Comparative safety and effectiveness of Pfizer BA.4-5 versus Sanofi during the spring 2023 COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England: a matched cohort study in OpenSAFELY-TPP

The OpenSAFELY Collaborative, Colm D Andrews, Em Prestige, Edward P K Parker, Venexia Walker, Tom Palmer, Andrea L Schaffer, Amelia CA Green, Helen J Curtis, Alex J Walker, Rebecca M Smith, Christopher Wood, Christopher Bates, Amir Mehrkar, Brian MacKenna, Sebastian CJ Bacon, Ben Goldacre, Miguel A Hernan, Jonathan AC Sterne, William J Hulme
{"title":"Comparative safety and effectiveness of Pfizer BA.4-5 versus Sanofi during the spring 2023 COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England: a matched cohort study in OpenSAFELY-TPP","authors":"The OpenSAFELY Collaborative, Colm D Andrews, Em Prestige, Edward P K Parker, Venexia Walker, Tom Palmer, Andrea L Schaffer, Amelia CA Green, Helen J Curtis, Alex J Walker, Rebecca M Smith, Christopher Wood, Christopher Bates, Amir Mehrkar, Brian MacKenna, Sebastian CJ Bacon, Ben Goldacre, Miguel A Hernan, Jonathan AC Sterne, William J Hulme","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.15.24304277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The spring 2023 COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England used both Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccines. All people aged 75 years or over and the clinically vulnerable were eligible to receive a booster dose. Direct comparisons of the effectiveness of these two vaccines in boosting protection against severe COVID-19 events have not been made in trials or observational data.\nMethods With the approval of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database to compare effectiveness of the Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccines during the spring 2023 booster programme, between 1 April and 30 June 2023. We investigated two cohorts separately: those aged 75 or over (75+); and those aged 50 or over and clinically vulnerable (CV). In each cohort, vaccine recipients were matched on date of vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine history, age, and other characteristics. Effectiveness outcomes were COVID-19 hospital admission, COVID-19 critical care admission, and COVID-19 death up to 16 weeks after vaccination. Safety outcomes were pericarditis and myocarditis up to 4 weeks after vaccination. We report the cumulative incidence of each outcome, and compare safety and effectiveness using risk differences (RD), relative risks (RR), and incidence rate ratios (IRRs).\nResults 492,642 people were 1-1 matched in the CV cohort, and 673,926 in the 75+ cohort, contributing a total of 7,423,251 and 10,173,230 person-weeks of follow-up, respectively. The incidence of COVID-19 hospital admission was higher for Sanofi than for Pfizer BA.4-5. In the CV cohort, 16-week risks per 10,000 people were 22.3 (95%CI 20.4 to 24.3) for Pfizer BA.4-5 and 26.4 (24.4 to 28.7) for Sanofi, with an IRR of 1.19 (95%CI 1.06 to 1.34). In the 75+ cohort, these were 17.5 (16.1 to 19.1) for Pfizer BA.4-5 and 20.4 (18.9 to 22.1) for Sanofi, with an IRR of 1.18 (1.05-1.32). These findings were similar across all pre-specified subgroups. More severe COVID-19 related outcomes (critical care admission and death), and safety outcomes at 4 weeks, were rare in both vaccines so we could not reliably compare effectiveness of the two vaccines.\nConclusion This observational study comparing effectiveness of Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccine during the spring 2023 programme in England in the two main eligible cohorts - people aged 75 and over and in clinically vulnerable people - found some evidence of superior effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission for Pfizer BA.4-5 compared with Sanofi within 16 weeks after vaccination.","PeriodicalId":501023,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Primary Care Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Primary Care Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.15.24304277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction The spring 2023 COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England used both Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccines. All people aged 75 years or over and the clinically vulnerable were eligible to receive a booster dose. Direct comparisons of the effectiveness of these two vaccines in boosting protection against severe COVID-19 events have not been made in trials or observational data. