ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2023
Relative Effectiveness of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S Vaccines and Homologous Boosting in Preventing COVID-19 in Adults in the US.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccines Among Adults with Underlying Medical Conditions: Systematic Literature Review and Pairwise Meta-Analysis Using GRADE.Advances in therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of 2024-2025 Seasonal mRNA-1273 Vaccination Against COVID-19-Related Hospitalizations and Medically Attended COVID-19 Among Adults Aged ≥ 18 years in the United States: An Observational Matched Cohort Study.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- Article
- Substantial reduction in the clinical and economic burden of disease following variant-adapted mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients in France.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of the 2023-2024 Omicron XBB.1.5-containing mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine (mRNA-1273.815) in Preventing COVID-19-related Hospitalizations and Medical Encounters Among Adults in the United States.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- A Response to: Letter to the Editor Regarding "Real-World Effectiveness of a Third Dose of mRNA-1273 Versus BNT162b2 on Inpatient and Medically Attended COVID-19 Among Immunocompromised US Adults".Infectious diseases and therapy · 2024Article
- A Response to: A Letter to the Editor Regarding 'Comparative Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccines Among Older Adults: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis Using the GRADE Framework'.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2024Article
- Methodology of comparative studies on the relative effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2024Article
- Article
- Real-World Effectiveness of a Third Dose of mRNA-1273 Versus BNT162b2 on Inpatient and Medically Attended COVID-19 Among Immunocompromised US Adults.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2024Article
- The Potential Economic Impact of the Updated COVID-19 mRNA Fall 2023 Vaccines in Japan.Vaccines · 2024Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccines Among Older Adults: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis Using the GRADE Framework.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2024Article
- Comparison of COVID-19 and Influenza-Related Outcomes in the United States during Fall-Winter 2022-2023: A Cross-Sectional Retrospective Study.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Bivalent (Original/Omicron BA.4/BA.5) COVID-19 Vaccines in Adults.Vaccines · 2023Article
- COVID-19 Vaccination Effectiveness in the General Population of an Italian Province: Two Years of Follow-Up.Vaccines · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Few head-to-head comparisons have been performed on the real-world effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccines. We evaluated the relative effectiveness (rVE) of a primary series of mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S and a homologous mRNA booster against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19. Methods: A data set linking primary care electronic medical records with medical claims data was used for this retrospective cohort study of US patients age ≥18 years vaccinated with a primary series between February and October 2021 (Part 1) and a homologous mRNA booster between October 2021 and January 2022 (Part 2). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were derived from 1:1 matching adjusted across potential covariates. rVE was (1 - HR Results: Following adjustment, Part 1 rVE for mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 was 23% (95% CI, 22%-25%), 23% (95% CI, 22%-25%), and 19% (95% CI, 14%-24%), while the rVE for mRNA-1273 vs Ad26.COV2.S was 50% (95% CI, 48%-51%), 50% (95% CI, 48%-52%), and 57% (95% CI, 53%-61%) against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19, respectively. The adjusted rVE in Part 2 for mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 was 14% (95% CI, 10%-18%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-17%), and 19% (95% CI, 1%-34%) against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19, respectively. rVE against medically attended COVID-19 was higher in adults age ≥65 years (35%; 95% CI, 24%-47%) than in those age 18-64 years (13%; 95% CI, 9%-17%) after the booster. Conclusions: In this study, mRNA-1273 was more effective than BNT162b2 or Ad26.COV2.S following a primary series during the Delta-dominant period and more effective than BNT162b2 as a booster during the Omicron-dominant period.
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.