Cited by 1,237SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

Duration of effectiveness of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease: results of a systematic review and meta-regression

Open access
Feikin, Daniel R, Higdon, Melissa M, Abu-Raddad, Laith J, Andrews, Nick, Araos, Rafael, Goldberg, Yair, Groome, Michelle J, Huppert, Amit +6 more·2022·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Knowing whether COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness wanes is crucial for informing vaccine policy, such as the need for and timing of booster doses. We aimed to systematically review the evidence for the duration of protection of COVID-19 vaccines against various clinical outcomes, and to assess changes in the rates of breakthrough infection caused by the delta variant with increasing time since vaccination. METHODS: This study was designed as a systematic review and meta-regression. We did a systematic review of preprint and peer-reviewed published article databases from June 17, 2021, to Dec 2, 2021. Randomised controlled trials of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and observational studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness were eligible. Studies with vaccine efficacy or effectiveness estimates at discrete time intervals of people who had received full vaccination and that met predefined screening criteria underwent full-text review. We used random-effects meta-regression to estimate the average change in vaccine efficacy or effectiveness 1-6 months after full vaccination. FINDINGS: Of 13 744 studies screened, 310 underwent full-text review, and 18 studies were included (all studies were carried out before the omicron variant began to circulate widely). Risk of bias, established using the risk of bias 2 tool for randomised controlled trials or the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions tool was low for three studies, moderate for eight studies, and serious for seven studies. We included 78 vaccine-specific vaccine efficacy or effectiveness evaluations (Pfizer-BioNTech-Comirnaty, n=38; Moderna-mRNA-1273, n=23; Janssen-Ad26.COV2.S, n=9; and AstraZeneca-Vaxzevria, n=8). On average, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased from 1 month to 6 months after full vaccination by 21·0 percentage points (95% CI 13·9-29·8) among people of all ages and 20·7 percentage points (10·2-36·6) among older people (as defined by each study, who were at least 50 years old). For symptomatic COVID-19 disease, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness decreased by 24·9 percentage points (95% CI 13·4-41·6) in people of all ages and 32·0 percentage points (11·0-69·0) in older people. For severe COVID-19 disease, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness decreased by 10·0 percentage points (95% CI 6·1-15·4) in people of all ages and 9·5 percentage points (5·7-14·6) in older people. Most (81%) vaccine efficacy or effectiveness estimates against severe disease remained greater than 70% over time. INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against severe disease remained high, although it did decrease somewhat by 6 months after full vaccination. By contrast, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against infection and symptomatic disease decreased approximately 20-30 percentage points by 6 months. The decrease in vaccine efficacy or effectiveness is likely caused by, at least in part, waning immunity, although an effect of bias cannot be ruled out. Evaluating vaccine efficacy or effectiveness beyond 6 months will be crucial for updating COVID-19 vaccine policy. FUNDING: Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

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/s0140-6736(22)00152-0

Cites

37 of 37 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [9]International Vaccine Access Center Results of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness & impact studies: an ongoing systematic review, methods https://view-hub.org/covid-19/effectiveness-studies 2021
  2. [14]Breslow NE Day NE Statistical methods in cancer research The design and analysis of cohort studies vol 2 1987 International Agency for Research on Cancer Publications 1 406 3329634
  3. [17]Israel A Merzon E Schäffer AA Elapsed time since BNT162b2 vaccine and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection: test negative design study BMJ 375 2021 e067873 PMC9083235 34819275
  4. [33]Irizarry RA Robles-Fontán MM Nieves EG Cardona-Gerena I Time-varying effectiveness of three COVID-19 vaccines in Puerto Rico SSRN 2021 published online Oct 25. 10.2139/ssrn.3957118 (preprint). PMC8867062 35229081 · DOI
  5. [36]Baden LR Sahly HME Essink B Covid-19 in the phase 3 trial of mRNA-1273 during the Delta-variant surge medRxiv 2021 published online Sept 22. 10.1101/2021.09.17.21263624 (preprint). PMC8609569 34731553 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feikin, D. R., Higdon, M. M., Abu-Raddad, L. J., Andrews, N., Araos, R., Goldberg, Y., Groome, M. J., Huppert, A., O'Brien, K. L., Smith, P. G., Wilder-Smith, A., Zeger, S., Deloria Knoll, M., & Patel, M. K.
Affiliations
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar (QA)
  • UK Health Security Agency (GB)
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
  • National Health Laboratory Service (ZA)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Feikin, Daniel R
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-03
Volume
399
Issue
10328
Pages
924-944
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W4220739924
Cited by
1,237
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 85 · 2025: 170 · 2024: 294 · 2023: 412 · 2022: 274 · 2021: 2
FWCI
44.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Keywords
COVID-19 vaccines, SARS-CoV-2, waning vaccine effectiveness, duration of protection, breakthrough infection, Delta variant, booster vaccination, vaccine efficacy, older adults, mRNA vaccines, adenovirus vector vaccine, Moderna mRNA-1273, risk of bias
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, BNT162 Vaccine, Ad26COVS1, Humans, Immunization Schedule, Immunization, Secondary, Time Factors

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