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): Updated COVID-19 vaccine (2023-2024 Formulation)						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 updated COVID-19 vaccine (2023-2024 Formulation) was presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on September 12, 2023. GRADE evidence type indicates the certainty of estimates from the available body of evidence. Evidence certainty can be high, medium, low, or very low [1].
The policy question under consideration was, “Should vaccination with the updated COVID-19 vaccine (2023-2024 Formulation, monovalent with XBB.1.5 containing component) be recommended for persons aged 6 months and older?” To evaluate the certainty of evidence for anticipated benefits and harms from the updated COVID-19 vaccine, the ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group (WG) assessed evidence from last year’s updated vaccine (i.e., bivalent COVID-19 vaccine) for two age groups that were defined based on dosage cutoffs: adolescents and adults aged ≥ 12 years and infants and children aged 6 months – 11 years. The potential benefits pre-specified by the ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines WG for adolescents and adults included prevention of medically attended COVID-19 (emergency department [ED]/urgent care [UC] visits) (critical), hospitalization due to COVID-19 (critical), death due to COVID-19 (important), and post-COVID conditions (important). The potential benefits pre-specified by the ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines WG for infants and children included all the benefits in adolescents and adults with the addition of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) (important). The two pre-specified harms for both age groups were specified serious adverse events (SAEs) (i.e., myocarditis/pericarditis and anaphylaxis) (critical) and reactogenicity (severe, grade ≥3) (important).
A systematic review of evidence on the benefits and harms of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine among persons aged ≥6 months was conducted, using domestic data available as of June 29, 2023. The evidence from 2 Phase I open label trials [2, 3], 10 Phase I, II, II/III, or III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [4-15], 6 vaccine effectiveness studies [16-21], and 3 studies of a single vaccine safety surveillance system [22-24] were assessed using a modified GRADE approach [1]. Pooled effectiveness estimates were calculated when multiple sources had data on an outcome. For benefits, insufficient data was captured in the systematic review to conduct an evidence synthesis for infants and children. Benefits were indirectly inferred from adolescent and adult data. No data met the systematic review criteria for the outcomes of MIS-C or post-COVID conditions.
In terms of benefits for adolescents and adults, the pooled vaccine effectiveness estimates from observational studies found that the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a lower risk of medically attended COVID-19 (ED/UC visits) (relative risk [RR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4–0.5; low certainty), hospitalization due to COVID-19 (RR 0.5; 95% CI: 0.4–0.7; low certainty), and death due to COVID-19 (RR 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3–0.6; very low certainty). The certainty assessment regarding death was downgraded due to serious concern for inconsistency. For infants and children, findings in adults were assessed and downgraded for serious concern for indirectness; the certainty assessment for all pooled benefits was very low.
In terms of harms, the available data from observational safety surveillance systems indicated that there was a rare risk of specified serious adverse events, anaphylaxis and myocarditis/pericarditis, following vaccination among both adolescents and adults (low certainty), and infants and children (very low certainty; downgraded due to serious concern for indirectness). Pooled trial data from the original monovalent primary series RCTs indicated that severe reactogenicity (grade ≥3) was associated with vaccination in adolescents and adults (RR 4.8; 95% CI: 4.5–5.2) and infants and children (RR 4.7; 95% CI: 3.4–6.4). There was very serious concern for indirectness in both age groups and the evidence type was low certainty.
Introduction
On September 11, 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Biologics License Application (BLA) for use of updated COVID-19 vaccine (2023-2024 Formulation) for the prevention of COVID-19 in persons aged ≥12 years [25, 26] and issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) [27, 28] for the use of updated COVID-19 vaccine (2023-2024 Formulation) for persons ages 6 months – 11 years. As part of the process employed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a systematic review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment of the evidence 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 high, moderate, low, and very low certainty. 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 benefits and harms of an updated (i.e., bivalent) COVID-19 vaccine, which was determined by ACIP COVID-19 WG to be the most directly applicable to the 2023-2024 vaccine due to its updated formulation, among adolescents and adults aged ≥12 years and infants and children aged 6 months – 11 years. Evidence of benefits and harms were reviewed based on the modified GRADE approach [1].
