of the work does not make sense (33.9% vs 18.4%). Only 62.9% of public doctors felt that there was a good balance between effort and reward while a significantly higher proportion (85.8%) of private doctors reported the same. Over 80% of doctors in both sectors indicated continued interest in their job and agreed that being a doctor is a well-respected job. Logistic regression analysis showed public-private sector and practice location (urban-rural) to be significantly associated with work satisfaction outcomes. Conclusion: A higher proportion of public doctors experienced pressure from administrative tasks and felt that part of their work does not make sense than their colleague in the private sector. At the same time, the majority of private doctors reported positive outcome on effort-and-reward balance compared to only one third of public doctors. The finding suggests that decreasing administrative workload and enhancing work-based supports might be the most effective ways to improve job satisfaction of primary care doctors because these are some of the main aspects of the job that doctors, especially in public clinics, are most unhappy with.

In this study, we aimed to investigate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 infections among adolescents aged 12 to 17 years in Malaysia and examine potential VE differences after full vaccination. We consolidated data on COVID-19 testing, vaccination, and outcomes for all public school-going adolescents in Malaysia from September 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021, and estimated the VE against SARS-CoV-2 infections during this period. Cases were defined as positive tests, either by reverse transcriptase- PCR (RT-PCR) or rapid antigen (RTK-Ag) testing, while controls were negative tests. Secondarily, we restricted the analysis to all tests performed in December 2021 and compared VE by month of full vaccination. A total of 175,880 eligible tests (53.4% or 93,995 RT-PCR tests) were included. After full vaccination with BNT162b2, VE against SARS-CoV-2 infections was 65.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 64.4, 66.9) over the study period. When restricted to tests in December 2021, VEs for those fully vaccinated in September 2021, October 2021, and November 2021 were comparable (60.6% [95% CI 23.7, 81.5], 56.9% [95% CI 51.1, 62.0], and 65.7% [95% CI 59.8, 70.7] respectively). Among adolescents, full vaccination with BNT162b2 offered considerable protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections over at least three months without substantial evidence of waning.