Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search
		×
			Vaccines site
			Vaccines site
				All CDC
				Submit
			For a full list of topics:A-Z Index
			Advanced Search
		Advanced Search


Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)








Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE): Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 VaccineGrading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation						Print
																Related Pages
										On This Page
			OverviewIntroductionMethodsResultsGRADE Summary
Overview
A Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) review of the evidence for benefits and harms for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was presented to the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) on August 30, 2021. GRADE evidence type indicates the certainty of estimates from the available body of evidence. Evidence certainty ranges from type 1 (high certainty) to type 4 (very low certainty) [1].
The policy question was, “Should vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (2-doses, IM) be recommended for persons 16 years of age and older?” The potential benefits pre-specified by the ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group included prevention of symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (critical), hospitalization due to COVID-19 (critical), death due to COVID-19 (important) and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, assessed using PCR (important). The two pre-specified harms were serious adverse events (SAEs) (including myocarditis and anaphylaxis) (critical) and reactogenicity (severe, grade ≥3) (important).
A systematic review of evidence on the benefits and harms of a two-dose regimen of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine among persons aged ≥16 years was conducted, based on data available as of August 23, 2021. The evidence from one Phase I randomized controlled trial (RCT) [2], one Phase II/III RCT [3,4,5], 26 vaccine effectiveness studies [6-31], and two vaccine safety surveillance systems [32,33,34] were assessed using a modified GRADE approach [1]. Pooled efficacy and effectiveness estimates were calculated when multiple sources had data on an outcome.
In terms of benefits, the available data from RCTs demonstrated that, compared with placebo, vaccination was associated with a lower risk of symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (relative risk [RR] 0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07–0.11; evidence type 1), hospitalization due to COVID-19 (RR 0.02; 95% CI 0.00–0.12; evidence type 2), and death due to COVID-19 (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02–1.39; evidence type 2).  The certainty of estimates regarding hospitalization and death due to COVID-19 was reduced due to imprecision.
The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimates from observational studies were consistent with these findings. Compared with no vaccination, vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.05–0.13; evidence type 2), hospitalization (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.03–0.12; evidence type 2), and death due to COVID-19 (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.02–0.09; evidence type 2). The certainty of each of these estimates was increased for a strong association. Vaccination was also associated with a decreased risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.10–0.12; evidence type 4); the evidence certainty type was downgraded for inconsistency.
In terms of harms, the available data from RCTs indicated that serious adverse events were balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.18, evidence type 2), and two serious adverse events were judged to be related to vaccination among more than 22,000 persons vaccinated. The certainty of this estimate was reduced due to imprecision. Reactogenicity grade ≥3 was associated with vaccination (RR 4.69; 95% CI 3.83–5.73, evidence type 1). About 11% of vaccine recipients versus 2% of placebo recipients reported grade ≥3 reactions. Two rare but serious adverse events, anaphylaxis and myocarditis, have been associated with vaccination in post-authorization safety surveillance (see results section and Table 3e).Introduction
On August 23, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Biologics License Application (BLA) for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (COMIRNATY®) for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals aged ≥16 years [35]. As part of the process employed by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP), a systematic review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment of the evidence for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was conducted and presented to ACIP [1]. There were no conflicts of interest reported by CDC and ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group members involved in the GRADE analysis.
ACIP adopted a modified GRADE approach in 2010 as the framework for evaluating the scientific evidence that informs recommendations for vaccine use. ACIP has made modifications to the GRADE approach by presenting assessed evidence as type 1, 2, 3, and 4, which corresponds to high, moderate, low, and very low certainty, whereas standard GRADE has high as level 4 and very low as level 1. Additionally, instead of presenting the overall certainty of evidence across all outcomes, ACIP presents the certainty of evidence for the benefits and harms separately. ACIP includes an option “ACIP recommends the intervention for individuals based on shared clinical decision-making” instead of providing a conditional recommendation for or against an intervention. GRADE was used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a two-dose regimen of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine among persons aged ≥16 years. Evidence of benefits and harms were reviewed based on the modified GRADE approach [1].
The policy question was, “Should vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (2-doses, IM) be recommended for persons 16 years of age and older?” (Table 1).Methods
We conducted a systematic review of evidence on the benefits and harms of a two-dose regimen of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (see Appendix 2 for databases and search strategies). We assessed outcomes and evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Patient-important outcomes (including benefits and harms) for assessment were selected by the Work Group during Work Group calls and via online surveys where members were asked to rate and rank the importance of relevant outcomes.
We identified RCTs through clinicaltrials.gov. Relevant Phase I, II, or III RCTs of COVID-19 vaccine were included if they: 1) involved human subjects; 2) reported primary data; 3) included adults (aged ≥16 years) at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 4) included data relevant to the efficacy and safety outcomes being measured; 5) included data for the dosage being recommended (30 μg, 2 doses at 0 and 21 days). We identified relevant observational studies through an ongoing systematic review conducted by the International Vaccine Access Center (IVAC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) [36]. Relevant observational studies, using case-control, test-negative, or cohort designs, were restricted to the defined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome outlined in the policy question. Outcomes were assessed starting at least 7 days after 2nd dose. We included only 2-dose Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine effectiveness estimates, with combined mRNA vaccine effectiveness estimates excluded. We included studies of general populations and special populations. In addition, efforts were made to obtain unpublished and other relevant data by hand-searching reference lists, and consulting with vaccine manufacturers and subject matter experts. We included observational safety data from two vaccine safety surveillance systems based on input from ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Technical (VaST) Work Group: Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Characteristics of all included studies and surveillance systems are shown in Appendix 1. [2-34]
Two reviewers evaluated all studies for study limitations (risk of bias) using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. RoB comprises a series of questions structured into domains focusing on different aspects of trial design, conduct, and reporting. Based on question responses, judgement can be “low”, “moderate”, or “high” risk of bias. NOS is a 9-point scale which assesses study limitations related to participant selection and comparability, and assessment of outcome (cohort studies) or ascertainment of exposure (case-control studies). Studies with NOS scores <7 were considered to have serious study limitations.
From the RCT data, relative risks (RR) were calculated from numerators and denominators available in the body of evidence. Vaccine efficacy estimates were defined as 100% x (1-RR). Vaccine effectiveness estimates and 95% CIs were taken from the published/preprint studies, as defined by the authors using a variety of study designs and analytical approaches; adjusted estimates were used when available. When multiple studies were available, pooled estimates were calculated using random effects (>3 studies) or fixed effects (≤2 studies) meta-analysis (R meta package). When multiple studies provided estimates based on overlapping study populations, the study with the most comprehensive population and follow-up time was selected for inclusion in the pooled estimate. Because there was a relatively large body of evidence from vaccine effectiveness studies, with many available only in the preprint literature, an *a priori* decision was made to exclude studies judged to have serious study limitations from the main pooled estimate used for GRADE. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of study characteristics (e.g., special populations vs. full population, preprint vs. peer-reviewed, standard vs. extended dosing interval, cohort vs. case-control/test-negative study design, study limitations, and circulating variants). The evidence certainty assessment for randomized and observational studies addressed risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and other characteristics. The GRADE assessment across the body of evidence for each outcome was presented in an evidence profile.Results
The results of the GRADE assessment were presented to ACIP on August 30, 2021.
