Protection following BNT162b2 booster in adolescents substantially exceeds that of a fresh 2-dose vaccine

  1. Ofra Amir
  2. Yair Goldberg
  3. Micha Mandel
  4. Yinon M. Bar-On
  5. Omri Bodenheimer
  6. Nachman Ash
  7. Sharon Alroy-Preis
  8. Amit Huppert
  9. Ron Milo

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Israel began administering a BNT162b2 booster dose to restore protection following the waning of the 2-dose vaccine. Biological studies have shown that a “fresh” booster dose leads to increased antibody levels compared to a fresh 2-dose vaccine, which may suggest increased effectiveness. To compare the real-world effectiveness of a fresh (up to 60 days) booster dose with that of a fresh 2-dose vaccine, we took advantage of a quasi-experimental study that compares populations that were eligible to receive the vaccine at different times due to age-dependent policies. Specifically, we compared the confirmed infection rates in adolescents aged 12–14 (215,653 individuals) who received the 2-dose vaccine and in adolescents aged 16–18 (103,454 individuals) who received the booster dose. Our analysis shows that the confirmed infection rate was lower by a factor of 3.7 (95% CI: 2.7 to 5.2) in the booster group.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41467-022-29578-w
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.19.21267933: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.12.19.21267933 on medRxiv