The policy question under consideration was, “Should vaccination with the updated COVID-19 vaccine (2023-2024 Formulation, monovalent with XBB.1.5 containing component) be recommended for persons aged 6 months and older?” To evaluate the certainty of evidence for anticipated benefits and harms from the updated COVID-19 vaccine (2023-2024 Formulation), the ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group (WG) assessed evidence from last years updated vaccine (i.e., bivalent COVID-19 vaccine) for two age groups that were defined based on dosing cutoffs: adolescents and adults aged ≥ 12 years and infants and children ages 6 months – 11 years (Table 1).
Methods
We conducted a systematic review of evidence on the benefits and harms of a bivalent 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 *a priori* by the WG during WG calls.
We identified RCTs through clinicaltrials.gov. Relevant Phase I, II, II/III or III RCTs of Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were included if they: 1) involved human subjects; 2) reported primary data; 3) included persons (aged ≥6 months) at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 4) included data relevant to the safety outcome being measured (reactogenicity). We identified relevant observational studies through an ongoing systematic review conducted by the International Vaccine Access Center (IVAC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) [29]. Relevant observational studies, using cohort or test-negative case-control designs, were restricted to the defined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome outlined in the policy questions. We included studies conducted in the United States with a majority of their study period between September 2, 2022 and April 19, 2023. Outcomes were assessed starting at least 7 days after a dose. We included only bivalent COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness estimates, which could be combined vaccine effectiveness for multiple bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, or single bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. 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 one vaccine safety surveillance system based on input from CDC’s Immunization Safety Office (ISO). Characteristics of all included studies and surveillance systems are shown in Appendix 1.
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 is comprised of 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, risk ratios (RRs) were calculated from numerators and denominators available in the body of evidence. Vaccine effectiveness 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 (≤3 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. When a single study provided estimates for non-overlapping study populations at distinct timepoints following a bivalent dose, all estimates were included in the pooled vaccine effectiveness estimate. 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 September 12, 2023.
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 for all age groups were prevention of medically attended COVID-19 (emergency department [ED]/urgent care [UC] visits) and prevention of hospitalization due to COVID-19 (Table 2). Other important benefits included prevention of death due to COVID-19 and prevention of post-COVID conditions. For infants and children, the important benefit of the prevention of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) was also included. The critical harm of interest was specified serious adverse events (SAEs), (i.e., myocarditis/pericarditis and anaphylaxis) reactogenicity grade ≥3 was deemed an important harm.
After screening 255 publications, 217 were excluded from full-text review because they were in a different population (e.g., a different country or study period, n=204), or a different outcome (e.g., symptomatic COVID-19, n=13). Of the 38 publications that were deemed eligible for full-text review, 17 were excluded because the study period or design did not meet the inclusion criteria upon full-text review. The remaining 21 publications, which reported data on 19 studies or surveillance systems, were included in the evidence synthesis and GRADE evidence assessment (Appendix 1). Data were reviewed from 12 RCT publications, 6 vaccine effectiveness studies, and 3 vaccine safety studies from a single surveillance system, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). For benefits, insufficient data was captured in the systematic review to conduct an evidence synthesis for infants and children. Benefits were indirectly inferred from adolescent and adult data.
Two observational vaccine effectiveness studies reported data on medically attended COVID-19 (ED/UC visits) (Table 3a), six reported data on hospitalization due to COVID-19 (Table 3b), two reported data on death due to COVID-19 (Table 3c), and no studies reported data on prevention of post-COVID-conditions or MIS-C. The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimates from the observational studies demonstrated that the updated COVID-19 vaccine reduced medically attended COVID-19 (ED/UC visits) (pooled vaccine effectiveness: 53%, 95% CI: 50–56%; based on 2 studies) [16, 18]. The pooled vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 48% (95% CI: 30–61%), based on 8 estimates from 4 studies [17, 18, 20, 21] (2 studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to overlapping populations). The pooled vaccine effectiveness for prevention of death due to COVID-19 was 61% (95% CI: 41–74%), based on 2 studies [18, 20].