Outcomes of interest included individual benefits and harms. Indirect effects of vaccination (e.g., societal benefits) were not considered as part of GRADE. Benefits of interest deemed critical were prevention of symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and prevention of hospitalization due to COVID-19 (Table 2). Other important benefits included prevention of death due to COVID-19 and prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. The critical harm of interest was serious adverse events (SAEs), including myocarditis and anaphylaxis; reactogenicity grade ≥3 was deemed an important harm.
After screening 86 records, 45 were excluded from full-text review because they were a different study design (i.e. screening method, n=2), a different intervention (e.g., a different vaccine or a different dose, n=28), or a different outcome that did not directly align with the PICO outcomes (e.g., any infection instead of symptomatic COVID-19 or asymptomatic infection, n=15). Of the 41 records that were deemed eligible for full-text review, 1 was excluded for not having primary data, 4 were excluded because they assessed a different intervention, and 4 were excluded because they assessed a different outcome. The remaining 33 records, which reported data on 29 studies or surveillance systems, were included in the evidence synthesis and GRADE evidence assessment (Appendix 1) [2-34]. Data were reviewed from four RCT records, including one publication from a Phase I trial, one publication and one preprint from the same Phase II/III trial, and additional data provided by the sponsor [2-5]. Data were reviewed from 26 vaccine effectiveness studies [6-31]. Two vaccine safety surveillance systems, VSD and VAERS, included data for SAEs [32,33,34].
In the Phase II/III RCT, using data on all blinded follow-up (up to 6 months or the unblinding date of March 13, 2021), the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reduced symptomatic COVID-19 when compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy: 91.1% (95% CI 88.8–93.1%)) (Table 3a). For hospitalization due to COVID-19, 31 events occurred, all in the placebo group. Vaccine efficacy against hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 100% (95% CI 87.6–100%) (Table 3b). Deaths due to COVID-19 were uncommon, one in the vaccine group and six in the placebo group (83% (-39–98%)) (Table 3c). Numbers of SAEs were comparable between the vaccine group and the placebo group across the two RCTs (Phase II/III: 268/21,926 (1.2%) vs. 268/21,921 (1.2%); Phase I: 1/24 (4.2%) vs. 0/6 (0.0%)); there were no cases of vaccine-associated enhanced disease or vaccine-related deaths (Table 3e). Grade ≥3 reactions generally were not uncommon and occurred more frequently in the vaccine than placebo groups (Table 3f).
Seventeen vaccine effectiveness studies reported data on symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (Table 3a), 13 reported data on hospitalization due to COVID-19 (Table 3b), 6 reported data on death due to COVID-19 (Table 3c), and 5 reported data on asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (Table 3d). The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimates from the observational studies demonstrated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reduced symptomatic COVID-19 when compared to no vaccination (pooled vaccine effectiveness: 92.4% (95% CI: 87.5–95.3%), based on 8 studies) [6,10,11,14,17,18,21,31]. The pooled vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 94.3% (95% CI 87.9–97.3%), based on 8 studies [13,15,17,21,22,25,28,30]. The pooled vaccine effectiveness for prevention of death due to COVID-19 was 96.1% (95%CI 91.5–98.2%), based on 4 studies [13,15,17,25]. The pooled vaccine effectiveness against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 89.3% (95% CI 88.4–90.1%), based on 2 studies [17,24].
Observational data on serious adverse events were reviewed. A rapid cycle analysis from VSD evaluated chart-reviewed cases of myocarditis occurring among persons aged 18–39 years following dose 2 of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (Table 3e) [34]. The rates of myocarditis were 368 per million person-years (9/24,432) in the 0–7-day risk interval and 48 per million person-years (3/62,481) in vaccinated comparators (adjusted rate ratio: 9.1 (95%CI 2.1–48.6)). Data from VAERS showed an elevated ratio of observed to expected myocarditis cases in the 7-day interval following vaccination among females in age groups 16–24 years and among males in age groups 16–49 years, with higher observed/expected ratios in males than females [33]. A rapid cycle analysis of data from VSD evaluated chart-reviewed cases of anaphylaxis among all vaccinated persons aged ≥12 years. Based on events occurring in a 0–1 day risk interval after vaccination, the estimated incidence of confirmed anaphylaxis was 5.0 (95% CI 3.5–6.9) per million doses [34]. The absolute reporting rate to VAERS was 4.7 per million doses administered [32].GRADE Summary
The initial GRADE evidence level was type 1 (high) for randomized controlled trials and type 3 (low) for the observational data (Table 4). In terms of benefits, the RCT data indicate that the vaccine reduces the risk of symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and no serious concerns impacting certainty were identified for this outcome (type 1, high). Observational data for symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 indicated a similar risk reduction with vaccination, and the certainty was upgraded one point for a strong association (type 2, moderate). The certainty of the evidence from RCTs for hospitalization due to COVID-19 was downgraded one point for serious concern of imprecision (type 2, moderate). Observational data for hospitalization due to COVID-19 indicated a similar risk reduction with vaccination, and the certainty was upgraded one point for a strong association (type 2, moderate). The certainty of the evidence for death due to COVID-19 was downgraded one point for serious concern of imprecision (type 2, moderate). Observational data for death due to COVID-19 concurred with a strong risk reduction with vaccination, and the certainty was upgraded one point for a strong association (type 2, moderate). The body of evidence for prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection came from observational studies and was downgraded one point for serious concern for inconsistency (type 4, very low). The certainty of evidence for serious adverse events was downgraded one point for serious concern of imprecision related to sample size (type 2, moderate). Observational data on specific serious adverse events (i.e., myocarditis among persons aged 18–39 years and anaphylaxis among persons aged 12 years and older) demonstrated these events are rare (evidence type 3, low).  No serious concerns impacted the certainty of estimates of reactogenicity from RCTs (type 1, high).
The summary of evidence types is shown in Table 5. The final evidence types were type 1 for symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, type 2 for hospitalization due to COVID-19 and death due to COVID-19, type 4 for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, type 2 for serious adverse events, and type 1 for reactogenicity.
References
Ahmed F. U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Handbook for Developing Evidence-based Recommendations
Walsh EE, Frenck RW, Falsey AR et al. Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates. *NEJM*. 2020. DOI: 1056/NEJMoa2027906
Pfizer, 2021. personal communication, August 2 – August 21, 2021.
Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, et al. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine. *NEJM*. 2020. DOI: 1056/NEJMoa2034577
Thomas, S. J., et al. (2021). Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine. medRxiv: 2021.2007.2028.21261159.
Alali WQ, Ali LA, AlSeaidanM, Al-Rashidi M. Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 Vaccines Against Symptomatic COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in Kuwait: A Retrospective Cohort Study. medRxiv 2021: 2021.07.25.21261083. preprint.
Angel Y, Spitzer A, Henig O, et al. Association Between Vaccination With BNT162b2 and Incidence of Symptomatic and Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections Among Health Care Workers. JAMA 2021; 325(24): 2457-65.
Balicer R, Dagan N, Barda N, et al. Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Pregnancy. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-665725/v1. preprint.
Barda N, Dagan N, Balicer RD. BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting. Reply. N Engl J Med. 2021 May 20;384(20):1970. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2104281.
Carazo S, Talbot D, Boulianne N, et al. Single-Dose mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Sars-Cov-2 in Healthcare Workers Extending 16 Weeks Post-Vaccination: A Test-Negative Design from Quebec, Canada. medRxiv 2021: 2021.07.19.21260445. preprint.
Chung H, He S, Nasreen S, et al. Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 covid-19 Vaccines Against Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Severe COVID-19 Outcomes in Ontario, Canada: Test Negative Design Study. BMJ 2021; 374: n1943.
