For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
19
views
17
references
 Top references
cited by
58
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      94
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Effectiveness of BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 in children aged 5–11 years in Italy: a retrospective analysis of January–April, 2022

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          By April 13, 2022, more than 4 months after the approval of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) for children, less than 40% of 5–11-year-olds in Italy had been vaccinated against COVID-19. Estimating how effective vaccination is in 5–11-year-olds in the current epidemiological context dominated by the omicron variant (B.1.1.529) is important to inform public health bodies in defining vaccination policies and strategies.

          Methods

          In this retrospective population analysis, we assessed vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19, defined as an infection leading to hospitalisation or death, by linking the national COVID-19 surveillance system and the national vaccination registry. All Italian children aged 5–11 years without a previous diagnosis of infection were eligible for inclusion and were followed up from Jan 17 to April 13, 2022. All children with inconsistent vaccination data, diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection before the start date of the study or without information on the municipality of residence were excluded from the analysis. With unvaccinated children as the reference group, we estimated vaccine effectiveness in those who were partly vaccinated (one dose) and those who were fully vaccinated (two doses).

          Findings

          By April 13, 2022, 1 063 035 (35·8%) of the 2 965 918 children aged 5–11 years included in the study had received two doses of the vaccine, 134 386 (4·5%) children had received one dose only, and 1 768 497 (59·6%) were unvaccinated. During the study period, 766 756 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and 644 cases of severe COVID-19 (627 hospitalisations, 15 admissions to intensive care units, and two deaths) were notified. Overall, vaccine effectiveness in the fully vaccinated group was 29·4% (95% CI 28·5–30·2) against SARS-CoV-2 infection and 41·1% (22·2–55·4) against severe COVID-19, whereas vaccine effectiveness in the partly vaccinated group was 27·4% (26·4–28·4) against SARS-CoV-2 infection and 38·1% (20·9–51·5) against severe COVID-19. Vaccine effectiveness against infection peaked at 38·7% (37·7–39·7) at 0–14 days after full vaccination and decreased to 21·2% (19·7–22·7) at 43–84 days after full vaccination.

          Interpretation

          Vaccination against COVID-19 in children aged 5–11 years in Italy showed a lower effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 than in individuals aged 12 years and older. Effectiveness against infection appears to decrease after completion of the current primary vaccination cycle.

          Funding

          None.

          Translation

          For the Italian translation of the summary see Supplementary Materials section.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Fernando P Polack, Stephen J. Thomas, Nicholas R.E. Kitchin … (2023)
          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
          Article 0 comments Cited 7117 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

            Lindsey Baden, Hana El Sahly, Brandon Essink … (2020)
            Abstract Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)
            Article 0 comments Cited 4896 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant

              Nick Andrews, Julia Stowe, Freja Kirsebom … (2022)
              Background A rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) cases due to the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in highly vaccinated populations has aroused concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines. Methods We used a test-negative case–control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated after primary immunization with two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine and after a booster dose of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or mRNA-1273. Results Between November 27, 2021, and January 12, 2022, a total of 886,774 eligible persons infected with the omicron variant, 204,154 eligible persons infected with the delta variant, and 1,572,621 eligible test-negative controls were identified. At all time points investigated and for all combinations of primary course and booster vaccines, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease was higher for the delta variant than for the omicron variant. No effect against the omicron variant was noted from 20 weeks after two ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 doses, whereas vaccine effectiveness after two BNT162b2 doses was 65.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.9 to 67.0) at 2 to 4 weeks, dropping to 8.8% (95% CI, 7.0 to 10.5) at 25 or more weeks. Among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% (95% CI, 61.8 to 63.0) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before decreasing to 39.6% (95% CI, 38.0 to 41.1) at 10 or more weeks. Among BNT162b2 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% (95% CI, 66.5 to 67.8) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before declining to 45.7% (95% CI, 44.7 to 46.7) at 10 or more weeks. Vaccine effectiveness after a ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course increased to 70.1% (95% CI, 69.5 to 70.7) at 2 to 4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster and decreased to 60.9% (95% CI, 59.7 to 62.1) at 5 to 9 weeks. After a BNT162b2 primary course, the mRNA-1273 booster increased vaccine effectiveness to 73.9% (95% CI, 73.1 to 74.6) at 2 to 4 weeks; vaccine effectiveness fell to 64.4% (95% CI, 62.6 to 66.1) at 5 to 9 weeks. Conclusions Primary immunization with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine provided limited protection against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron variant. A BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster after either the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 primary course substantially increased protection, but that protection waned over time. (Funded by the U.K. Health Security Agency.)
              Article 0 comments Cited 1045 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Lancet
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Lancet
                Title: Lancet (London, England)
                Publisher: Elsevier Ltd.
                ISSN (Print): 0140-6736
                ISSN (Electronic): 1474-547X
                Publication date PMC-release: 1 July 2022
                Publication date (Electronic): 1 July 2022
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
                [b ]National Centre for Drug Research and Evaluation, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
                [c ]Office of the President, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
                [d ]General Directorate of Prevention, Ministero della Salute, Rome, Italy
                [e ]General Directorate of Health Information System and Statistics, Ministero della Salute, Rome, Italy
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Chiara Sacco, Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome 00161, Italy
                [†]

                Contributed equally.

                Article
                Publisher Item ID: S0140-6736(22)01185-0
                DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01185-0
                PMC ID: 9246475
                PubMed ID: 35780801
                SO-VID: 54c51ef8-701b-446a-b5e2-ebf5824de6ef
                Copyright © © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                License:

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Related
                Categories
                Subject: Articles

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content94

                See all similar

                Cited by58

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,319

                See all reference authors