Current Medical Research and Opinion,
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
unknown, P. 1 - 21
Published: Feb. 20, 2025
COVID-19
continues
to
pose
a
significant
health
burden,
particularly
among
older
adults.
mRNA-1283
is
next-generation
mRNA
vaccine
developed
enhance
immune
response.
Findings
from
the
Phase
3
NextCOVE
trial
comparing
bivalent
versions
of
mRNA-1273
and
vaccines
have
recently
become
available.
However,
there
are
no
head-to-head
trials
BNT162b2
vaccine.
To
indirectly
compare
effectiveness
against
symptomatic
adults
in
U.S.
A
targeted
literature
review
was
conducted
identify
relevant
studies
vaccines.
real-world
evidence
(RWE)
study
by
Kopel
et
al.
(2023)
assessing
relative
(rVE)
vs.
BNT162b2,
selected
for
an
indirect
treatment
comparison
(ITC)
using
Bucher
method.
Analyses
were
stratified
age
group,
sensitivity
analyses
alternative
outcome
definitions.
Despite
differences
between
study,
comparability
assessments
supported
robust
ITC.
Among
participants
≥18
years
age,
rVE
15.3%
(95%
CI:
4.7-24.8%,
p
=
0.006).
For
≥65
22.8%
3.7-38.1%,
0.022).
Sensitivity
with
definitions
these
estimates.
This
analysis
provides
consistent
statistically
indicating
more
effective
preventing
than
largest
effect
individuals
aged
≥65.
Consistent
results
across
underscore
robustness
findings,
offering
important
inform
vaccination
decisions
policymakers,
providers,
payers.
Advances in Therapy,
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
unknown
Published: March 10, 2025
This
systematic
literature
review
and
pairwise
meta-analysis
evaluated
the
comparative
effectiveness
of
mRNA-1273
versus
BNT162b2
in
patients
with
at
least
one
underlying
medical
condition
high
risk
for
severe
COVID-19.
MEDLINE,
Embase,
Cochrane
databases
were
searched
relevant
articles
from
January
1,
2019
to
February
9,
2024.
Studies
reporting
data
two
doses
vaccination
adults
conditions
developing
COVID-19
according
US
Centers
Disease
Control
Prevention
included.
Outcomes
interest
SARS-CoV-2
infection
(overall,
symptomatic,
severe),
hospitalization
due
COVID-19,
death
Risk
ratios
(RRs)
calculated
random
effects
models.
Subgroup
analyses
by
specific
conditions,
number
vaccinations,
age,
variant
conducted.
Heterogeneity
between
studies
was
estimated
chi-square
testing.
The
certainty
evidence
assessed
using
Grading
Recommendations,
Assessments,
Development,
Evaluations
framework.
Sixty-five
observational
capturing
original/ancestral-containing
primary
series
Omicron-containing
bivalent
original-BA4-5
vaccinations
included
meta-analysis.
associated
significantly
lower
(RR,
0.85
[95%
CI,
0.79–0.92];
I2
=
92.5%),
symptomatic
0.75
0.65–0.86];
62.3%),
0.83
0.78–0.89];
38.0%),
0.88
0.82–0.94];
38.7%),
0.84
0.76–0.93];
1.3%)
than
BNT162b2.
Findings
generally
consistent
across
subgroups.
Evidence
low
or
very
because
sufficiently
powered
randomized
controlled
trials
are
impractical
this
heterogeneous
population.
Meta-analysis
65
showed
that
a
COVID-19-related
Infectious Diseases and Therapy,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
13(8), P. 1771 - 1787
Published: June 25, 2024
Recent
data
have
shown
elevated
infection
rates
in
several
subpopulations
at
risk
of
SARS-CoV-2
and
COVID-19,
including
immunocompromised
(IC)
individuals.
