Cited by 62SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchVaccine Coverage and HesitancyCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

Effectiveness of mRNA-BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against COVID-19 in healthcare workers: an observational study using surveillance data

Open access
Paris, Christophe, Perrin, Sophie, Hamonic, Stephanie, Bourget, Baptiste, Roué, Clémence, Brassard, Olivier, Tadié, Emilie, Gicquel, Vincent +4 more·2021·Clinical Microbiology and Infection

Abstract

Objectives Healthcare workers (HCWs) at increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were among the primary targets for vaccine campaigns. We aimed to estimate the protective efficacy of the first three COVID-19 vaccines available in Western Europe.Methods We merged two prospective databases that systematically recorded, in our institution: (a) HCWs positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples, and (b) HCWs who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. We excluded HCWs with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6 months prior to the study. HCWs were categorized as non-vaccinated if they received no vaccine and until the first injection +13 days, partially vaccinated from the first injection +14 days to the second injection +13 days, and fully vaccinated thereafter.Results Of the 8165 HCWs employed in our institution, 360 (4.4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR during the study period (4th January to 17th May 2021). Incidence was 9.1% (8.2-10.0) in non-vaccinated HCWs, 1.2% (0.7-1.9) after one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 1.4% (0.6-2.3) and 0.5% (0.1-1.0) after one and two doses of mRNA BNT162b2, 0.7% (0.1-1.9) and 0% after one and two doses of mRNA-1273 (p < 0.0001). Vaccine effectiveness (Cox model) was estimated at, respectively, 86.2% (76.5-91.0), 38.2% (6.3-59.2), and 49.2% (19.1-68.1) 14 days after the first dose for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, mRNA-1273, and mRNA-BNT162b2, and 100% (ND) and 94.6% (61.0-99.2) 14 days after the second dose for mRNA-1273 and mRNA-BNT162b2.Conclusions In this real-world study, the observed effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in HCWs was in line with the efficacy reported in pivotal randomized trials.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.06.043

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • mRNA-1273 is still quite effective in congregate settings or higher-risk exposure such as prisons or hospitals where the Delta variant was prevalent.

    “Other studies have shown that mRNA-1273 is still quite effective in congregate settings or higher-risk exposure such as prisons or hospitals in which the Delta variant was prevalent.419,420”

    From Advances in COVID-19 mRNA vaccine development (2022) · cites this paper as [420]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 9 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paris, C., Perrin, S., Hamonic, S., Bourget, B., Roué, C., Brassard, O., Tadié, E., Gicquel, V., Bénézit, F., Thibault, V., Garlantézec, R., & Tattevin, P.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Hôpital Pontchaillou (FR)
Corresponding author
Paris, Christophe
Venue
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
1699.e5-1699.e8
ISSN
1198-743X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3182163984
Cited by
62
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 11
FWCI
4.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Microbiology and Infection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Keywords
COVID-19 vaccines, SARS-CoV-2, healthcare workers, vaccine effectiveness, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, breakthrough infection, occupational infection risk, SARS-CoV-2 incidence, surveillance data, Cox proportional hazards model, vaccine hesitancy
MeSH terms
COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccines, mRNA Vaccines, BNT162 Vaccine, 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Health Personnel, Humans, Vaccines, Synthetic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review