Dagan N, Barda N, Kepten E, et al. BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting. N Engl J Med 2021; 384(15): 1412-23.
Emborg H-D, Valentiner-Branth P, Schelde AB, et al. Vaccine Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Against RT-PCR Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Hospitalisations and Mortality in Prioritised Risk Groups. medRxiv 2021: 2021.05.27.21257583. preprint.
Fabiani M, Ramigni M, Gobbetto V, Mateo-Urdiales A, Pezzotti P, Piovesan Effectiveness of the Comirnaty (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Pfizer) Vaccine in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Healthcare Workers, Treviso Province, Veneto Region, Italy, 27 December 2020 to 24 March 2021. Euro Surveill 2021; 26(17).
Flacco ME, Soldato G, Acuti Martellucci C, et al. Interim Estimates of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness in a Mass Vaccination Setting: Data from an Italian Province. Vaccines 2021; 9(6): 628.
Goldberg Y, Mandel M, Woodbridge Y, et al. Protection of Previous SARS-CoV-2 Infection is Similar to That of BNT162b2 Vaccine Protection: A Three-Month Nationwide Experience from Israel. medRxiv2021: 2021.04.20.21255670. preprint.
Haas EJ, Angulo FJ, McLaughlin JM, et al. Impact and Effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 Vaccine Against SARS-CoV-2 Infections and COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalisations, and Deaths Following a Nationwide Vaccination Campaign in Israel: an Observational Study Using National Surveillance Data. Lancet 2021; 397(10287): 1819-29.
Kissling E, HooiveldM, Sandonis Martín V, et al. Vaccine Effectiveness Against Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adults Aged 65 Years and Older in Primary Care: I-MOVE-COVID-19 project, Europe, December 2020 to May 2021. Eurosurveillance 2021; 26(29): 2100670.
Lopez Bernal J, Andrews N, Gower C, et al. Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on COVID-19 Related Symptoms, Hospital Admissions, and Mortality in Older Adults in England: Test Negative Case-Control Study. BMJ 2021; 373: n1088
Lopez Bernal J, Andrews N, Gower C, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines Against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant. N EnglJ Med 2021; 385(7): 585-94.
Martinez-Baz I, MiqueleizA, Casado I, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Hospitalisation, Navarre, Spain, January to April 2021. Euro Surveill 2021; 26(21).
Nasreen S, He S, Chung H, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines Against Variants of Concern, Canada. medRxiv2021: 2021.06.28.21259420. preprint.
Pawlowski C, LenehanP, Puranik A, et al. FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines are Effective per Real-World Evidence Synthesized Across a Multi-State Health System. Med (N Y) 2021; 2(8): 979-92 e8.
Pouwels KB, Pritchard E, Matthews PC, et al. Impact of Delta on Viral Burden and Vaccine Effectiveness Against New SARS-CoV-2 Infections in the UK. medRxiv 2021: 2021.08.18.21262237. preprint.
Puranik A, Lenehan PJ, Silvert E, et al. Comparison of two highly-effective mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19 during periods of Alpha and Delta variant prevalence. medRxiv 2021: 2021.08.06.21261707. preprint.
Regev-Yochay G, Amit S, Bergwerk M, et al. Decreased Infectivity Following BNT162b2 Vaccination: A Prospective Cohort Study in Israel. Lancet Reg Health Eur 2021; 7: 100150.
Saciuk Y, Kertes J, Mandel M, Hemo B, Shamir Stein N, Zohar A. Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine Effectiveness Against SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Findings From a Large Observational Study in Israel. SSRN 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3868853. preprint.
Stowe J, Andrews N, Gower C, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines Against Hospital Admission with the Delta (B.1.617.2) Variant. https://fpmag.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Effectiveness-of-COVID-19-vaccines-against-hospital-admission-with-the-Delta-B_1_617_2variant.pdf. preprint.
Tang P, Hasan MR, Chemaitelly H, et al. BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Against the Delta (B.1.617.2) Variant in Qatar. medRxiv 2021: 2021.08.11.21261885. preprint.
Tenforde MW, Patel MM, Ginde AA, et al. Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines for Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the United States. medRxiv 2021: 2021.07.08.21259776. preprint.
Whitaker H, Tsang R, Byford R, et al. Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness and Immune Response Among Individuals in Clinical Risk Groups. https://khub.net/documents/135939561/430986542/RCGP+VE+riskgroups+paper.pdf/a6b54cd9-419d-9b63-e2bf-5dc796f5a91f. preprint.
Shimabukuro TT, Cole M, Su JR. Reports of Anaphylaxis After Receipt of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in the US—December 14, 2020-January 18, 2021. JAMA. 2021;325(11):1101–1102. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.1967
Su, J. Safety update for COVID-19 vaccines: VAERS. Presentation to ACIP. August 30, 2021.
Klein, N. Safety update for COVID-19 vaccines: VSD. Presentation to ACIP. August 30, 2021.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, August 23, 2021 Approval Letter – Comirnaty (fda.gov)
International Vaccine Access Center (IVAC), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. VIEW-hub. www.view-hub.org. Accessed: 8/20/2021.Table 1: Policy Question and PICO
Table 1: Policy Question and PICO
Policy question:
Should vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (2-doses, IM) be recommended for persons 16 years of age and older?Population
Persons aged ≥16 yearsIntervention
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2
(30 μg, 2 doses IM, 21 days apart)Comparison
No vaccineOutcomes
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Death due to COVID-19
Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection
Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) (including myocarditis and anaphylaxis)
Reactogenicity (proportion with grade 3 or worse reactions)**Abbreviations**: IM = intramuscular.Table 2: Outcomes and Rankings
Table 2: Outcomes and Rankings
Outcome
Importancea
Included in evidence profileSymptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19
Critical
YesHospitalization due to COVID-19
Critical
YesDeath due to COVID-19
Important
YesAsymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection
Important
YesSerious Adverse Events (SAEs) (including myocarditis and anaphylaxis)
Critical
YesReactogenicity (proportion with grade 3 or worse reactions)
Important
Yes
aThree options: 1. Critical; 2. Important but not critical; 3. Not important for decision makingTable 3a: Summary of Studies Reporting Symptomatic Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19
Table 3a: Summary of Studies Reporting Symptomatic Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19
Authors last name, pub year
Design, study population
No. of patients vaccinated or No. of cases
No. of patients unvaccinated or No. of controls
Comparator
Vaccine Efficacy/Effectiveness (95% CI)
Study limitations (Risk of Bias)Polack 2020, Thomas 2021a [4,5] b, c
RCT; Age ≥16 years
77 cases/19,711 vaccine recipients
833 cases/19,741 placebo recipients
Placebo
91.1 (88.8–93.1)
Not seriousAlalia [6]
Observational (retrospective cohort); Healthcare workers; Kuwait
12 cases /90,015 person-days among vaccinated
114 cases /90,367 person-days among unvaccinated
No vaccine
94.5 (89.4–97.2)d
Not seriousAngel, 2021[7]
Observational (retrospective cohort); Healthcare workers; Israel
8 cases/5,372 vaccinated
38 cases/696 unvaccinated
No vaccine
97 (94–99)e
Not seriousBalicera [8]
Observational (prospective cohort); Pregnant women; Israel
67 cases/10,861 vaccinated
144 cases/10,861 unvaccinated
No vaccine
97 (91–100)e
Not seriousCarazoa [10]
