Cargando…
Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50
Although pivotal trials with varying populations and study methods suggest higher efficacy for mRNA than adenoviral Covid-19 vaccines, not many studies have directly compared vaccine effectiveness in the population. Here, we conduct a head-to-head comparison of BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1 against Covid-...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8938429/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35314696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29159-x |
_version_ | 1784672551334576128 |
---|---|
author | Xie, Junqing Feng, Shuo Li, Xintong Gea-Mallorquí, Ester Prats-Uribe, Albert Prieto-Alhambra, Dani |
author_facet | Xie, Junqing Feng, Shuo Li, Xintong Gea-Mallorquí, Ester Prats-Uribe, Albert Prieto-Alhambra, Dani |
author_sort | Xie, Junqing |
collection | PubMed |
description | Although pivotal trials with varying populations and study methods suggest higher efficacy for mRNA than adenoviral Covid-19 vaccines, not many studies have directly compared vaccine effectiveness in the population. Here, we conduct a head-to-head comparison of BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1 against Covid-19. We analyse 235,181 UK Biobank participants aged 50 years or older and vaccinated with one or two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. People are followed from the vaccination date until 18/10/2021. Inverse probability weighting is used to minimise confounding and the Cox models to derive hazard ratio. We find that, compared with one dose of ChAdOx1, vaccination with BNT162b2 is associated with a 28% (95% CI, 12-42) decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Also, two doses of BNT162b2 vs ChAdOx1 confers 30% (95% CI, 25-35) and 29% (95% CI, 10-45) lower risks of both infection and hospitalisation during the study period when the Delta variant is dominant. Furthermore, the comparative protection against the infection persists for at least six months among the fully vaccinated, suggesting no differential waning between the two vaccines. These findings can inform evidence-based Covid-19 vaccination campaigns and booster strategies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8938429 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89384292022-04-08 Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50 Xie, Junqing Feng, Shuo Li, Xintong Gea-Mallorquí, Ester Prats-Uribe, Albert Prieto-Alhambra, Dani Nat Commun Article Although pivotal trials with varying populations and study methods suggest higher efficacy for mRNA than adenoviral Covid-19 vaccines, not many studies have directly compared vaccine effectiveness in the population. Here, we conduct a head-to-head comparison of BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1 against Covid-19. We analyse 235,181 UK Biobank participants aged 50 years or older and vaccinated with one or two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. People are followed from the vaccination date until 18/10/2021. Inverse probability weighting is used to minimise confounding and the Cox models to derive hazard ratio. We find that, compared with one dose of ChAdOx1, vaccination with BNT162b2 is associated with a 28% (95% CI, 12-42) decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Also, two doses of BNT162b2 vs ChAdOx1 confers 30% (95% CI, 25-35) and 29% (95% CI, 10-45) lower risks of both infection and hospitalisation during the study period when the Delta variant is dominant. Furthermore, the comparative protection against the infection persists for at least six months among the fully vaccinated, suggesting no differential waning between the two vaccines. These findings can inform evidence-based Covid-19 vaccination campaigns and booster strategies. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-03-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8938429/ /pubmed/35314696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29159-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Xie, Junqing Feng, Shuo Li, Xintong Gea-Mallorquí, Ester Prats-Uribe, Albert Prieto-Alhambra, Dani Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50 |
title | Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50 |
title_full | Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50 |
title_fullStr | Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50 |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50 |
title_short | Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50 |
title_sort | comparative effectiveness of the bnt162b2 and chadox1 vaccines against covid-19 in people over 50 |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8938429/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35314696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29159-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT xiejunqing comparativeeffectivenessofthebnt162b2andchadox1vaccinesagainstcovid19inpeopleover50 AT fengshuo comparativeeffectivenessofthebnt162b2andchadox1vaccinesagainstcovid19inpeopleover50 AT lixintong comparativeeffectivenessofthebnt162b2andchadox1vaccinesagainstcovid19inpeopleover50 AT geamallorquiester comparativeeffectivenessofthebnt162b2andchadox1vaccinesagainstcovid19inpeopleover50 AT pratsuribealbert comparativeeffectivenessofthebnt162b2andchadox1vaccinesagainstcovid19inpeopleover50 AT prietoalhambradani comparativeeffectivenessofthebnt162b2andchadox1vaccinesagainstcovid19inpeopleover50 |