Cited by 191SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

Review of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273

Open access
Teo, Shyh Poh·2022·Journal of Pharmacy Practice

Abstract

The United States Food and Drug Administration recently issued emergency use authorization for 2 mRNA vaccines for preventing COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus infections. BNT162b2 from Pfizer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273 by Moderna are planned for use in mass-immunization programs to curb the pandemic. A brief overview of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is provided, describing the SARS-CoV-2 RNA, how mRNA vaccines work and the advantages of mRNA over other vaccine platforms. The Pfizer-BioNTech collaboration journey to short-list mRNA vaccine candidates and finally selecting BNT162b2 based on safety data is outlined, followed by the Phase 3 study of BNT162b2 demonstrating 95% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 infections. Studies regarding mRNA-1273 (Moderna) are described, including extended immunogenicity data up to 119 days. The Phase 3 COVE study of mRNA-1273 eventually showed vaccine efficacy of 94.5%. Recommendations for future mRNA vaccine development are provided, including ongoing safety surveillance, evaluation in under-represented groups in previous studies and improving mRNA vaccine thermostability. Finally, further logistical considerations are required for manufacturing, storing, distribution and implementing mass vaccination programs to curb the pandemic.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/08971900211009650

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Similar immune responses were observed among adolescents aged 12 to 17 after mRNA-1273.

    “with similar immune responses among adolescents aged 12 to 17.410,412–414”

    From Advances in COVID-19 mRNA vaccine development (2022) · cites this paper as [413]

  • In a phase III clinical trial involving 30,420 people aged 18 or older, two doses of 100 μg mRNA-1273 with a 28-day interval had vaccine efficacy of 94.1%.

    “In a phase III clinical trial involving 30,420 people, participants aged 18 or older were given two doses of 100 μg of mRNA-1273 with a 28-day interval, and vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (Table 5)”

    From Advances in COVID-19 mRNA vaccine development (2022) · cites this paper as [413]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teo, S. P.
Affiliations
Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Hospital (BN)
Corresponding author
Teo, Shyh Poh
Venue
Journal of Pharmacy Practice
Published
2021-04-12
Volume
35
Issue
6
Pages
947-951
ISSN
  • 0897-1900 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-1937
OpenAlex
W3154719862
Cited by
191
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 14
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pharmacy Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Keywords
COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, SARS-CoV-2, vaccine development, vaccine efficacy, immunogenicity, vaccine safety, emergency use authorization, vaccine thermostability, underrepresented groups
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, mRNA Vaccines, BNT162 Vaccine, 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273, Humans, RNA, Viral, United States, Viral Vaccines

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