Observational (test-negative design); Healthcare workers; Canada
20 vaccinated / 2,813 unvaccinated cases
1,954 vaccinated / 18,663 unvaccinated controls
No vaccine
92.2 (87.8–95.1)d
Not seriousChung, 2021 [11]
Observational (test-negative design); General population ≥16 years; Canada
51 vaccinated/ 51,271 cases
3,275 vaccinated/ 254,816 controls
No vaccine
91 (88–93)d
Not seriousDagan, 2021 [12]
Barda, 2021 [9]
Observational (retrospective cohort); General population ≥16 years; Israel
2,389 cases/ 596,618 vaccinated
3,607 cases/ 596,618 unvaccinated
No vaccine
94 (87–98)e
Updated:
96 (94–97)e
Not seriousHaas, 2021 [17]
Observational (retrospective cohort); General population ≥16 years; Israel
1,692 cases/201,882,183 person-days among vaccinated
39,065 cases /120,076,136 person-days among unvaccinated
No vaccine
97.0 (96.7–97.2)d
Not seriousFabiani, 2021 [14]
Observational (retrospective cohort); Healthcare workers; Italy
2 cases/216,098 person-days among vaccinated
13 cases /77,073 person-days among unvaccinated
No vaccine
93.7 (50.8–99.2)d
Not seriousKissling, 2021 [18]
Observational (test-negative design); Symptomatic adults ≥65 years; Europe (England, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, and Sweden)
14 vaccinated/519 cases
512 vaccinated/2,857 controls
No vaccine
87 (74–93)d
Not seriousLopez Bernal, 2021 [19]
Observational (test-negative design); Population >80 years; England
41 vaccinated/8,988 cases
634 vaccinated/15,718 controls
No vaccine
85 (79–89)e
Not seriousLopez Bernal, 2021 [20]
Observational (test-negative design); General population ≥16 years; England
49 alpha cases / 15,749 vaccinated controls
122 delta cases /15,749 vaccinated controls
7,313 alpha cases/96,371 unvaccinated controls
4,043 delta cases/96,371 unvaccinated controls
No vaccine
Alpha variant: 93.7 (91.6–95.3)eDelta variant: 88.0 (85.3–90.1)e
Not seriousMartínez-Baz, 2021 [21]
Observational (prospective cohort); ≥18 years with close contact of lab-confirmed COVID-19 case; Spain
25 cases/491 vaccinated contacts
5,306 cases/19,580 unvaccinated contacts
No vaccine
82 (73–88)d
Not seriousNasreena [22]
Observational (test-negative design); General population ≥16 years (symptomatic)
(Vaccinated/cases)
Non-VOC: 18/28,705
Alpha: 92/36,832
Beta/gamma: 9/ 3,005
Delta: 6/991
(Vaccinated/controls)
6,914/351,540
No vaccine
Non-variant of concern: 93 (88–96)e
Alpha variant: 89 (86–91)e
Beta/gamma variant: 84 (69–92)e
Delta variant: 87 (64–95)e
Not seriousPouwelsa [24]
Observational (longitudinal household survey); Aged ≥18 years; United Kingdom
Not reported
Not reported
No vaccine
Alpha-dominant period: 97 (96–98)eDelta-dominant period: 84 (82–86)e
Not seriousRegev-Yochay, 2021 [26]
Observational (prospective cohort); Healthcare workers; Israel
19 cases/ 329,071 person-days
115 cases/
199,126 person-days
No vaccine
90 (84–94)e
Not seriousTanga [29]
Observational (matched case control); Persons with PCR+ SARS-CoV-2 delta variant infections; Qatar
98 vaccinated/571 cases
183 vaccinated/571 controls
No vaccine
56.1 (41.4–67.2)f
Serious (selection, comparability)Whitakera [31]
Observational (prospective cohort); General population ≥16 years with medically attended COVID-19; England
8 cases/
12,273.3 person-years among vaccinated
4,228 cases/
1,460,811.4 person-years among unvaccinated
No vaccine
93.3 (85.8–96.8)d
Not seriousaPre-print
bAssessed using a primary outcome of the RCT, defined as SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness, in seronegative adults, ≥7 days post second dose.  Seronegative status was not a criterion for inclusion of observational studies.
cAdditional data provided by sponsor
dVaccine effectiveness estimate included in main pooled analysis used for GRADE.
eVaccine effectiveness estimate not included in main pooled analysis used for GRADE because study population overlapped with another study that was included.
fVaccine effectiveness estimate not included in main pooled analysis used for GRADE because of study limitations related to selection and comparability.Table 3b: Summary of Studies Reporting Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Table 3b: Summary of Studies Reporting Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Authors last name, pub year
Design, study population
No. of patients vaccinated or No. of cases
No. of patients unvaccinated or No. of controls
Comparator
Vaccine Efficacy/Effectiveness, % (95% CI)
Study limitations (Risk of Bias)Polack 2020, Thomas 2021a [3,4,5]b
Age ≥16 years
0 hospitalizations /19,687 vaccine recipients
31 hospitalizations /19,708 placebo recipients
Placebo
100 (87.6–100)
Not seriousBalicera[8]
Pregnant women; Israel
11 hospitalizations /10,861 vaccinated
25 hospitalizations/
10,861 unvaccinated
No vaccine
89 (43–100)e
Not seriousDagan, 2021 [12]
Barda, 2021 [9]
Observational (retrospective cohort); General population ≥16 years; Israel
110 hospitalizations /596,618 vaccinated
259 hospitalizations /596,618 unvaccinated
No vaccine
87 (55–100)e
Updated:
92 (85–97)e
Not seriousEmborga [13]
Observational (retrospective cohort); Groups prioritized for vaccination; Denmark
24 hospitalizations /37,429.7 person-years among vaccinated
1,014 hospitalizations /152,171.4 person-years among unvaccinated
No vaccine
93 (89–96) d
Not seriousHaas, 2021 [17]
Observational (retrospective cohort); General population ≥16 years; Israel
596 hospitalizations /201,882,183 person-days among vaccinated
5,526 hospitalizations
/120,076,136 person-days among unvaccinated
No vaccine
97.2 (96.8– 97.5)d
Not seriousFlacco, 2021 [15]
Observational (retrospective cohort); General population ≥18 years; Italy
Not reported/30,817 vaccinated
Not reported/174,023 unvaccinated
No vaccine
99 (96–100)d
Not seriousGolberga [16]
Observational (prospective cohort); General population ≥16 years; Israel
493 hospitalizations /136.8M person-days among vaccinated
10,057 hospitalizations /288.5M person-days among unvaccinated
No vaccine
94.2 (93.6–94.7)e
Not seriousMartínez-Baz, 2021 [21]
Observational (prospective cohort); ≥18 years with close contact of lab-confirmed COVID-19 case; Spain
1 hospitalization /491 vaccinated contacts
548 hospitalizations /19,580 unvaccinated contacts
No vaccine
94 (60–99)d
Not seriousNasreena [22]
Observational (test-negative design); General population ≥16 years (symptomatic)
(Vaccinated/hospitalized cases)c
Non-VOC ≤5/6,327
Alpha 26/6,896
Beta/gamma ≤5/780
Delta ≤5/165
(Vaccinated/hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 negative controls)c
6,910/351,240
No vaccine
nonVOC: 96 (82–99)f
Alpha 95 (92–97)f
Beta/Gamma 95 (81–99)d
Delta: –
Not seriousPawlowski, 2021 [23]
Observational (retrospective cohort); ≥18 years with access to Mayo Health system; United States
6 hospitalizations/
1,671,628 person-days among vaccinated
49 hospitalizations/
1,599,076 person-days among unvaccinated
No vaccine
88.3 (72.6–95. 9)e
Not seriousPuranika [25]
Observational (retrospective cohort); ≥18 years with access to Mayo Health system (MN); United States
11 hospitalizations /2,333,145 person-days among vaccinated
82 hospitalizations/2,532,948 person-days among unvaccinated
No vaccine
85 (73–93)d
Not seriousSaciuka [27]
Observational (retrospective cohort; Active members of a large HMO ≥16 years; Israel
105 hospitalizations/
1,353,847 vaccinated
942 hospitalizations/
1,162,033 unvaccinated
No vaccine
94.4 (93.2–95.5)d
Not seriousStowea [28]
Observational (test negative design); General population ≥16 years; England
Not reported
Not reported
No vaccine
Alpha: 95 (78–99)fDelta: 96 (86–99)d
Not seriousTenforde, 2021 [30]
Observational (case control); Hospitalized adults ≥18 years; United States
95 vaccinated/1,194 hospitalized cases
571 vaccinated/1,895 hospitalized controls
No vaccine
84.4 (74.9–90.4)d
Not seriousaPre-print
bAdditional data provided by study sponsor
cOutcome defined as hospitalization or death
dVaccine effectiveness estimate included in main pooled analysis used for GRADE.
