ArticleThe Lancet. Respiratory medicine2023
Safety of the fourth COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA (second booster) vaccine: a prospective and retrospective cohort study.
Article in The Lancet. Respiratory medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post vaccination acute kidney injury and other renal complications after COVID-19 and influenza vaccination.World journal of nephrology · 2026Article
- Enhancing randomized controlled trials through smartwatch-guided participant matching for infectious disease outcomes.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Systematic Review: The Impact of COVID-19 Vaccination on Myocarditis Risk and Recovery.Clinics and practice · 2026Review
- Smartwatch-derived versus self-reported outcomes of physiological recovery after COVID-19, influenza, and group A streptococcus: a 2-year prospective cohort study.The Lancet. Digital health · 2026Article
- Association between nucleic acid COVID-19 vaccines and acute myocardial infarction in adults: a systematic review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Development of a personalized digital biomarker of vaccine-associated reactogenicity using wearable sensors and digital twin technology.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Social media impact and smartwatch monitoring: Prevalence and early markers of PTSD and anxiety following mass traumatic events.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- A scoping review of active, participant centred, digital adverse events following immunization (AEFI) surveillance of WHO approved COVID-19 vaccines: A Canadian immunization Research Network study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Article
- Safety, efficacy and immunogenicity of aerosolized Ad5-nCoV COVID-19 vaccine in a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.NPJ vaccines · 2024Article
- Comparison of physiological and clinical reactions to COVID-19 and influenza vaccination.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- Changes in behavior and biomarkers during the diagnostic decision period for COVID-19, influenza, and group A streptococcus (GAS): a two-year prospective cohort study in Israel.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Article
- Safety monitoring of precautionary third dose of COVID-19 vaccines in a district in Northern India.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Article
- Article
- Prediction and detection of side effects severity following COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations: utilizing smartwatches and smartphones.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cohort event monitoring of safety of COVID-19 vaccines: the Italian experience of the "ilmiovaccinoCOVID19 collaborating group".Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2024Article
- Risk of cardiac arrhythmia and cardiac arrest after primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination in England: A self-controlled case series analysis.Vaccine: X · 2023Article
- Hesitancy to Receive the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose among Older Adults in Hong Kong: A Random Telephone Survey.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of the second BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine dose (ie, fourth inoculation) is well established, but its safety has yet to be fully understood. The absence of sufficient vaccine safety information is one of the key contributors to vaccine hesitancy. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety profile of the second BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine using data from a retrospective cohort and a prospective cohort.
methodsTo evaluate the safety profile of the second booster vaccine, we analysed its short-term effects and compared them to those of the first booster by using data from, first, a retrospective cohort of 250 000 random members of the second-largest health-care organisation in Israel (Maccabi Healthcare Services) and, second, a prospective cohort (the PerMed study) of 4698 participants from all across Israel. Individuals who were aged 18 years or older who received the second BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine booster during the vaccination campaign, from Dec 30, 2021, to July 22, 2022, were eligible for inclusion in the retrospective cohort analysis. To be included in the PerMed study, participants needed to be 18 years or older, members of Maccabi Healthcare Services at the time of enrolment, using their own smartphone, and be able to give informed consent by themselves. Participants from the prospective cohort received smartwatches, downloaded a dedicated mobile application, and granted access to their medical records. The smartwatches continuously monitored several physiological measures, including heart rate. For analysis of the prospective cohort data, we used the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare heart rate levels observed before and after vaccination. The mobile application collected daily self-reported questionnaires on local and systemic reactions. Medical records of the retrospective cohort were accessed to examine the occurrence of 25 potential adverse events, and we evaluated the risk differences between 42 days in the periods before and after vaccination in a pairwise method using non-parametric percentile bootstrap.
findingsThe retrospective cohort included 94 169 participants who received the first booster and 17 814 who received the second booster. Comparing the 42 days before and after vaccination, the second booster was not associated with any of the 25 adverse events investigated, including myocardial infarction (risk difference, 2·25 events per 10 000 individuals [95% CI -3·93 to 8·98]) and Bell's Palsy (-1·68 events [-5·61 to 2·25]). None of the individuals was diagnosed with myocarditis or pericarditis following vaccination with the second booster. The prospective cohort included 1785 participants who received the first booster and 699 who received the second booster. We found no significant differences after inoculation with the first booster compared with the second booster (heart rate: day 2 [p=0·3], day 6 [p=0·89]; extent of self-reported reactions [p=0·06]). We found a significant increase in mean heart rate relative to that observed during the week before vaccination (baseline) levels during the first 3 days following the second booster (p<0·0001), peaking on day 2 (mean difference of 1·61 bpm [1·07 to 2·16] compared with baseline). Mean heart rate values returned to baseline levels by day 6 (-0·055 bpm [-0·56 to 0·45] compared with baseline).
interpretationBoth our retrospective and prospective analyses support the safety of the second booster, with our findings reflecting physicians' diagnoses, patients' objective physiological measures, and patients' subjective reactions. We believe this study provides safety assurances to the global population who are eligible to receive an additional COVID-19 booster inoculation. These assurances can help increase the number of high-risk individuals who opt to receive this booster vaccine and thereby prevent severe outcomes associated with COVID-19.
fundingEuropean Research Council (ERC).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.