TY - JOUR T1 - Effectiveness of BNT162b2 booster doses in England: an observational study in OpenSAFELY-TPP JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2022.06.06.22276026 SP - 2022.06.06.22276026 AU - William J Hulme AU - Elizabeth J Williamson AU - Elsie Horne AU - Amelia Green AU - Linda Nab AU - Ruth Keogh AU - Edward PK Parker AU - Venexia Walker AU - Tom Palmer AU - Helen Curtis AU - Milan Wiedemann AU - Christine Cunningham AU - Alex J Walker AU - Louis Fisher AU - Brian MacKenna AU - Christopher T Rentsch AU - Anna Schultze AU - Krishnan Bhaskaran AU - John Tazare AU - Laurie Tomlinson AU - Helen I McDonald AU - Caroline E Morton AU - Richard Croker AU - Colm Andrews AU - Robin Parks AU - Lisa Hopcroft AU - Jon Massey AU - Jessica Morley AU - Amir Mehrkar AU - Seb Bacon AU - Dave Evans AU - Peter Inglesby AU - George Hickman AU - Simon Davy AU - Iain Dillingham AU - Tom Ward AU - Viyasaan Mahalingasivam AU - Bang Zheng AU - Ian J Douglas AU - Stephen JW Evans AU - Chris Bates AU - Jonathan AC Sterne AU - Miguel A Hernán AU - Ben Goldacre Y1 - 2022/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/06/2022.06.06.22276026.abstract N2 - Background The UK COVID-19 vaccination programme delivered its first “booster” doses in September 2021, initially in groups at high risk of severe disease then across the adult population. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, with Moderna mRNA-1273 subsequently also used.Methods We used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database, covering 40% of English primary care practices and linked to national coronavirus surveillance, hospital episodes, and death registry data, to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses between 16 September and 16 December 2021 when the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 was dominant. Follow up was for up to 10 weeks. Each booster recipient was matched with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior immunisation. Additional factors were adjusted for in Cox models estimating hazard ratios (HRs). Outcomes were positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and non-COVID-9 death. Booster vaccine effectiveness was defined as 1−HR.Results Among 4,352,417 BNT162b2 booster recipients matched with unboosted controls, estimated effectiveness of a booster dose compared with two doses only was 50.7% (95% CI 50.1-51.3) for positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 80.1% (78.3-81.8) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, 88.5% (85.0-91.1) for COVID-19 death, and 80.3% (79.0-81.5) for non-COVID-19 death.Estimated effectiveness was similar among those who had received a BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S two-dose primary vaccination course, but effectiveness against severe COVID-19 was slightly lower in those classified as clinically extremely vulnerable (76.3% (73.1-79.1) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, and 85.1% (79.6-89.1) for COVID-19 death). Estimated effectiveness against each outcome was lower in those aged 18-65 years than in those aged 65 and over.Conclusion Our findings are consistent with strong protection of BNT162b2 boosting against positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death.Competing Interest StatementBG's work on better use of data in healthcare more broadly is currently funded in part by: the Bennett Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation; all Bennett Institute staff are supported by BG's grants on this work. AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship sponsored by GSK. KB holds a Wellcome Senior Research Fellowship (220283/Z/20/Z). HIM is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Immunisation, a partnership between UK Health Security Agency and LSHTM. BMK is also employed by NHS England working on medicines policy and clinical lead for primary care medicines data. EW holds grants from MRC. ID holds grants from NIHR and GSK.Funding StatementThis work was jointly funded by UKRI [COV0076;MR/V015737/1], the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme (MC_PC_20030; MC_PC_20059; COV-LT-0009), NIHR and Asthma UK-BLF. The OpenSAFELY data science platform is funded by the Wellcome Trust (222097/Z/20/Z).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the Health Research Authority (REC reference 20/LO/0651) and by the London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine Ethics Board (reference 21863).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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesDetailed pseudonymised patient data is potentially re-identifiable and therefore not shared. https://github.com/opensafely/booster-effectiveness/tree/713c93530701a1495b2cc742a1c6a1c24419880d ER -