| Literature DB >> 34456555 |
Chinonyerem O Iheanacho1, Uchenna I H Eze2, Emmanuel A Adida1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines is essential for the pandemic control. This study systematically reviewed available evidence on effectiveness of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 vaccines in the general population, for improved vaccine policies and strategies. MAIN BODY OF THE ABSTRACT: Using several keywords, a search of Scopus, PubMed, Google scholar and Hinari databases was conducted from December 1, 2020 to June 9, 2021. Eligible studies comprising original studies reporting effectiveness of the vaccines, were included following PRISMA guidelines. Individual studies were assessed for quality using National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute quality assessment tool. A total of 1766 titles were retrieved and 11 were included, out of which only 5 were peer-reviewed. Although data availability was limited, studies suggest equivalent effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality. Vaccine effectiveness increased steadily to about 35 days, with an enhanced effectiveness following the second dose. SHORTEntities:
Keywords: Adenovirus vector-based vaccine; BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine; COVID-19; ChAdOx1 vaccine; Effectiveness; SARS-CoV-2
Year: 2021 PMID: 34456555 PMCID: PMC8383253 DOI: 10.1186/s42269-021-00607-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bull Natl Res Cent ISSN: 1110-0591
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram of study selection
Characteristics of included studies showing effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines
| Study location | Study design | Sample size | Effectiveness of BNT162b2 | Effectiveness of ChAdOx1 | Study limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Israel Dangan et al. ( | Retrospective | 596,618 | Effectiveness increased with increase in time, and with receipt of second dose Effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 was 57% after 14–20 days and 66% after 21–27 days | – | Short follow-up after second dose, potential selection bias, risk of potential confounders, Potential exclusion of some eligible participants as a result of efforts to match |
Israel Chodlick et al. ( | Retrospective | 503,875 (≥ 16 years) | 51% effectiveness after within 24 days of first dose, effectiveness increased with increase in time | – | Potential unreported vaccination among potential eligible participants, not peer-reviewed as at the time of this review |
England Barnal et al. ( | Retrospective | 174,731 (≥ 70 years old) | Single dose was 80% effective at preventing hospitalisation, 85% effective at preventing COVID-19 related death | Single dose was 80% effective at preventing hospitalisation | Inherent limitations of observational study, potential confounders, yet to be peer-reviewed as at the time of this review |
Denmark Moutsen-Helms et al. ( | Retrospective | 39,040 persons of 77–90 years and 33 039 persons of 36–57 years old | Protective effect was absent in older persons after first dose. Vaccine effectiveness was higher in the younger population (90%) than in older persons (64%) after 7 days of second vaccine dose | – | Study was not peer-reviewed as at the time of this study, observed variation in vaccine effectiveness may have been influenced by the large variation in sample size of the groups and potential confounders |
Scotland Vasileiou et al. ( | Retrospective | 1,331 993 (Mean age of 65 years old) | First dose was associated with 91% reduced COVID-19—related hospitalisation at 28–34 days after vaccination | First dose was associated with 88% reduced COVID-19—related hospitalisation at 28–34 days after vaccination | Risk of potential confounders |
England Bernal et al. ( | Retrospective | 48,096 (≥ 70 years old) | Associated 44% and 69% reduced risk of death with one and two respective doses of BNT162b2 vaccination among COVID-19 cases | Associated 55% reduced risk of death from COVID-19 | Insufficient follow-up to ascertain effects of second dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine on risk of death. Yet to be peer-reviewed at the time of this study |
England Shroti et al. ( | Retrospective | 10,412 (older adults) | Reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection after first and second dose | Reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection after first and second dose | Study was yet to be peer-reviewed as at the time of this review. Risk of potential confounder bias may also be associated with the study |
England Hall et al. | Prospective | 23,324 (median age = 46.1) | Associated with 72% effectiveness after 21 days of first dose, and 86% effectiveness seven days after second dose | – | Risk of potential confounders |
United Kingdom Pritchard et al. ( | Retrospective | 383,812 (≥ 16 years old) | Reduced SARS-CoV-2 infections ≥ 21 days after the first dose at 66% and 80% after second dose | Reduced SARS-CoV-2 infections ≥ 21 days after the first dose at 61% and 79% after second dose | Risk of potential confounders |
Israel Haas et al. ( | Retrospective | (≥ 16 years old) | Associated with 95.3% preventing incidence of SARS-CoV-2 7 days after second dose, 97.2% and 96.7% against COVID-19 related hospitalisation and death respectively | – | Risk of potential confounders |
England Bernal et al. ( | Retrospective | 12,675 | Dose effectiveness of BNT162b2 reduced from 93.4% with B.1.1.7 to 87.9% with B.1.6172.2 | Associated effectiveness of two doses reduced 66.1% with B.1.1.7 to 59.8% with B.1.6172.2 | Potential misclassification of cases and control may have been influenced by sensitivity and specificity of the PCR, paper was yet to be validated by peer-review as at the time of this review |