PreprintCited by 143SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchVaccine Coverage and HesitancyCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

Waning Effectiveness of the Third Dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Open access
Patalon, Tal, Saciuk, Yaki, Peretz, Asaf, Perez, Galit, Lurie, Yoav, Maor, Yasmin, Gazit, Sivan·2022·Nature Communications

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41467-022-30884-6 · Paper page

Abstract

The duration of protection of the third (booster) dose of the BioNTech/Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 vaccine has yet to be sufficiently researched, while global discussions around the necessity and effectiveness of a fourth dose are already underway. By conducting a retrospective study implementing a test-negative case-control design, analyzing 546,924 PCR tests performed throughout January 2022 by 389,265 persons who received three doses of the vaccine, we found that the effectiveness in each month since vaccination decreased significantly. Compared to those vaccinated early, on August 2021, relative protection against infection waned from 53.4% a month after vaccination to 16.5% three months after vaccination. These results suggest that there is a significant waning of vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant of the third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine within a few months after administration and should prompt policy discussion as to additional booster doses and vaccine development.

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 · 10.1101/2022.02.25.22271494

Cites

23 of 23 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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mizrahi B, Lotan R, Kalkstein N, et al. Correlation of SARS-CoV-2-breakthrough infections to time-from-vaccine. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):1-5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patalon, T., Saciuk, Y., Peretz, A., Perez, G., Lurie, Y., Maor, Y., & Gazit, S.
Affiliations
  • Maccabi Healthcare Services (IL)
  • Shaare Zedek Medical Center (IL)
Corresponding author
Patalon, Tal
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2022-02-26
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
3203-3203
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4281648214
Cited by
143
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 43
FWCI
16.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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, COVID-19 vaccines, booster vaccination, waning vaccine effectiveness, Omicron variant, COVID-19 pandemic, test-negative case-control, PCR testing, duration of protection
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, BNT162 Vaccine, Humans, Retrospective Studies, RNA, Messenger

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