Cited by 279SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchVaccine Coverage and HesitancyCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

Fourth Dose of BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting

Open access
Magen, Ori, Waxman, Jacob G., Makov-Assif, Maya, Vered, Roni, Dicker, Dror, Hernán, Miguel A., Lipsitch, Marc, Reis, Ben Y. +2 more·2022·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With large waves of infection driven by the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), alongside evidence of waning immunity after the booster dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccine, several countries have begun giving at-risk persons a fourth vaccine dose. METHODS: To evaluate the early effectiveness of a fourth dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine for the prevention of Covid-19-related outcomes, we analyzed data recorded by the largest health care organization in Israel from January 3 to February 18, 2022. We evaluated the relative effectiveness of a fourth vaccine dose as compared with that of a third dose given at least 4 months earlier among persons 60 years of age or older. We compared outcomes in persons who had received a fourth dose with those in persons who had not, individually matching persons from these two groups with respect to multiple sociodemographic and clinical variables. A sensitivity analysis was performed with the use of parametric Poisson regression. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 182,122 matched pairs. Relative vaccine effectiveness in days 7 to 30 after the fourth dose was estimated to be 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44 to 47) against polymerase-chain-reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 55% (95% CI, 53 to 58) against symptomatic Covid-19, 68% (95% CI, 59 to 74) against Covid-19-related hospitalization, 62% (95% CI, 50 to 74) against severe Covid-19, and 74% (95% CI, 50 to 90) against Covid-19-related death. The corresponding estimates in days 14 to 30 after the fourth dose were 52% (95% CI, 49 to 54), 61% (95% CI, 58 to 64), 72% (95% CI, 63 to 79), 64% (95% CI, 48 to 77), and 76% (95% CI, 48 to 91). In days 7 to 30 after a fourth vaccine dose, the difference in the absolute risk (three doses vs. four doses) was 180.1 cases per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 142.8 to 211.9) for Covid-19-related hospitalization and 68.8 cases per 100,000 persons (95% CI, 48.5 to 91.9) for severe Covid-19. In sensitivity analyses, estimates of relative effectiveness against documented infection were similar to those in the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A fourth dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine was effective in reducing the short-term risk of Covid-19-related outcomes among persons who had received a third dose at least 4 months earlier. (Funded by the Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute.).

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/nejmoa2201688

Cites

10 of 10 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?

  • Plenty of articles have demonstrated the efficacy of two-dose vaccination and additional boosters in reducing mortality and severe cases.

    “As plenty of articles have demonstrated the efficacy of two-dose vaccination and additional boosters in reducing mortality and severe cases [13,14,35-37]”

    From Protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination against long COVID syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Discussion reports that a fourth dose provided early protection against severe Covid-19 and Covid-19-related death compared with a third dose given at least four months earlier in people aged 60 or older. The paper does not demonstrate that two-dose vaccination reduces those outcomes; its introduction instead describes two doses as offering limited protection against omicron. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Booster vaccines seem promising both in preventing infection and severe progression.

    “Since booster vaccines seem promising both in preventing infection and severe progression [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

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Wolter N, Jassat W, Walaza S, et al. Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in South Africa. December 21, 2021 (https://www . medrxiv . org/ content/ 10 . 1101/ 2021 . 12 . 21 . 21268116v1). preprint. · DOI
  2. Gardner BJ, Kilpatrick AM. Estimates of reduced vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization, infection, transmission and symptomatic disease of a new SARS- CoV-2 variant, Omicron (B.1.1.529), using neutralizing antibody titers. December 12, 2021 (https://www . medrxiv . org/ content/ 10 . 1101/ 2021 . 12 . 10 . 21267594v2). preprint. · DOI
  3. CDC recommends Pfizer booster at 5 months, additional primary dose for certain immunocompromised children. Press release, January 4, 2022 (https:// www . cdc . gov/ media/ releases/ 2022/ s0104 -Pfizer -Booster . html).
  4. All adults to be offered COVID-19 boosters by end of January. Press release, November 30, 2021 (https://www . gov . uk/ government/ news/ all -adults -to -be -offered -covid -19 -boosters -by -end -of -january).
  5. Cohen R, Rabin G. National Insur- ance Institute R and PA. Membership in sick funds 2016. Period Surv 2017; 289: 104. (In Hebrew.)
  6. EMA regular press briefing on COVID- 19. European Medicines Agency, January 11, 2022 (https://www . ema . europa . eu/ en/ events/ ema -regular -press -briefing -covid -19 -11#event -summary -section).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Magen, O., Waxman, J. G., Makov-Assif, M., Vered, R., Dicker, D., Hernán, M. A., Lipsitch, M., Reis, B. Y., Balicer, R. D., & Dagan, N.
Affiliations
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • From the Clalit Research Institute, Innovation Division (O.M., J.G.W., M.M.-A., R.D.B., N.D.), and the Tel-Aviv District, Community Division (R.V.), Clalit Health Services, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University (D.D.), Tel Aviv, the Department of Internal Medicine D, Hasharon Hospital Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva (D.D.), and the School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences (R.D.B.), and the Department of Software and Information Systems Engineering (N.D.), Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva — all in Israel; and the Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and CAUSALab (M.A.H.) and the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Departments of Epidemiology and of Immunology and Infectious Diseases (M.L.), Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute (B.Y.R., R.D.B., N.D.), the Predictive Medicine Group, Computational Health Informatics P...
Corresponding author
Dagan, Noa
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2022-04-28
Volume
386
Issue
17
Pages
1603-1614
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W4223907450
Cited by
279
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 113 · 2022: 92
FWCI
32.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • the Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute
  • Morris-Singer Fund
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 mRNA vaccine, fourth vaccine dose, COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, Omicron variant, waning immunity, booster vaccination, older adults, COVID-19 hospitalization, COVID-19 mortality, symptomatic COVID-19, Israel, matched cohort analysis, sensitivity analysis, Poisson regression
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, BNT162 Vaccine, Humans, Immunization, Secondary, Israel, Middle Aged, RNA, Messenger, 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