Previous
research
suggests
that
IC
persons
reduced
risks
hospitalization
medically
attended
COVID-19
with
two
doses
mRNA-1273
(SpikeVax;
Moderna)
compared
to
BNT162b2
(Comirnaty;
Pfizer/BioNTech).
The
main
objective
this
retrospective
cohort
study
was
compare
real-world
effectiveness
third
versus
multiple
time
points
on
occurrence
among
adults
the
United
States
(US).
This
retrospective,
observational
comparative
identified
patients
from
US
HealthVerity
database
December
11,
2020,
through
August
31,
2022.
Medically
infections
hospitalizations
were
assessed
following
a
three-dose
regimen.
Inverse
probability
weighting
applied
balance
baseline
confounders
between
vaccine
groups.
Relative
(RR)
difference
calculated
for
subgroup
sensitivity
analyses
using
non-parametric
method.
In
propensity
score-adjusted
analyses,
receiving
vs.
as
dose
associated
32.4%
(relative
0.676;
95%
confidence
interval
0.506–0.887),
29.3%
(0.707;
0.573–0.858),
23.4%
(0.766;
0.626–0.927)
lower
after
90,
180,
270
days,
respectively.
Corresponding
reductions
8.4%
(0.916;
0.860–0.976),
6.4%
(0.936;
0.895–0.978),
2.4%
(0.976;
0.935–1.017),
Our
findings
suggest
is
more
effective
than
preventing
breakthrough
US.
Vaccines,
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
13(4), P. 386 - 386
Published: April 3, 2025
Background/Objectives:
COVID-19
continues
to
challenge
public
health
due
emerging
variants.
To
mitigate
this,
the
Korea
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
Agency
(KDCA)
recommends
annual
vaccination,
but
uptake
remains
suboptimal.
This
study
evaluates
economic
impact
of
mRNA
vaccination
for
adults
aged
50
older
in
South
during
2024-2025
season,
focusing
on
hospitalizations
costs.
Methods:
We
estimated
prevented
by
mRNA-1273
XBB.1.5
containing
vaccine
calculating
symptomatic
infection
incidence
rates,
hospitalization
rates
among
unvaccinated
individuals,
effectiveness
(VE)
against
hospitalization,
rates.
Incidence
with
an
were
derived
adjusting
overall
based
coverage
VE
Hospitalization
costs
obtained
from
a
real-world
dataset,
integrating
KDCA's
confirmed
cases
National
Health
Insurance
claims
data.
Comparative
analyses
between
BNT162b2
used
published
meta-analysis
results.
Results:
Assuming
remain
consistent
2023-2024
is
projected
prevent
37,200
save
USD
77.2
million
healthcare
season
compared
no
vaccination.
Compared
BNT162b2,
it
expected
additional
13,260
saving
27.5
million.
If
increased
match
influenza,
could
rise
79,800
164.2
savings
Conclusion:
Annual
substantially
reduces
Increasing
are
essential
maximize
benefits.
PLoS ONE,
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
20(5), P. e0320434 - e0320434
Published: May 6, 2025
With
data
from
2
US
claims
databases
(Optum,
CVS
Health)
supplemented
with
Immunization
Information
System
COVID-19
vaccine
records,
we
evaluated
overall
and
time-specific
effectiveness
(VE)
of
an
initial
primary
series
for
3
monovalent
vaccines—BNT162b2,
mRNA-1273,
JNJ-7836735—in
adults
(18-64
years).
Vaccinated
individuals
were
matched
to
unvaccinated
comparators,
estimated
VE
against
any
medically
diagnosed
hospital/emergency
department
(ED)-diagnosed
COVID-19.
Additionally,
by
era
predominant
variants,
in
subgroups,
compared
across
brands.
The
cohorts
consisted
341,097
(Optum)
1,151,775
(CVS
pairs
BNT162b2;
201,604
651,545
mRNA-1273;
49,285
149,813
JNJ-7836735.
study
period
began
11
December
2020
(date
first
availability
the
US)
ended
15
January
2022
Optum
31
March
Health.
