Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35202601›Full record

SynthesisLancet (London, England)2022

Duration of effectiveness of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease: results of a systematic review and meta-regression.

Daniel R Feikin, Melissa M Higdon, Laith J Abu-Raddad, Nick Andrews, Rafael Araos, Yair Goldberg, Michelle J Groome, Amit Huppert, Katherine L O'Brien, Peter G Smith and 4 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Lancet (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 803 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
803citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
116.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

803 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,182 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Ensitrelvir for the Treatment of Nonhospitalized Adults with COVID-19: Results from the SCORPIO-HR, Phase 3, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

743 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Daniel R FeikinDepartment of Immunisations, Vaccines, and Biologicals, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: feikind@who.int.
Melissa M HigdonInternational Vaccine Access Center, Department of International Health, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MA, USA.
Laith J Abu-RaddadInfectious Disease Epidemiology Group, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar.
Nick AndrewsUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Rafael AraosInstituto de Ciencias e Innovacion en Medicina, Facultad de Medicina, Clinica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile; Advanced Centre for Chronic Diseases, Santiago, Chile.
Yair GoldbergTechnion Israel Institute of Technology, Haife, Israel.
Michelle J GroomeNational Institute for Communicable Diseases, Division of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Amit HuppertThe Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Sheba Medical Centre, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Katherine L O'BrienDepartment of Immunisations, Vaccines, and Biologicals, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Peter G SmithMRC International Statistics and Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Annelies Wilder-SmithDepartment of Immunisations, Vaccines, and Biologicals, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Scott ZegerDepartment of Epidemiology, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MA, USA.
Maria Deloria KnollInternational Vaccine Access Center, Department of International Health, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MA, USA.
Minal K PatelDepartment of Immunisations, Vaccines, and Biologicals, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Johns Hopkins University · USLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBNational Health Laboratory Service · ZATechnion – Israel Institute of Technology · ILTel Aviv University · ILUK Health Security AgencyWeill Cornell Medical College in Qatar · QA

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R010161/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKnowing whether COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness wanes is crucial for informing vaccine policy, such as the need for and timing of booster doses. We aimed to systematically review the evidence for the duration of protection of COVID-19 vaccines against various clinical outcomes, and to assess changes in the rates of breakthrough infection caused by the delta variant with increasing time since vaccination.

methodsThis study was designed as a systematic review and meta-regression. We did a systematic review of preprint and peer-reviewed published article databases from June 17, 2021, to Dec 2, 2021. Randomised controlled trials of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and observational studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness were eligible. Studies with vaccine efficacy or effectiveness estimates at discrete time intervals of people who had received full vaccination and that met predefined screening criteria underwent full-text review. We used random-effects meta-regression to estimate the average change in vaccine efficacy or effectiveness 1-6 months after full vaccination.

findingsOf 13 744 studies screened, 310 underwent full-text review, and 18 studies were included (all studies were carried out before the omicron variant began to circulate widely). Risk of bias, established using the risk of bias 2 tool for randomised controlled trials or the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions tool was low for three studies, moderate for eight studies, and serious for seven studies. We included 78 vaccine-specific vaccine efficacy or effectiveness evaluations (Pfizer-BioNTech-Comirnaty, n=38; Moderna-mRNA-1273, n=23; Janssen-Ad26.COV2.S, n=9; and AstraZeneca-Vaxzevria, n=8). On average, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased from 1 month to 6 months after full vaccination by 21·0 percentage points (95% CI 13·9-29·8) among people of all ages and 20·7 percentage points (10·2-36·6) among older people (as defined by each study, who were at least 50 years old). For symptomatic COVID-19 disease, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness decreased by 24·9 percentage points (95% CI 13·4-41·6) in people of all ages and 32·0 percentage points (11·0-69·0) in older people. For severe COVID-19 disease, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness decreased by 10·0 percentage points (95% CI 6·1-15·4) in people of all ages and 9·5 percentage points (5·7-14·6) in older people. Most (81%) vaccine efficacy or effectiveness estimates against severe disease remained greater than 70% over time.

interpretationCOVID-19 vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against severe disease remained high, although it did decrease somewhat by 6 months after full vaccination. By contrast, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against infection and symptomatic disease decreased approximately 20-30 percentage points by 6 months. The decrease in vaccine efficacy or effectiveness is likely caused by, at least in part, waning immunity, although an effect of bias cannot be ruled out. Evaluating vaccine efficacy or effectiveness beyond 6 months will be crucial for updating COVID-19 vaccine policy.

fundingCoalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Indexed as

Immunization ScheduleImmunization, SecondaryAd26COVS1BNT162 VaccineCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansSARS-CoV-2Time FactorsAd26COVS1BNT162 VaccineCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID35202601
PMCPMC8863502
OpenAlexW4220739924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.