eVaccine effectiveness estimate not included in main pooled analysis used for GRADE because study population overlapped with another study that was included.
fVaccine effectiveness estimate not included in main pooled analysis used for GRADE; a different variant-specific estimate from the same study was included.Table 3c: Summary of Studies Reporting Death due to COVID-19
Table 3c: Summary of Studies Reporting Death due to COVID-19
Authors last name, pub year
Design, study population
No. of patients vaccinated
No. of patients unvaccinated
Comparator
Vaccine Efficacy/Effectiveness, % (95% CI)
Study limitations (Risk of Bias)Polack 2020, Thomas 2021a [3,4,5]b
Age ≥16 years
1 death/19,687 vaccine recipients
6 deaths/19,708 placebo recipients
Placebo
83 (-39–98)
Not seriousEmborga [13]
Observational (retrospective cohort); Groups prioritized for vaccination; Denmark
25 deaths/37631.7 person-years among vaccinated
445 deaths/153,179.6 person-years among unvaccinated
No vaccine
All priority groups: 94 (90–96)c
Not seriousFlacco, 2021 [15]
Observational (retrospective cohort); General population ≥18 years; Italy
Not reported/30,817 vaccinated
Not reported/174,023 unvaccinated
No vaccine
98 (87–100)c
Not seriousGoldberga [16]
Observational (prospective cohort; General population ≥16 years; Israel
136 deaths/136.8M person-days among vaccinated
1749 deaths/288.5 person-days among unvaccinated
No vaccine
93.7 (92.5–94.7)d
Not seriousHaas, 2021 [17]
Observational (retrospective cohort);
General population ≥16 years; Israel
138 deaths /201,882,183 person-days among vaccinated
715 deaths/120,076,136
person-days among unvaccinated
No vaccine
Adjusted: 96.7 (96.0 – 97.3)c
Not seriousPuranika [25]
Observational (retrospective cohort); ≥18 years with access to Mayo Health system (MN); United States
0 deaths/2,333,860 person-days among vaccinated
4 deaths/ 2,537,030 person-days among unvaccinated
No vaccine
100 (–60–100)c
Not seriousSaciuka [27]
Observational (retrospective cohort); Active members of a large HMO ≥16 years; Israel
33 deaths/1,354,444 vaccinated
131 deaths/1,166,487 unvaccinated
No vaccine
84 (76.6–89.1)d
Not seriousaPre-print
bAdditional data provided by sponsor
cVaccine effectiveness estimate included in main pooled analysis used for GRADE.
dVaccine effectiveness estimate not included in main pooled analysis used for GRADE because study population overlapped with another study that was included.Table 3d: Summary of Studies Reporting Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infectiona
Table 3d: Summary of Studies Reporting Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (assessed using PCR)
Authors last name, pub year
Design, study population
No. of patients vaccinated or No. of cases
No. of patients unvaccinated or No. of controls
Comparator
Vaccine Efficacy/Effectiveness, % (95% CI)
Study limitations (Risk of Bias)Angel, 2021 [7]
Observational (retrospective cohort) Healthcare workers; Israel
19 cases/5,372 vaccinated
17 cases/696 unvaccinated
No vaccine
86 (69–93)b
Not seriousHaas, 2021 [17]
Observational (retrospective cohort)
General population ≥16 years; Israel
3,632 cases/201,882,183 person-days among vaccinated
49,138 cases/120,076,136 person-days among unvaccinated
No vaccine
91.5 (90.7–92.2)c
Not seriousPouwelsa [24]
Observational (longitudinal household survey) Household survey participants ≥18 years; United Kingdom
Not reported
Not reported
No vaccine
Delta period:
74 (69–78%)c
Not seriousRegev-Yochay, 2021 [26]
Observational (prospective cohort) Healthcare workers; Israel
12 cases/1,300 exposure events among vaccinated
48 cases/1,441
exposure events among unvaccinated
No vaccine
72 (48–86)b,d
Serious (selection, comparability)Tanga [29]
Observational (case-control) Persons with PCR+ SARS-CoV-2 delta variant infections; Qatar
73 vaccinated/757 cases
108 vaccinated/757 controls
No vaccine
35.9 (11.1–53.9)d
Serious (selection, comparability)
a Pre-print
bVaccine effectiveness estimate not included in main pooled analysis used for GRADE because study population overlapped with another study that was included.
cVaccine effectiveness estimate included in main pooled analysis used for GRADE.
dVaccine effectiveness estimate not included in main pooled analysis used for GRADE because of study limitations related to selection and comparability.Table 3e: Summary of Studies Reporting Serious Adverse Eventsa
Table 3e: Summary of Studies Reporting Serious Adverse Events
Authors last name, pub year
Age or other characteristics of importance
n/N (%) intervention
n/N (%) comparison
Comparator
RR (95% CI)
Study limitations (Risk or Bias)Walsh, 2020a,b [2]
Age ≥16 years
1/24 (4.2%)c
0/6 (0%)
Placebo
0.84 (0.03, 18.44)
Not seriousPolack 2020,
Thomas, 2021a,b [3,4,5]
Age ≥16 years
268/21,926 (1.2%)​d
268/21921 (1.2%)
Placebo
1.00 (0.84, 1.18)
Not seriousVAERS (Anaphylaxis) [32]
All vaccinated ages
4.7/1,000,000 doses

None

SeriousVAERS (Myocarditis)e [33]
Age ≥16 years
Observed cases by age (years) and sexfFemales
Age 16–17: 15
Age 18–24: 11
Age 25–29: 4
Age 30–39: 7
Age 40–49: 12
Age 50–64: 9
Age ≥ 65: 4
Males
Age 16–17: 120
Age 18–24: 134
Age 25–29: 30
Age 30–39: 40
Age 40–49: 26
Age 50–64: 5
Age ≥ 65: 4
Expected cases by age (years) and sexfFemales
Age 16–17: 0–2
Age 18–24: 0–5
Age 25–29: 0–4
Age 30–39: 1–13
Age 40–49: 1–13
Age 50–64: 2–22
Age ≥ 65: 2–22
Males
Age 16–17: 0–3
Age 18–24: 1–7
Age 25–29: 1–5
Age 30–39: 1–11
Age 40–49: 1–11
Age 50–64: 2–19
Age ≥ 65: 2–18
Expected numbers occurring in population
Elevated ratio of observed to expected cases among females aged 16–24 years and males 16–49 years.
