Cited by 176SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchVaccine Coverage and HesitancyCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

The Effectiveness of the Two-Dose BNT162b2 Vaccine: Analysis of Real-World Data

Open access
Chodick, Gabriel, Tene, Lilac, Rotem, Ran S, Patalon, Tal, Gazit, Sivan, Ben-Tov, Amir, Weil, Clara, Goldshtein, Inbal +3 more·2022·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines were shown to be highly efficacious in preventing the disease in randomized controlled trials; nonetheless, evidence on the real-world effectiveness of this vaccine is limited. Study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of BNT162b2 vaccine in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality. Methods: This historical cohort study included members of a large health provider in Israel that were vaccinated with at least 1 dose of BNT162b2. The primary outcome was incidence rate of a SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed with real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR), between 7 and 27 days after second dose (protection-period), as compared to days 1–7 after the first dose, where no protection by the vaccine is assumed (reference-period). Results: Data of 1 178 597 individuals vaccinated with BNT162b2 were analyzed (mean age 47.7 years [SD = 18.1], 48.4% males) of whom 872 454 (74.0%) reached the protection period. Overall, 4514 infections occurred during the reference period compared to 728 during the protection period, yielding a weighted mean daily incidence of 54.8 per 100 000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.1–115.0 per 100 000) and 5.4 per 100 000 (95% CI: 3.5–8.4 per 100 000), respectively. The vaccine effectiveness in preventing infection was 90% (95% CI: 79%–95%) and 94% (95% CI: 88%–97%) against COVID-19. Among immunosuppressed patients, vaccine effectiveness against infection was 71% (95% CI: 37%–87%). The adjusted hazard ratios for hospitalization in those infected were 0.82 (95% CI: .36–1.88), 0.45 (95% CI: .23–.90), and 0.56 (95% CI: .36–.89) in the age groups 16–44, 45–64. and ≥75 years, respectively. Conclusions: The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine is comparable to the one reported in the phase III clinical trial.

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/cid/ciab438

Cites

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 BNT162b2 vaccine has shown 94 to 95% efficacy and real-world effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 from 7 days after the second dose.

    “A randomized, controlled trial and real-world studies have shown vaccine efficacy of 94 to 95% with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer–BioNTech) and vaccine effectiveness in preventing symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) 7 days or more after receipt of the second dose of vaccine.1,3-5”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 20 · Cited by 176

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [11]11. Shalev V, Chodick G, Goren I, Silber H, Kokia E, Heymann AD. The use of an automated patient registry to manage and monitor cardiovascular conditions and related outcomes in a large health organization. International journal of cardiology. 2011;152(3):345-349.

Authors
Chodick, G., Tene, L., Rotem, R. S., Patalon, T., Gazit, S., Ben-Tov, A., Weil, C., Goldshtein, I., Twig, G., Cohen, D., & Muhsen, K.
Affiliations
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • Maccabi Healthcare Services (IL)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Maccabi Institute for Research and Innovation, Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv, Israel
Corresponding author
Chodick, Gabriel
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2021-05-17
Volume
74
Issue
3
Pages
472-478
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W3162622073
Cited by
176
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 50
FWCI
13.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
BNT162b2, COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, mRNA vaccines, vaccine effectiveness, real-world effectiveness, two-dose vaccination, breakthrough infection, hospitalization, mortality, immunocompromised patients, Israel, healthcare workers, vaccine hesitancy, adverse events, SARS-CoV-2 variants
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, BNT162 Vaccine, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Cohort Studies, Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic, Young Adult

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