Summary
estimates
meta-analysis
hospital/ED-diagnosed
were:
BNT162b2,
77%
(95%
CI,
76%-78%);
84%
83%-85%),
JNJ-7836735
66%
63%-68%).
higher
than
COVID-19,
highest
receiving
mRNA-1273
both
outcomes.
was
sustained
approximately
7
months
up
9
differed
brand
variant
era.
Ongoing
real-world
surveillance
vaccines
using
robust
sources
methodology
is
needed
as
new
variants
recommendations
updated
have
evolved.
medRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory),
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
unknown
Published: Sept. 14, 2024
ABSTRACT
Introduction
This
systematic
literature
review
and
pairwise
meta-analysis
evaluated
the
comparative
effectiveness
of
mRNA-1273
versus
BNT162b
in
patients
with
at
least
one
underlying
medical
condition
high
risk
for
severe
COVID-19.
Methods
MEDLINE,
Embase,
Cochrane
databases
were
searched
relevant
articles
from
January
1,
2019
to
February
9,
2024.
Studies
reporting
data
two
doses
BNT162b2
vaccination
adults
conditions
developing
COVID-19
according
US
Centers
Disease
Control
Prevention
included.
Outcomes
interest
SARS-CoV-2
infection
(overall,
symptomatic,
severe),
hospitalization
due
COVID-19,
death
Risk
ratios
(RRs)
calculated
random
effects
models.
Subgroup
analyses
by
specific
conditions,
number
vaccinations,
age,
variant
conducted.
Heterogeneity
between
studies
was
estimated
chi-square
testing.
The
certainty
evidence
assessed
using
Grading
Recommendations,
Assessments,
Development,
Evaluations
framework.
Results
Sixty-five
observational
capturing
original/ancestral-containing
primary
series
Omicron-containing
bivalent
original-BA4-5
vaccinations
included
meta-analysis.
associated
significantly
lower
(RR,
0.85
[95%
CI,
0.79–0.92];
I
2
=92.5%),
symptomatic
0.75
0.65–0.86];
=62.3%),
0.83
0.78–0.89];
=38.0%),
0.88
0.82–0.94];
=38.7%),
0.84
0.76–0.93];
=1.3%)
than
BNT162b2.
Findings
generally
consistent
across
subgroups.
Evidence
low
or
very
because
sufficiently
powered
randomized
controlled
trials
are
impractical
this
heterogeneous
population.
Conclusion
Meta-analysis
65
showed
that
a
COVID-19-related
Infectious Diseases and Therapy,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
13(10), P. 2203 - 2206
Published: Aug. 24, 2024
incorrect
estimates
that
not
only
greatly
exaggerated
the
numerical
differences
in
VE
between
two
vaccines
but
also
led
to
conclusions
directly
contradicted
those
of
original
study
authors
many
instances.As
a
brief
example
this
(see
Supplementary
Appendix
for
additional
details),
wherein
one
studies
concluded
"there
was
no
difference
BNT162b2
versus
mRNA-1273
recipients
[3]"
based
on
their
reported
adjusted
results,
Kavikondala
et
al.
instead
calculated
and
used
63%
crude
relative
as
point
estimate
meta-analysis.This
mistake-where
found
these
vaccines,
yet
random
effects
risk
ratios
by
significantly
favored
mRNA-1273-occurred
20/54
(37%)
all
(from
24
included
studies)
Fig.
3a-e.In
addition,
there
were
eligible
missed
systematic
review
(i.e.,
at
least
14
extensive
errors
data
extraction.These
concerns
are
described
detail
Appendix.Second,
set
out
compare
BNT162b2,
so
they
should
have
head-to-head
estimates.Comparative
better
account
potential
brand-specific
population
characteristics
vaccine
(e.g.,
age
or
COVID-19
status)
timing