SeriousVSD (Anaphylaxis)g [34]
Age ≥12 years
5.0/1,000,000 doses



Not seriousVSD (Myocarditis)h [34]
18–39 years
9/24,232
3/62,481
Comparison interval in vaccinated individuals
9.1 (2.1–48.6)
Not seriousaIncluded all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of vaccine
bAdditional data provided by sponsor
cOne SAE of neuritis was reported from the phase 1 trial that had not been identified at the time of the Walsh publication. This SAE was deemed unrelated to vaccination.
dFour serious adverse events were deemed by blinded investigators to be related to vaccination. These included: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, ventricular arrhythmia, lymphadenopathy, and lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia. Through further investigation by the FDA, only two were classified as related to vaccination: shoulder injury and lymphadenopathy.
eRisk evaluated in a 7-day interval following vaccination
fReported cases and expected number of cases were examined by age group (16–17, 18–24, 25–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–64, ≥65 years) and sex.
gRisk evaluated in a 0–1 day risk interval after vaccination
gRisk evaluated in a 7-day interval following dose 2Table 3f: Summary of Studies Reporting Reactogenicitya
Table 3f: Summary of Studies Reporting Reactogenicity
Authors last name, pub year
Age or other characteristic of importance
n/N (%) intervention
n/N (%) comparison
Comparator
RR (95% CI)
Study limitations (Risk of Bias)Walsh, 2020b [2]
Age ≥16 years
3/24 (8.3%)
0/6 (0%)
Placebo
1.96 (0.11, 33.62)
Not seriousPolack, 2020
Thomas, 2021b [3,4,5]
Age ≥16 years
520/4,924 (10.6%)
111/4,915 (2.3%)
Placebo
4.68 (3.81, 5.69)
Not seriousaGrade 3 or worse. Grade 3 local reactions include pain at injection site that prevents daily activity, redness > 10 cm, and swelling > 10 cm. Grade 3 systemic events include vomiting that requires IV hydration, diarrhea of 6 or more loose stools in 24 hours, or headache, fatigue/tiredness, chills, new or worsened muscle pain, or new or worsened joint pain that prevent daily routine activity.
bAdditional data provided by sponsorTable 4: Grade Summary of Findings Table
Table 4: Grade Summary of Findings Table
Certainty assessment
No of patients Vaccinated
No of patients Unvaccinated
Effect Relative
(95% CI)
Effect Absolute
(95% CI)
Certainty
ImportanceNo of studies
Study design
Risk of bias
Inconsistency
Indirectness
Imprecision
Other considerationsSymptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-191
Randomized studies
not seriousa
not serious
not seriousb
not serious
none
77/19,711 (0.4%)
833/19,741 (4.2%)
**RR 0.09**
(0.07–0.1)
**3,840 fewer per 100,000**
(from 3,924 fewer to 3,713 fewer)c
Type 1
CRITICAL8d
Nonrandomized studiese
not serious
not seriousf
not serious
not serious
strong association
1,715/g
43,968/g
**RR 0.08**
(0.03–0.13)h
**3,780 fewer per 100,000**
(from 3,990 fewer to 3,528 fewer)c
Type 2
CRITICALHospitalization for COVID-191
Randomized studies
not seriousa,i
not serious
not seriousb
seriousj
none
0/19,687 (0.0%)
31/19,708 (0.2%)
**RR 0.02**
(0.00–0.12)k
**154 fewer per 100,000**
(from 116 fewer to –)c
Type 2
CRITICAL8l
Nonrandomized studiese
not serious
not seriousm
not seriousn
not serious
strong association
632/o
7,170/ unexposedo
**RR 0.06**
(0.03–0.12)h
**188 fewer per 100,000**
(from 194 fewer to 176 fewer)c
Type 2
CRITICALDeath due to COVID-191
Randomized studies
not seriousp
not serious
not seriousb
seriousq
none
1/19,687 (0.0%)
6/19,708 (0.0%)r
**RR 0.17**
(0.02–1.39)
**25 fewer per 100,000**
(from 30 fewer to 12 more)c
Type 2
IMPORTANT4s
Nonrandomized studiese
not serious
not serioust
not seriousu
not serious
strong association
163/- (14.0%)v
0.0%
**RR 0.04**
(0.02–0.09)h
**29 fewer per 100,000**
(from 29 fewer to 28 fewer)c
Type 2
IMPORTANT**Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, assessed with PCR**0
Randomized studies2w
Nonrandomized studiese
not serious
seriousx
not serious
not serious
none
3632/- (7.4%)v
4.2%
**RR 0.11**
(0.10–0.12)y
**3,738 fewer per 100,000**
(from 3,780  fewer to 3,696 fewer)z
Type 4
IMPORTANT**Serious adverse events**2
Randomized studies
not seriousaa
not serious
not seriousb
seriousab
none
269/21,950 (1.2%)
268/21,927 (1.2%)
**RR 1.00**
(0.85–1.18)ac
**0 fewer per 100,000**
(from 183 fewer to 220 more)c
Type 2
CRITICAL2w
Nonrandomized studies
not serious
not serious
not serious
not serious
none


See narrativead,ae,af

Type 3
CRITICALag**Reactogenicity, grade >=3**2
Randomized studies
not serious
not serious
not seriousb
not serious
none
531/4,948 (10.7%)
111/4,921 (2.3%)
**RR 4.69**
(3.83–5.73)ac
**8,323 more per 100,000**
(from 6,383 more to 10,669 more)c
Type 1
IMPORTANT0
Nonrandomized studies
**CI:** Confidence interval; **RR:** Risk ratio
*Explanations***
Risk of bias related to blinding of participants and personnel was present. Although participants and study staff were blinded to intervention assignments, they may have inferred receipt of vaccine or placebo based on reactogenicity. This was deemed unlikely to overestimate efficacy or underestimate risk of serious adverse events, therefore the risk of bias was rated as not serious.
The RCT excluded persons with prior COVID-19 diagnosis, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and persons who were immunocompromised. The population included in the RCT may not represent all persons aged >=16 years.
Absolute risk was calculated using the observed risk among placebo recipients in the available body of evidence from randomized controlled trials. Absolute risk estimates should be interpreted in this context.
17 studies were available in the body of evidence. 8 were excluded because the study population was already represented, and 1 was excluded due to serious study limitations.
The body of evidence includes preprints.
Although I2 value was high (95.0%), no serious concern for inconsistency was judged because all studies showed a high degree of vaccine effectiveness, with point estimates ranging from 87% to 97%. In a sensitivity analysis including results from one study with study limitations identified that had a vaccine effectiveness estimate of 56%, the pooled RR was 0.10 (95% CI 0.05–0.18), and I2 was 98.1%.
Data on numerators and denominators were not consistently reported in the available body of evidence. The n shown excludes events from studies that did not report the number of cases. The N is not included because studies variously provided person-time or number of persons. In addition to the numerators from cohort studies shown, the body of evidence included at least 85 cases and 54,603 controls from case-control or test-negative studies.
Pooled RR based on a random effects meta-analysis, using adjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates on a log scale.