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database to compare effectiveness of the Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccines during the spring 2023 booster programme, between 1 April and 30 June 2023. We investigated two cohorts separately: those aged 75 or over (75+); and those aged 50 or over and clinically vulnerable (CV). In each cohort, vaccine recipients were matched on date of vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine history, age, and other characteristics. Effectiveness outcomes were COVID-19 hospital admission, COVID-19 critical care admission, and COVID-19 death up to 16 weeks after vaccination. Safety outcomes were pericarditis and myocarditis up to 4 weeks after vaccination. We report the cumulative incidence of each outcome, and compare safety and effectiveness using risk differences (RD), relative risks (RR), and incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Results 492,642 people were 1-1 matched in the CV cohort, and 673,926 in the 75+ cohort, contributing a total of 7,423,251 and 10,173,230 person-weeks of follow-up, respectively. The incidence of COVID-19 hospital admission was higher for Sanofi than for Pfizer BA.4-5. In the CV cohort, 16-week risks per 10,000 people were 22.3 (95%CI 20.4 to 24.3) for Pfizer BA.4-5 and 26.4 (24.4 to 28.7) for Sanofi, with an IRR of 1.19 (95%CI 1.06 to 1.34). In the 75+ cohort, these were 17.5 (16.1 to 19.1) for Pfizer BA.4-5 and 20.4 (18.9 to 22.1) for Sanofi, with an IRR of 1.18 (1.05-1.32). These findings were similar across all pre-specified subgroups. More severe COVID-19 related outcomes (critical care admission and death), and safety outcomes at 4 weeks, were rare in both vaccines so we could not reliably compare effectiveness of the two vaccines. Conclusion This observational study comparing effectiveness of Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccine during the spring 2023 programme in England in the two main eligible cohorts - people aged 75 and over and in clinically vulnerable people - found some evidence of superior effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission for Pfizer BA.4-5 compared with Sanofi within 16 weeks after vaccination.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英格兰 2023 年春季 COVID-19 强化接种计划期间辉瑞 BA.4-5 与赛诺菲的安全性和有效性比较:OpenSAFELY-TPP 中的匹配队列研究
导言:英格兰 2023 年春季 COVID-19 加强接种计划使用了辉瑞 BA.4-5 和赛诺菲两种疫苗。所有 75 岁或以上的老人和临床易感人群都有资格接种加强剂。方法 经英格兰国家医疗服务体系(NHS England)批准,我们使用 OpenSAFELY-TPP 数据库比较了辉瑞 BA.4-5 和赛诺菲疫苗在 2023 年 4 月 1 日至 6 月 30 日期间的 2023 年春季加强接种计划中的有效性。我们分别调查了两个队列:75 岁或以上(75+)的人群;50 岁或以上且临床易感人群(CV)。在每个队列中,疫苗接种者的接种日期、COVID-19 疫苗接种史、年龄和其他特征都是匹配的。疫苗接种后 16 周内,COVID-19 入院率、COVID-19 重症监护入院率和 COVID-19 死亡率均为有效性结果。安全性结果为接种后 4 周内的心包炎和心肌炎。我们报告了每种结果的累积发病率,并使用风险差异 (RD)、相对风险 (RR) 和发病率比 (IRR) 对安全性和有效性进行了比较。结果 492,642 人在 CV 队列中进行了 1-1 配对,673,926 人在 75 岁以上队列中进行了 1-1 配对,随访总周数分别为 7,423,251 周和 10,173,230 周。赛诺菲的COVID-19入院率高于辉瑞BA.4-5。在CV队列中,辉瑞BA.4-5的每万人16周风险为22.3(95%CI为20.4至24.3),赛诺菲为26.4(24.4至28.7),IRR为1.19(95%CI为1.06至1.34)。在75岁以上人群中,辉瑞BA.4-5的IRR为17.5(16.1-19.1),赛诺菲为20.4(18.9-22.1),IRR为1.18(1.05-1.32)。这些结果在所有预先指定的亚组中都相似。结论 这项观察性研究比较了辉瑞 BA.4-5 和赛诺菲疫苗在英格兰 2023 年春季计划期间对两个主要合格人群(75 岁及以上人群和临床易感人群)的有效性,发现有证据表明,在接种疫苗后 16 周内,辉瑞 BA.4-5 在预防 COVID-19 入院方面优于赛诺菲。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Perceived barriers to research and scholarship among physicians Providing an e-cigarette starter kit for smoking cessation and reduction as adjunct to usual care to smokers with a mental health condition: Findings from the ESCAPE feasibility study Primary Care Physicians' Practices and Barriers in Evaluating and Managing Chronic Kidney Disease in New Providence, The Bahamas Development and evaluation of codelists for identifying marginalised groups in primary care Pharmacist Impact on First-Line Antihypertensives in African American Patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1