Cited by 79SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchVaccine Coverage and HesitancyCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 Vaccines in Qatar

Open access
Abu-Raddad, Laith J., Chemaitelly, Hiam, Bertollini, Roberto·2022·New England Journal of Medicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract BACKGROUND Growing evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines differ in effectiveness against breakthrough infection or severe COVID-19, but vaccines have yet to be investigated in controlled studies that head-to-head compare immunity of one to another. This study compared protection offered by the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine with that of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in Qatar. METHODS In a population of 1,531,736 vaccinated persons, two matched retrospective cohort studies were designed and used to investigate differences in mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccine protection, after the first and second doses, from December 21, 2020 to October 20, 2021. RESULTS After dose 1, cumulative incidence of breakthrough infection was 0.79% (95% CI: 0.75-0.83%) for mRNA-1273-vaccinated individuals and 0.86% (95% CI: 0.82-0.90%) for BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals, 21 days post-injection. Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) for breakthrough infection was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83-0.95; p=0.001). AHR was constant in the first two weeks at 1, but it declined to 0.67 (95% CI: 0.57-0.77; p<0.001) in the third week after dose 1. AHR for any severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.53-0.95; p=0.020). After dose 2, cumulative incidence was 0.59% (95% CI: 0.55-0.64%) for mRNA-1273-vaccinated individuals and 0.84% (95% CI: 0.79-0.89%) for BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals, 180 days post-injection. AHR for breakthrough infection was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.63-0.75; p<0.001) and was largely constant over time after dose 2. AHR for any severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.10-1.41; p=0.147). CONCLUSIONS mRNA-1273 vaccination is associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and COVID-19 hospitalization and death than BNT162b2 vaccination, but the number of hospitalizations and deaths was exceedingly small for both vaccines. Both vaccines demonstrated strikingly similar patterns of build-up of protection after the first dose and waning of protection after the second dose.

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/nejmc2117933

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Matching on sex, age, nationality, and calendar week was previously shown to adequately control for differences in SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk in Qatar.

    “Matching according to these factors was previously shown to provide adequate control of differences in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure in studies of different designs, all of which involved control groups, such as test-negative, case–control studies.”
  • Matching was not possible for coexisting conditions, but matching on sex, age, and nationality provided demonstrable control of bias in earlier studies.

    “Although matching was performed according to sex, age, and nationality, matching was not possible for other factors, such as coexisting conditions. However, matching according to these factors provided demonstrable control of bias in our earlier studies.11,12,15,21,22”
  • Matching by sex, age, and nationality provided demonstrable control of bias in studies of different epidemiologic designs that used control groups in Qatar.

    “However, matching by these factors provided demonstrable control of bias in studies of different epidemiologic designs and that used control groups in Qatar13,14,35–37.”

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., & Bertollini, R.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Ministry of Public Health (QA)
Corresponding author
Abu-Raddad, Laith J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2022-02-24
Volume
386
Issue
8
Pages
799-800
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W4205191515
Cited by
79
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 1
FWCI
8.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Biomedical Research Program and the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Biomathematics Research Core, both at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar
  • Ministry of Public Health, Hamad Medical, and Sidra Medicine
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
mRNA-1273 vaccine, BNT162b2, COVID-19 vaccines, vaccine effectiveness, SARS-CoV-2, Qatar
MeSH terms
COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccines, Vaccine Efficacy, BNT162 Vaccine, 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273, Breakthrough Infections, Humans, Immunization, Secondary, Qatar, Retrospective Studies

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