Risk of bias was considered due to concern about misclassification of outcome. Hospitalization due to COVID-19 is not specified in the study protocol, and the data shown include only persons who met the protocol definition of COVID-19 using an approved assay or confirmation in a central laboratory; it was unclear if constructing a non-protocol measure may have resulted in bias. Data on all hospitalizations due to COVID-19 diagnosed by any assay after dose 1 were also obtained and reviewed. Two hospitalizations due to COVID-19 occurred among 21,909 persons in the vaccine arm and 59 occurred among 21,908 persons in the placebo arm (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.14); the similar efficacy diminished concerns regarding risk of bias.
Serious concerns of imprecision due to fragility in the estimate was present because there were only 31 events observed from a single RCT.
RR calculated using a standard continuity correction of 0.5.
13 studies were available in the body of evidence. 5 were excluded because the study population was already represented.
Although I2 value was high (91.7%), no serious concern for inconsistency was judged because all studies showed a high degree of vaccine effectiveness, with point estimates ranging from 84% to 99%.
Definitions varied by study. Indirectness was considered given COVID-19 was not necessarily confirmed as the cause of hospitalizations, but this was deemed not serious.
Data on numerators and denominators were not consistently reported in the available body of evidence. The n shown excludes events from studies that did not report the number of cases. The N is not included because studies variously provided person-time or number of persons. In addition to the numerators from cohort studies shown, the body of evidence included at least 95 cases and 1,359 controls from case-control or test-negative studies.
Risk of bias was considered due to possible misclassification of outcomes. One death in a vaccine recipient and 3 deaths among placebo recipients were in persons who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 based on local clinical nucleic acid amplification tests that were not protocol approved; these diagnoses were not confirmed by the central study laboratory and were not counted in the efficacy estimates for symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or hospitalization due to COVID-19. In an analysis using only protocol approved or central laboratory confirmed cases resulting in death, with a standard continuity correction applied, the relative risk was 0.14 (95% CI 0.01–2.77).
Serious concern for imprecision was present due to the small number of events that were observed. In addition to a 95% confidence interval crossing the line of no effect, there was concern for fragility in the estimate due to the small number of events.
Calculated risk among placebo arm in available body of evidence from RCT was 0.03%, but it appears lower here due to rounding.
6 studies were available in the body of evidence. 2 were excluded because the study population was already represented.
The relative risk shown is from a pooled analysis of 4 cohort studies conducted in different populations. I2 was 48.8%.
Definitions varied by study. Indirectness was considered given COVID-19 was not necessarily confirmed as the cause of deaths, but this was deemed not serious.
Data on numerators and denominators were not consistently reported in the available body of evidence. The n shown excludes events from studies that did not report the number of cases. The N is not included because the type of denominator varied across studies (e.g., person-time or number of persons).
5 studies were available in the body of evidence. 2 were excluded because the study population was already represented, and one study was excluded due to study limitations.
Serious concern for inconsistency was present (I2 = 98.1%). The magnitude of the relative risks from the two studies in the body of evidence varied widely, possibly reflecting different prevalence of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants at the time of data collection or differences in study methods. In a sensitivity analysis including results from one study with study limitations identified that had a vaccine effectiveness estimate of 35.9%, the pooled RR was 0.12% (95% CI 0.11–0.13), and I2 was 99.1%.
Pooled RR based on a fixed effects meta-analysis, using adjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates on a log scale. Fixed effects model was used for this analysis due to imprecise estimates of the between-studies variance.
Absolute risk was calculated using the observed risk of symptomatic COVID-19 among placebo recipients in the available body of evidence from randomized controlled trials. Absolute risk estimates should be interpreted in this context.
Risk of bias related to blinding of participants was present. Although participants and study staff were blinded to intervention assignments, they may have inferred receipt of vaccine or placebo based on reactogenicity. Some reactogenicity outcomes may also have been reported as serious adverse events, and experiences of reactions immediately after vaccination could have influenced recall or reporting of subsequent serious adverse events. This was rated as not serious.
Serious concern for imprecision was present. The confidence interval indicates that both reduced and increased risk of serious adverse events are possible.
Pooled RR based on a fixed effects meta-analysis. Fixed effects model was appropriate for this analysis because these RCTs used the same protocol and were conducted in similar populations.
A rapid cycle analysis from Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) evaluated chart-reviewed cases of myocarditis among persons aged 18–39 years, following dose 2. Based on events occurring in a 7-day risk interval after vaccination vs. a comparison interval in vaccinated individuals, the adjusted rate ratio was 9.1% (95% CI 2.1–48.6). The rates of myocarditis were 368 per 1 million person-years (9/24,432) in the 0–7 day risk interval and 48 per 1 million person-years (3/62,481) in vaccinated comparators.
Data from the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showed an elevated ratio of observed to expected myocarditis cases in the 7-day interval following vaccination among females in age groups 16–24 years, and among males in age groups 16–49 years, with higher observed/expected ratios in males than females. Although VAERS data are subject to the limitations of a passive surveillance system, the elevated risk of myocarditis following Pfizer vaccination is consistent with that observed in VSD.
A rapid cycle analysis of data from VSD evaluated chart-reviewed cases of anaphylaxis among all vaccinated persons aged 12 and older. Based on events occurring in a 0-1 day risk interval after vaccination, the estimated incidence of confirmed anaphylaxis was 5.0 (95% CI 3.5-6.9) per million doses. The absolute reported rate to VAERS was 4.7 per million doses administered.Table 5: Summary of Evidence for Outcomes of Interest
Summary of Evidence for Outcomes of Interest
Outcome
Importance
Included in profile
CertaintySymptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19
Critical
Yes
Type 1 (high)Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Critical
Yes
Type 2 (moderate)Death due to COVID-19
Important
Yes
Type 2 (moderate)Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection
Important
Yes
Type 4 (very low)Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) (including myocarditis and anaphylaxis)
Critical
Yes
Type 2 (moderate)Reactogenicity (proportion with grade 3 or worse reactions)
Important
Yes
Type 1 (high)Appendix 1. Studies Included in the Review of Evidence
Randomized Controlled Trial
Last name first author, Publication year
Study design
Country (or more detail, if needed)
Age, central tendency or range
Total population
N vaccinated
N unvaccinated
Outcomes
Funding sourcePolack 2020; Thomas, 2021a;  [3,4,5]b
RCT
United States
Brazil
Argentina
South Africa
Turkey
Germany
≥16 years
43,548
19,711
19,741
Symptomatic COVID-19 (PCR confirmed)c
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Death due to COVID-19
Serious Adverse Events
Reactogenicityd
Industry fundingWalsh, 2020 [2]
RCT
United States
18-55, 65-85 years
195
12
3
Serious Adverse Events
Reactogenicityd
Industry fundingObservational Cohort Studies
Last name first author, Publication year
Study design
Country (or more detail, if needed)
Age, central tendency or range
Total population
N vaccinated
N unvaccinated
Outcomes
Funding sourceAlalia, [6]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort)
Kuwait
median (IQR) 38 (33 – 44) years
3,246
NRe
NRe
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
NReAngel, 2021 [7]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort)
Israel
mean [SD] 44.3 [12.5] years
6,710
5,372
696
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19cAsymptomatic infection (PCR)
