Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38498109›Full record

ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2024

Comparative Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccines Among Older Adults: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis Using the GRADE Framework.

Sushma Kavikondala, Katrin Haeussler, Xuan Wang, Mary T Bausch-Jurken, Maria Nassim, Nitendra Kumar Mishra, Mia Malmenäs, Pawana Sharma, Nicolas Van de Velde, Nathan Green and 1 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2024. 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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Sushma KavikondalaICON plc, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Katrin HaeusslerICON plc, Langen, Germany.
Xuan WangICON plc, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mary T Bausch-JurkenModerna, Inc., 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Maria NassimICON plc, Langen, Germany.
Nitendra Kumar MishraICON plc, Bengaluru, India.
Mia MalmenäsICON plc, Stockholm, Sweden.
Pawana SharmaICON plc, London, UK.
Nicolas Van de VeldeModerna, Inc., 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Nathan GreenUniversity College London, London, UK.
Ekkehard BeckModerna, Inc., 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. Ekkehard.Beck@modernatx.com.
Moderna Therapeutics (United States) · USIcon (India) · INImperial Consultants · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe mRNA vaccines mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 demonstrated high efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in phase 3 clinical trials, including among older adults. To inform coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine selection, this systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis assessed the comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 in older adults.

methodsWe systematically searched for relevant studies reporting COVID-19 outcomes with mRNA vaccines in older adults aged ≥ 50 years by first cross-checking relevant published SLRs. Based on the cutoff date from a previous similar SLR, we then searched the WHO COVID-19 Research Database for relevant articles published between April 9, 2022, and June 2, 2023. Outcomes of interest were SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and COVID-19-related death following ≥ 2 vaccine doses. Random effects meta-analysis models were used to pool risk ratios (RRs) across studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated using chi-square testing. Evidence certainty was assessed per GRADE framework.

resultsTwenty-four non-randomized real-world studies reporting clinical outcomes with mRNA vaccines in individuals aged ≥ 50 years were included in the meta-analysis. Vaccination with mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64‒0.80]), symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.62‒0.83]), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.67 [95% CI 0.57‒0.78]), and COVID-19-related hospitalization (RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.53‒0.79]) but not COVID-19-related death (RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.64‒1.00]) compared with BNT162b2. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies for all outcomes (I

conclusionMeta-analysis of 24 observational studies demonstrated significantly lower risk of asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infections and hospitalizations with the mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 vaccine in older adults aged ≥ 50 years.

Indexed as

BNT162b2COVID-19EffectivenessmRNA-1273mRNA vaccineOlder adultsSARS-CoV-2Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Identifiers

PMID38498109
PMCPMC11058186
OpenAlexW4392908878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.