Cited by 185SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchVaccine Coverage and HesitancyCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Waning of vaccine effectiveness against moderate and severe covid-19 among adults in the US from the VISION network: test negative, case-control study

Open access

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against moderate and severe covid-19 in adults by time since second, third, or fourth doses, and by age and immunocompromised status. Design: Test negative case-control study. Setting: Hospitals, emergency departments, and urgent care clinics in 10 US states, 17 January 2021 to 12 July 2022. Participants: 893 461 adults (≥18 years) admitted to one of 261 hospitals or to one of 272 emergency department or 119 urgent care centers for covid-like illness tested for SARS-CoV-2. Main outcome measures: The main outcome was waning of vaccine effectiveness with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine during the omicron and delta periods, and the period before delta was dominant using logistic regression conditioned on calendar week and geographic area while adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, local virus circulation, immunocompromised status, and likelihood of being vaccinated. Results: 45 903 people admitted to hospital with covid-19 (cases) were compared with 213 103 people with covid-like illness who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls), and 103 287 people admitted to emergency department or urgent care with covid-19 (cases) were compared with 531 168 people with covid-like illness who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. In the omicron period, vaccine effectiveness against covid-19 requiring admission to hospital was 89% (95% confidence interval 88% to 90%) within two months after dose 3 but waned to 66% (63% to 68%) by four to five months. Vaccine effectiveness of three doses against emergency department or urgent care visits was 83% (82% to 84%) initially but waned to 46% (44% to 49%) by four to five months. Waning was evident in all subgroups, including young adults and individuals who were not immunocompromised; although waning was morein people who were immunocompromised. Vaccine effectiveness increased among most groups after a fourth dose in whom this booster was recommended. Conclusions: Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against moderate and severe covid-19 waned with time after vaccination. The findings support recommendations for a booster dose after a primary series and consideration of additional booster doses.

Overview

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 · 10.1136/bmj-2022-072141

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Vaccine effectiveness (%) against covid-19-associated hospital admissions by time since vaccination and period of variant predominance. Vaccine effectiveness estimates are adjusted for geographic area, calendar week, age, race, ethnicity, presence of respiratory and non-respiratory comorbidities, immunocompromise status, local viral circulation, and propensity to be vaccinated score. CI=confidence interval; col=column. *Figure 3 presents 4 findings for 4-dose recipients in the subgroups recommended for a fourth dose
Fig 1 Vaccine effectiveness (%) against covid-19-associated hospital admissions by time since vaccination and period of variant predominance. Vaccine effectiveness estimates are adjusted for geographic area, calendar week, age, race, ethnicity, presence of respiratory and non-respiratory comorbidities, immunocompromise status, local viral circulation, and propensity to be vaccinated score. CI=confidence interval; col=column. *Figure 3 presents 4 findings for 4-dose recipients in the subgroups recommended for a fourth doseCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Vaccine effectiveness (%) against covid-19-associated emergency department and urgent care visits by time since vaccination and period of variant predominance. Vaccine effectiveness estimates are adjusted for geographic area, calendar week, age, race, ethnicity, presence of respiratory and non-respiratory comorbidities, immunocompromise status, local viral circulation, and propensity to be vaccinated score. CI=confidence interval; col=column. *Supplemental Table 14 presents findings for 4-dose recipients in the subgroups recommended for a fourth dose
Fig 2 Vaccine effectiveness (%) against covid-19-associated emergency department and urgent care visits by time since vaccination and period of variant predominance. Vaccine effectiveness estimates are adjusted for geographic area, calendar week, age, race, ethnicity, presence of respiratory and non-respiratory comorbidities, immunocompromise status, local viral circulation, and propensity to be vaccinated score. CI=confidence interval; col=column. *Supplemental Table 14 presents findings for 4-dose recipients in the subgroups recommended for a fourth doseCC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig 3 Vaccine effectiveness (%) against covid-19-associated hospital admissions by time since vaccination and age group, restricted to omicron period. Vaccine effectiveness estimates are adjusted for geographic area, calendar week, age, race, ethnicity, presence of respiratory and non-respiratory comorbidities, immunocompromise status, local viral circulation, and propensity to be vaccinated score. CI=confidence interval; col=column. *Patients aged <50 years were excluded from the estimate of fourth dose effectiveness for the subgroup aged 45-64 years.
Fig 3 Vaccine effectiveness (%) against covid-19-associated hospital admissions by time since vaccination and age group, restricted to omicron period. Vaccine effectiveness estimates are adjusted for geographic area, calendar week, age, race, ethnicity, presence of respiratory and non-respiratory comorbidities, immunocompromise status, local viral circulation, and propensity to be vaccinated score. CI=confidence interval; col=column. *Patients aged <50 years were excluded from the estimate of fourth dose effectiveness for the subgroup aged 45-64 years.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig 4 Vaccine effectiveness (%) against covid-19-associated hospital admissions by time since vaccination and immunocompromise status, restricted to omicron period. Vaccine effectiveness estimates are adjusted for geographic area, calendar week, age, race, ethnicity, presence of respiratory and non-respiratory comorbidities, local viral circulation, and propensity to be vaccinated score. CI=confidence interval; col=column
Fig 4 Vaccine effectiveness (%) against covid-19-associated hospital admissions by time since vaccination and immunocompromise status, restricted to omicron period. Vaccine effectiveness estimates are adjusted for geographic area, calendar week, age, race, ethnicity, presence of respiratory and non-respiratory comorbidities, local viral circulation, and propensity to be vaccinated score. CI=confidence interval; col=columnCC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ferdinands, J. M., Rao, S., Dixon, B. E., Mitchell, P. K., DeSilva, M. B., Irving, S. A., Lewis, N., Natarajan, K., Stenehjem, E., Grannis, S. J., Han, J., McEvoy, C., Ong, T. C., Naleway, A. L., Reese, S. E., Embi, P. J., Dascomb, K., Klein, N. P., Griggs, E. P., Liao, I.-C., Yang, D.-H., Fadel, W. F., Grisel, N., Goddard, K., Patel, P., Murthy, K., Birch, R., Valvi, N. R., Arndorfer, J., Zerbo, O., Dickerson, M., Raiyani, C., Williams, J., Bozio, C. H., Blanton, L., Link-Gelles, R., Barron, M. A., Gaglani, M., Thompson, M. G., & Fireman, B.
Affiliations
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • Westat (United States) (US)
  • HealthPartners (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
  • Intermountain Healthcare (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Baylor Scott & White Medical Center - Temple (US)
Corresponding author
Ferdinands, Jill M
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2022-10-03
Volume
379
Pages
e072141
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4300863078
Cited by
185
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 5
FWCI
21.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases
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
waning vaccine effectiveness, COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, booster vaccination, immunocompromised patients, hospitalization, emergency department visits, Omicron variant, Delta variant, adults, test-negative case-control, COVID-19 vaccination
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Vaccine Efficacy, BNT162 Vaccine, Humans, Case-Control Studies, 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