NReBalicera, [8]
Observational (Prospective Cohort)
Israel
≥16 years
21,722
10,861
10,861
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
University/Academic, Industry & OtherBarda, 2021 [9]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort)
Israel
≥16 years
1,163,534
596,618
596,618
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
NReDagan, 2021 [12]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort)
Israel
median (IQR) 45 (35–62) years
1,163,534
596,618
596,618
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
NReEmborga,  [13]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort)
Denmark
≥18 years
864,096
NRe
NRe
Hospitalization due to COVID-19Death due to COVID-19
Government fundingFabiani, 2021 [14]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort)
Italy
mean (SD) 47.1 (10.8) years
6,423
NRe
NRe
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
NReFlacco, 2021 [15]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort)
Italy
≥18 years
273,210
30,817
174,023
Hospitalization due to COVID-19Death due to COVID-19
None declaredGoldberga,  [16]
Observational (Prospective Cohort)
Israel
≥16 years
6,351,903
NRe
NRe
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Death due to COVID-19
None declaredHaas, 2021 [17]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort)
Israel
≥16 years
6,538,911
NRe
NRe
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
Hospitalization due to COVID-19Death due to COVID-19Asymptomatic infection (PCR)
Government funding & Industry fundingMartinez-Baz, 2021 [21]
Observational (Prospective Cohort)
Spain
≥18 years
20,961
491 contacts
19,580 contacts
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Government funding & Other (Horizon 2020 program of the European Commission)Pawlowski, 2021 [23]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort)
United States
≥18 years
136,532
NRe
NRe
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Other (nference; data analysis organization)Pouwelsa,  [24]
Observational (Longitudinal Household Survey)
United Kingdom
18 – 64 years
384,543
NRe
NRe
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
Asymptomatic infection (PCR)
Other: Wellcome Trust [110110/Z/15/Z]Puranika,  [25]
Observational (Matched Retrospective Cohort)
United States
≥18 years
179,546
NRe
NRe
Hospitalization due to COVID-19Death due to COVID-19
NReRegav-Yochay, 2021 [26]
Observational (Prospective Cohort)
Israel
≥18 years
9,347
NRe
NR3
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19cAsymptomatic infection (PCR)
University/AcademicSaciuka,  [27]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort)
Israel
≥16 years
1,650,885
1,354,444
1,166,487
Hospitalization due to COVID-19Death due to COVID-19
Other: Maccabi HealthCare ServicesWhitakera,  [31]
Observational (Prospective Cohort)
England
≥16 years
5,642,687
NRe
NRe
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
Government fundingObservational Case-Control Studies
Last name
first author, Publication year
Study design
Country (or more detail, if needed)
Age, central tendency or range
Total population
N
cases
N
controls
Outcomes
Funding sourceCarazoa, [10]
Observational
(Test-Negative Case Control)
Canada
18–74 years
58,476
5,316
53,160
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
Other (Ministere de la sante’ et des services sociaux du Quebec)Chung, 2021 [11]
Observational
(Test-Negative Case Control)
Canada
≥16 years
324,033
53,270
279,763
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
University/Academic & Government fundingKissling, 2021 [18]
Observational (Test-Negative Case Control)
France
England
Ireland
Netherlands
Portugal
Scotland
Spain
Sweden
≥65 years
4,964
519
2,857
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
Other (European Union’s Horizon 2020 research & innovation programme)Lopez Bernal, 2021 [19]
Observational (Test-Negative Case Control)
England
>80 years
153,441
8,988
15,718
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
None declaredLopez Bernal, 2021 [20]
Observational (Test-Negative Case Control)
England
≥16 years
19,109
15,749
96,371
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19c
Government fundingNasreena, [22]
Observational (Test-Negative Case Control)
Canada
≥16 years
421,073
36,832
351,540
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19cHospitalization due to COVID-19
Government fundingStowea,
[28]
Observational (Test-Negative Case Control)
England
NRe
NRe
NRe
NRe
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Government fundingTanga,
[29]
Observational (Matched Test-Negative Case Control)
Qatar
median (IQR)
31 (24-37)
39,156
757 cases
757 controls
Symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19cAsymptomatic infection (PCR)
NReTenforde, 2021 [30]
Observational (Test-Negative Case Control)
United States
≥18 years
Pfizer, 2 doses: 482
No Vaccine: 396
1,194
1,895
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Government fundingSafety Surveillance
Name of system
Study design
Country (or more detail, if needed)
Age, central tendency or range
Total population
N vaccinated
N unvaccinated
Outcomes
Funding sourceVaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) [32,33]
Passive surveillance
United States
≥16 years (anaphylaxis);
16–49 years (myocarditis)



Serious Adverse Events
Government fundingVaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) [34]
Cohort
United States
≥12 years (anaphylaxis);
18–39 years (myocarditis)



Serious Adverse Events
Government funding
aPre-print
bAdditional data provided by sponsor
cThis was a primary outcome of the RCT, defined as SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness, in seronegative persons aged ≥18 years, ≥7 days post second dose. In a secondary analysis among seronegative and seropositive persons, the efficacy was Grade 3 or worse.
dGrade 3 local reactions include pain at injection site that prevents daily activity, redness > 10 cm, and swelling > 10 cm. Grade 3 systemic events include vomiting that requires IV hydration, diarrhea of 6 or more loose stools in 24 hours, or headache, fatigue/tiredness, chills, new or worsened muscle pain, or new or worsened joint pain that prevent daily routine activity.
eNot reportedAppendix 2. Databases and strategies used for systematic review
Appendix 2. Databases and strategies used for systematic review
Database
Strategy**clinicaltrials.gov**
**Inclusion**: Relevant Phase 1, 2, or 3 randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 vaccine
Involved human subjects
Reported primary data
Included adults (age ≥16 years) at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection
Included data relevant to the efficacy and safety outcomes being measured
Included data for the dosage and timing being recommended (30 μg, 2 doses at 0 and 21 days)**Additional resources**: Unpublished and other relevant data by consulting with vaccine manufacturers and subject matter experts**International Vaccine Access Center (IVAC)**
**Inclusion criteria for IVAC systematic review<:**
Published or preprint study with adequate scientific details
Includes groups with and without infection or disease outcome
Laboratory confirmed outcome
Vaccination status confirmed in ≥90%
Studies assess one vaccine or pooled mRNA vaccines
Includes participants who did or did not receive a COVID-19 vaccineVaccine effectiveness estimate calculated comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated****Additional criteria for GRADE review:**
Restricted to PICO-defined population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes
Outcomes assess 7 or 14 days after 2nd dose
Only Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (not mRNA vaccines as a group)
Included studies of general population and special populations (e.g., elderly, pregnant persons, healthcare workers)**Safety Surveillance Systems**
**Evidence Retrieval for Observational Safety Studies:**
Based on input from ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) Work Group
Data on safety signals identified by vaccine surveillance systems
Data have been presented to ACIPTop of Page
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  September 20, 2021						Source: 	National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homeACIP Home
Meeting Information
Committee Informationplus icon
Role of the ACIP in CDC’s Vaccine Recommendations
Charter
Economics Studies
Committee Membersplus icon
ACIP Membership Roster
Apply for ACIP Membership
Work Groupsplus icon
VaST Reportsplus icon
June 28, 2021
May 24, 2021
May 17, 2021
March 29, 2021
Recommendationsplus icon
Shared Clinical Decision-Making Recommendations
Evidence Based Recommendationsplus icon
About GRADE
Grade Evidence Tables
Evidence to Recommendations Frameworks Vaccines & ImmunizationsImmunization SchedulesVFC ResolutionsVaccine Information Statements (VISs)
  1600 Clifton Road, N.E., Mailstop A27
Atlanta, GA 30329-4027acip@cdc.gov


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue