Reanalysis of the Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine data fails to find any increased efficacy following the boost: Implications for vaccination policy and our understanding of the mode of action

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Background

In clinical trials two vaccinations with mRNA vaccines have shown high efficacy in preventing COVID-19. However, in the context of a pandemic, the time to generation of protective immunity, the need for and timing of a second vaccination are matters of legitimate debate. This manuscript explores the efficacy and timing of the second dose COVID-19 vaccines, including a reanalysis of data from the Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine phase 3 study.

Methods and findings

A non-weighted three-segment, two knot linear regression was fitted to the published cumulative infection incidence from the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine Phase III trial using the lspine routine in R. The optimal knot days were estimated through sensitivity analysis and the confidence limits for efficacy estimates were determined by Monte Carlo Simulations. This analysis showed the vaccine was effective from day 11 post first vaccination. The estimated efficacy over the period 11 to 28 days post first vaccination was 0.94 and there was no detectable increase in efficacy following the second vaccination. The efficacy post first vaccination substantially preceded the development of detectable serum neutralizing antibody.

Conclusions

Strongly protective immunity develops rapidly following a single vaccination and at least in the short period covered by the timetable of the Phase III trial, there was no additional benefit from a second vaccination. This increases options for use of this vaccine, e.g., for ring fence vaccination, for use in travelers and for mass vaccination rollout. It highlights the need for further research into duration of immunity following a single vaccination and for understanding mechanisms of protection.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.23.21252315: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    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: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04368728Active, not recruitingStudy to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, …


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    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.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    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.