Back

Real-World Effectiveness of a Third Dose of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 on Inpatient and Medically Attended COVID-19 among Immunocompromised Adults in the United States

Sun, T.; Li, L.; Mues, K.; Georgieva, M.; Kirk, B.; Mansi, J.; Van de Velde, N.; Beck, E.

2024-01-31 health economics
10.1101/2024.01.30.24302015 medRxiv
Show abstract

Recent data have shown elevated infection rates in several subpopulations at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19, including immunocompromised (IC) individuals. Previous research suggests that IC persons have reduced risks of hospitalization and medically-attended COVID-19 with 2 doses of mRNA-1273 (SpikeVax; Moderna) compared to two doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty; Pfizer/BioNTech). The main objective of this retrospective cohort study was to compare real-world effectiveness of third doses of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 at multiple time points on occurrence of COVID-19 hospitalization and medically-attended COVID-19 among IC adults in the US. The HealthVerity (HV) medical and pharmacy claims database, which contains data from >330 million patients, was the data source. Both subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted in addition to the core comparisons noted. In propensity score-adjusted analyses, receiving mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 as third dose was associated with 32% (relative risk [RR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.89), 29% (0.71; 0.57-0.86), and 23% (0.77; 0.62-0.93) lower risk of COVID-19 hospitalization after 90, 180, and 270 days, respectively. Corresponding reductions in medically-attended COVID-19 were 8% (0.92; 0.86-0.98), 6% (0.94; 0.90-0.98), and 2% (0.98; 0.94-1.02), respectively. Our findings suggest a third dose of mRNA-1273 is more effective than a third dose of BNT162b2 in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization and breakthrough medically-attended COVID-19 among IC adults in the US.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.8%
3
Journal of Medical Economics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
4
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.5%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.0%
6
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
7
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.7%
8
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
9
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
10
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
11
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
12
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
14
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.5%
15
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
16
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.3%
17
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
18
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
19
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
21
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
22
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
24
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
25
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.7%
26
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
27
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
29
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
30
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%