Abstract
Although pivotal trials with varying populations and study methods suggest higher efficacy for mRNA than adenoviral Covid-19 vaccines, no direct evidence is available. Here, we conducted a head-to-head comparison of BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1 against Covid-19. We analysed 235,181 UK Biobank participants aged 50 years or older and vaccinated with one or two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. People were followed from the vaccination date until 18/10/2021. Inverse probability weighting was used to minimise confounding and the Cox models to derive hazard ratio. We found that, compared with two doses of ChAdOx1, vaccination with BNT162b2 was associated with 30% lower risks of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and related hospitalisation during the period dominated by the delta variant. Also, this comparative effectiveness was consistent across several subgroups and persisted for at least six months, suggesting no differential waning between the two vaccines. Our findings can inform evidence-based Covid-19 vaccination campaigns and booster strategies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
DPA is funded through an NIHR Senior Research Fellowship (Grant number SRF-2018-11-ST2-004). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health. Mr Junqing Xie has been awarded a Jardine-Oxford Graduate Scholarship and a titular Clarendon Fund Scholarship outside the submitted work. AP-U is supported by the Medical Research Council (grant numbers MR/K501256/1, MR/N013468/1).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study involves only openly available human data, which can be obtained from UK Biobank
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
