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

Vaccine effectiveness after 1 st and 2 nd dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in long-term care facility residents and healthcare workers – a Danish cohort study

Open access
Moustsen-Helms, Ida Rask, Emborg, Hanne-Dorthe, Nielsen, Jens, Nielsen, Katrine Finderup, Krause, Tyra Grove, Mølbak, Kåre, Møller, Karina Lauenborg, Berthelsen, Ann-Sofie Nicole +1 more·2021·medRxiv

Abstract

Background: At the end of 2020, Denmark launched an immunization program against SARS-CoV-2. The Danish health authorities prioritized persons currently living in long-term care facilities (LTCF residents) and frontline healthcare workers (HCW) as the first receivers of vaccination. Here we present preliminary population based vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates in these two target groups. Methods: The study was designed as a retrospective registry- and population-based observational cohort study including all LTCF residents and all HWC. The outcome was a polymerase chain reaction confirmed SARS-CoV-2, and VE was estimated for different periods following first and second dose. We used Poisson and Cox regressions to estimate respectively crude and calendar time-adjusted VE for the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Results: A total of 39,040 LTCF residents (median age at first dose; 84 years, Interquartile range (IQR): 77-90) and 331,039 HCW (median age at first dose; 47 years, IQR: 36-57) were included. Among LTCF residents, 95.2% and 86.0% received first and second dose from 27 December 2020 until 18 February 2021, for HWC the proportion was 27.8% and 24.4%. During a median follow-up of 53 days, there were 488 and 5,663 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the unvaccinated groups, whereas there were 57 and 52 in LTCF residents and HCW within the first 7 days after the second dose and 27 and 10 cases beyond seven days of second dose. No protective effect was observed for LTCF residents after first dose. In HCW, VE was 17% (95% CI; 4-28) in the > 14 days after first dose (before second dose). Furthermore, the VE in LTCF residents at day 0-7 of second dose was 52% (95% CI; 27-69) and 46% (95% CI; 28-59) in HCW. Beyond seven days of second dose, VE increased to 64% (95% CI; 14-84) and 90% (95% CI; 82-95) in the two groups, respectively. Conclusion: The results were promising regarding the VE both within and beyond seven days of second vaccination with the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine currently used in many countries to help mitigate the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Impact of the research: So far, observational studies of the real-word effectiveness of the mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has been limited to the period after the administration of the first dose. This is the first report to date to present vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates after the second BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. We estimated a VE of 52% and 46% in LTCF residents and HCW within seven days, which increased to 64% and 90% in the two groups respectively beyond seven days of immunization. These findings supports maintaining a two-dose schedule of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine.

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 · 10.1101/2021.03.08.21252200

Cites

7 of 7 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 protective effect of BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2 infection peaks after the second dose and then quickly declines, with the humoral immune response sharply decreasing.

    “Studies have shown that the protective effect of BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2 infection peaks after the second dose and then quickly declines, with the humoral immune response sharply decreasing.388–391”

    From Advances in COVID-19 mRNA vaccine development (2022) · cites this paper as [390]

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
Moustsen-Helms, I. R., Emborg, H.-D., Nielsen, J., Nielsen, K. F., Krause, T. G., Mølbak, K., Møller, K. L., Berthelsen, A.-S. N., & Valentiner-Branth, P.
Affiliations
Statens Serum Institut (DK)
Venue
medRxiv
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2021-03-09
OpenAlex
W3134660507
Cited by
79
References
7
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Statens Serum Institut
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
vaccine effectiveness, BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, COVID-19 vaccination, long-term care residents, healthcare workers, COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine prioritization, breakthrough infection, vaccine hesitancy

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