Cited by 28SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

Waning of 2-dose BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection accounting for depletion-of-susceptibles bias

Open access
Andrejko, Kristin L, Pry, Jake M, Myers, Jennifer F, Mehrotra, Megha, Lamba, Katherine, Lim, Esther, Fukui, Nozomi, DeGuzman, Jennifer L +5 more·2023·American Journal of Epidemiology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

ABSTRACT Concerns about the duration of protection conferred by COVID-19 vaccines have arisen in postlicensure evaluations. However, “depletion of susceptibles” bias driven by differential accrual of infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals may contribute to the appearance of waning vaccine effectiveness (VE) in epidemiologic studies, potentially hindering interpretation of estimates. We enrolled California residents who received molecular SARS-CoV-2 tests in a matched, test-negative design case-control study to estimate VE of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines between 23 February and 5 December 2021. We analyzed waning protection following 2 vaccine doses using conditional logistic regression models. Additionally, we used data from case-based surveillance along with estimated case-to-infection ratios from a population-based serological study to quantify the potential contribution of the “depletion-of-susceptibles” bias to time-varying VE estimates for 2 doses. We also estimated VE for 3 doses relative to 0 doses and 2 doses, by time since second dose receipt. Pooled VE of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 91.3% (95% confidence interval: 83.8-95.4%) at 14 days after second-dose receipt and declined to 50.8% (31.2-75.6%) at 7 months. Accounting for differential depletion-of-susceptibles among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, we estimated VE was 53.2% (23.6-71.2%) at 7 months among individuals who had completed the primary series (2 doses). With receipt of a third dose of BN162b2 or mRNA-1273, VE increased to 95.0% (82.8-98.6%), compared with zero doses. These findings confirm that observed waning of protection is not attributable to epidemiologic bias and support ongoing efforts to administer additional vaccine doses to mitigate burden of COVID-19.

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 · 10.1093/aje/kwad017

Cites

54 of 54 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Andrejko, K. L., Pry, J. M., Myers, J. F., Mehrotra, M., Lamba, K., Lim, E., Fukui, N., DeGuzman, J. L., Openshaw, J., Watt, J., Jain, S., Lewnard, J. A., & COVID-19 Case-Control Study Team, O. B. O. T. C.
Affiliations
  • California Department of Public Health (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Jain, Seema
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2023-01-24
Volume
192
Issue
6
Pages
895-907
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W4318163930
Cited by
28
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
5.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • California Department of Public Health (5-NU50CK000539, NU50CK000539)
  • Ministry of Education, India
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (NU50CK000539, 5-NU50CK000539, R01-AI14812701, 0187.0150)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI148127, R01-AI14812701)
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, vaccine effectiveness, waning immunity, BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, booster vaccination, test-negative design, serological studies, duration of protection, symptomatic infection
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, Vaccine Efficacy, BNT162 Vaccine, 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273, Humans, RNA, Messenger, Case-Control 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