Cited by 899SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchVaccine Coverage and HesitancyCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 Variants

Open access
Abu-Raddad, Laith J., Chemaitelly, Hiam, Butt, Adeel A.·2021·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

The messenger RNA vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) has 95% efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Qatar launched a mass immunization campaign with this vaccine on December 21, 2020. As of March 31, 2021, a total of 385,853 persons had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses. Vaccination scale-up occurred as Qatar was undergoing its second and third waves of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, which were triggered by expansion of the B.1.1.7 variant (starting in mid-January 2021) and the B.1.351 variant (starting in mid-February 2021). The B.1.1.7 wave peaked during the first week of March, and the rapid expansion of B.1.351 started in mid-March and continues to the present day. Viral genome sequencing conducted from February 23 through March 18 indicated that 50.0% of cases of Covid-19 in Qatar were caused by B.1.351 and 44.5% were caused by B.1.1.7. Nearly all cases in which virus was sequenced after March 7 were caused by either B.1.351 or B.1.1.7.

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 · 10.1056/nejmc2104974

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • The test-negative design mitigates bias from healthcare-seeking behavior and was chosen for this analysis for that reason.

    “The test-negative design, which does not assume that a lack of a positive test equals a negative test and somewhat adjusts for testing volume, attempts to better mitigate this bias and is the reason we chose this method for this analysis”
  • Clinical trials reported reduced protection against symptomatic COVID-19 caused by the B.1.351 variant, but emerging data suggest high protection remains against severe disease and hospitalization.

    “Reduced protection against any symptomatic COVID-19 disease caused by the B.1.351 variant of concern (now known as the Beta variant) has been reported from clinical trials18, but emerging data suggest that there remains high protection against the important end points of severe disease and hospitalization99.”
  • The inclusion and exclusion criteria were implemented to allow immunity to build after vaccination and to reduce several potential biases.

    “These inclusion and exclusion criteria were implemented to allow for build-up of immunity after vaccination4,14 and to minimize different types of potential bias, as informed by earlier analyses in the same population.”
  • Effectiveness was assessed with a test-negative case-control design rather than a cohort design, but an earlier cohort study in the same population yielded similar findings.

    “Effectiveness was assessed with the use of an observational, test-negative, case–control design rather than a design in which cohorts of individual persons were followed up. However, the cohort study design applied earlier to the same population yielded findings similar to those of the test-negative design.14,15,31”
  • The cohort study design applied earlier to the same population of Qatar yielded findings similar to those of the test-negative case-control design, supporting the validity of this standard approach in assessing vaccine effectiveness.

    “However, the cohort study design applied earlier to the same population of Qatar yielded findings similar to those of the test-negative case–control design36,38,39, supporting the validity of this standard approach in assessing vaccine effectiveness11,12,36,40.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abu-Raddad, L. J., Chemaitelly, H., & Butt, A. A.
Affiliations
  • Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar (QA)
  • Hamad Medical Corporation (QA)
Corresponding author
Abu-Raddad, Laith J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2021-07-08
Volume
385
Issue
2
Pages
187-189
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W3157162195
Cited by
899
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 358 · 2021: 351 · 2020: 3
FWCI
67.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Qatar University QSpace (Qatar University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Biomedical Research Program and the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Biomathematics Research Core, both at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, the Ministry of Public Health and Hamad Medical Corporation
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
BNT162b2, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, SARS-CoV-2 variants, B.1.1.7 variant, B.1.351 variant, Omicron variant, vaccination campaigns, viral genome sequencing, COVID-19 waves
MeSH terms
Immunogenicity, Vaccine, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, BNT162 Vaccine, Humans, Qatar, Cohort Studies, Case-Control Studies, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Treatment Outcome

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