ArticleVaccines2024
Comparative Effectiveness of the Bivalent (Original/Omicron BA.4/BA.5) mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines mRNA-1273.222 and BNT162b2 Bivalent in Adults with Underlying Medical Conditions in the United States.
Article in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Updated 2023/24 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination in High-Risk Populations in the United States.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Article
- Review
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of mRNA-1273.815 Against COVID-19 Hospitalization Among Adults Aged ≥ 18 Years in the United States.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThis retrospective cohort study evaluated the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of two bivalent (original/Omicron BA.4/BA.5) vaccines mRNA-1273.222 versus the BNT162b2 Bivalent in preventing COVID-19-related outcomes in adults with underlying medical conditions associated with increased risk for severe COVID-19.
methodsIn a linked electronic health record/claims dataset, US adults (≥18 years) with ≥1 underlying medical condition of interest who received either the bivalent vaccine between 31 August 2022 and 28 February 2023 were identified. The inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for cohort differences. Cohorts were followed up for COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient encounters until 31 May 2023. Hazard ratios and rVEs were estimated using Cox regression. Subgroup analyses were performed on individuals with pre-specified comorbid conditions.
results757,572 mRNA-1273.222 and 1,204,975 BNT162b2 Bivalent recipients were identified. The adjusted rVE over a median follow-up of 198 days was 10.9% (6.2%-15.2%) against COVID-19-related hospitalization and 3.2% (1.7%-4.7%) against COVID-19-related outpatient encounters. rVE estimates for COVID-19 hospitalizations among subgroups with comorbid conditions were as follows: diabetes 15.1% (8.7%-21.0%), cerebro- and cardiovascular disease 14.7% (9.0%-20.1%), chronic lung disease 11.9% (5.1%-18.2%), immunocompromised 15.0% (7.2%-22.2%), chronic kidney disease 8.4% (0.5%-15.7%).
conclusionsOverall, among adults with underlying medical conditions, mRNA-1273.222 was more effective than BNT162b2 Bivalent, especially in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalizations.
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.