Is the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine effective in elderly populations? Results from population data from Bavaria, Germany

  1. Delphina Gomes
  2. Andreas Beyerlein
  3. Katharina Katz
  4. Gabriele Hoelscher
  5. Uta Nennstiel
  6. Bernhard Liebl
  7. Klaus Überla
  8. Rüdiger von Kries

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The efficacy of the BioNTech-Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccination in the elderly (≥80 years) could not be fully assessed in the BioNTech-Pfizer trial due to low numbers in this age group. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the BioNTech-Pfizer (BNT162b2) vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes in octo- and novo-generians in a German state setting.

Methods and findings

A prospective observational study of 708,187 persons aged ≥80 years living in Bavaria, Germany, was conducted between Jan 9 to Apr 11, 2021. We assessed the vaccine effectiveness (VE) for two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine with respect to SARS-CoV-2 infection and related hospitalisations and mortality. Additionally, differences in VE by age groups ≥80 to ≤89 years and ≥90 years were studied. Analyses were adjusted by sex. By the end of follow-up, 63.8% of the Bavarian population ≥80 years had received one dose, and 52.7% two doses, of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine lowered the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections and related outcomes, resulting in VE estimates of 68.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 65.5%, 70.9%) for infection, 73.2% (95% CI 65.3%, 79.3%) for hospitalisation, and 85.1% (95% CI 80.0%, 89.0%) for mortality. Sex differences in the risk of COVID-19 outcomes observed among unvaccinated persons disappeared after two BNT162b2 vaccine doses. Overall, the BNT162b2 vaccine was equally effective in octo- and novo-genarians.

Conclusions

Two doses of BioNTech-Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine is highly effective against COVID-19 outcomes in elderly persons.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0259370
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.19.21262266: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableOf its nearly 13 million inhabitants, 831,499 (6.3%) persons were aged 80 years and above (males 38.6%, females 61.4%) by 31 Dec, 201910 and were considered as reference population in the present analysis.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    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 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.
    • 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 10.1101/2021.08.19.21262266 on medRxiv