Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35261970›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022

Comparison of Moderna versus Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine outcomes: A target trial emulation study in the U.S. Veterans Affairs healthcare system.

George N Ioannou, Emily R Locke, Pamela K Green, Kristin Berry

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

George N IoannouDivision of Gastroenterology, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and University of Washington, 1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108, USA.
Emily R LockeResearch and Development, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA.
Pamela K GreenResearch and Development, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kristin BerryResearch and Development, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA.
VA Puget Sound Health Care System · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: mRNA COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA-1273) have been shown to be efficacious but have not been compared in head-to-head clinical trials. Methods: We designed this observational study to emulate a target trial of COVID-19 vaccination by BNT162b2 versus mRNA-1273 among persons who underwent vaccination in the national U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system from 11/12/2020 to 25/03/2021 using combined VA and Medicare electronic health records. We identified the best matching mRNA-1273 recipient(s) for each BNT162b2 recipient, using exact/coarsened-exact matching (calendar week, VA integrated service network, age buckets and Charlson comorbidity index buckets) followed by propensity score matching. Vaccine recipients were followed from the date of first vaccine dose until 25/08/2021 for the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection, SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization or SARS-CoV-2-related death. Findings: Each group included 902,235 well-matched vaccine recipients, followed for a mean of 192 days, during which 16,890 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 3591 SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalizations and 381 SARS-CoV-2-related deaths were documented. Compared to BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 recipients had significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.736, 95% CI 0.696-0.779) and SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization (aHR 0.633, 95% CI 0.562-0.713), which persisted across all age groups, comorbidity burden categories and black/white race. The differences between mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 in risk of infection or hospitalization were progressively greater when the follow-up period was longer, i.e. extending to March 31, June 30 or August 25, 2021. These differences were more pronounced when we analyzed separately the outcomes that occurred during the follow-up period from July 1 to August 25, 2021 when the Delta variant became predominant in the U.S. (aHR for infection 0.584, 95% CI 0.533-0.639 and aHR for hospitalization 0.387, 95% 0.311-0.482). SARS-CoV-2-related deaths were less common in mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 recipients (168 versus 213) but this difference was not statistically significant (aHR 0.808, 95% CI 0.592-1.103). Interpretation: In conclusion, although absolute rates of infection, hospitalization and death in both vaccine groups were low regardless of the vaccine received, our data suggests that compared to BNT162b2, vaccination with mRNA-1273 resulted in significantly lower rates of SARS-CoV-2-infection and SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization. These differences were greater with longer follow-up time since vaccination and even more pronounced in the Delta variant era. Funding: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, grant numbers COVID19-8900-11 and C19 21-278.

Identifiers

PMID35261970
PMCPMC8896984
OpenAlexW4220661611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.