Observational data on serious adverse events were reviewed. An analysis from VSD evaluated chart-reviewed cases of myocarditis and pericarditis occurring in a 0–7-day risk interval among persons aged 5–39 years following a booster dose of the original monovalent vaccine and a booster dose of the bivalent vaccine (Table 3d) [23, 24]. The rate of myocarditis and pericarditis per million doses varied by age group, gender, vaccine, and dose. For adolescents and adults, the highest rate of myocarditis and pericarditis was observed among males ages 16 – 17 years receiving the original monovalent Pfizer booster dose (188.0 [95% CI: 86.0–356.9]). The highest rate following a bivalent booster dose was observed among males 30 – 39 years receiving the Moderna vaccine (23.9 [95% CI: 0.6–133.2]), however due to low uptake of the bivalent booster, rates of myocarditis and pericarditis should be interpreted with caution. For children ages 5 – 11 years, there were no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis observed. An analysis of data from VSD evaluated chart-reviewed cases of anaphylaxis among all vaccinated persons aged ≥12 years following either dose of the original monovalent primary series. Based on events occurring in a 0–1-day risk interval after vaccination, the estimated incidence of confirmed anaphylaxis was 5.1 (95% CI: 3.3–7.4) per million doses of Moderna and 4.8 (95% CI: 3.2–6.9) per million doses of Pfizer [22]. Six randomized controlled trials among adolescents and adults [2-9] and 4 among infants and children [10-15] reported on grade ≥3 systemic or local reactions following either dose of a primary series of the original monovalent vaccine. Grade ≥3 reactions occurred more frequently in the vaccine than placebo groups in both age groups (Table 3e).
GRADE Summary
The initial GRADE evidence level was high for RCTs and low for the observational data. In terms of benefits, the observational data among adolescents and adults indicated that the vaccine reduces the risk of medically attended COVID-19 (ED/UC visits), and no serious concerns impacting certainty were identified for this outcome (low certainty). Observational data among adolescents and adults for hospitalization due to COVID-19 indicated a similar risk reduction with vaccination, and there were no serious concerns in the certainty assessment (low certainty). The observational data among adolescents and adults indicated a reduction in risk of death due to COVID-19 and was downgraded once for serious concern of inconsistency (very low certainty). Among infants and children, the findings for all three benefits were the same, however all were downgraded for serious concern for indirectness and the certainty assessment was very low.
Observational data on specified serious adverse events (i.e., myocarditis/pericarditis and anaphylaxis) demonstrated these events were rare and there were no serious concerns in the certainty assessment for adolescents and adults (low certainty), however there were serious concerns due to indirectness in the certainty assessment for infants and children (very low certainty). There were very serious concerns for indirectness due to differences in intervention and population that reduced the certainty of estimates of reactogenicity from RCTs (low certainty) in both age groups.
The summary of evidence types is shown in Tables 5a and 5b. The final certainty assessments for adults and adolescents were low for prevention of medically attended COVID-19, low for prevention of hospitalization due to COVID-19, very low for prevention of death due to COVID-19, low for specified serious adverse events, and low for reactogenicity. The final certainty assessments for infants and children were very low for prevention of medically attended COVID-19, prevention of hospitalization due to COVID-19, and prevention of death due to COVID-19, very low for specified serious adverse events, and low for reactogenicity.
References
Ahmed, F., et al., *Methods for developing evidence-based recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).* Vaccine, 2011. **29**(49): p. 9171-6.
Anderson, E.J., et al., *Safety and Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Older Adults.* N Engl J Med, 2020. **383**(25): p. 2427-2438.
Jackson, L.A., et al., *An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 – Preliminary Report.* N Engl J Med, 2020. **383**(20): p. 1920-1931.
Chu, L., et al., *A preliminary report of a randomized controlled phase 2 trial of the safety and immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.* Vaccine, 2021. **39**(20): p. 2791-2799.
Baden, L.R., et al., *Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine.* N Engl J Med, 2021. **384**(5): p. 403-416.
El Sahly, H.M., et al., *Efficacy of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine at Completion of Blinded Phase.* N Engl J Med, 2021. **385**(19): p. 1774-1785.
Walsh, E.E., et al., *Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates.* New England Journal of Medicine, 2020. **383**(25): p. 2439-2450.
Polack, F.P., et al., *Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine.* New England Journal of Medicine, 2020. **383**(27): p. 2603-2615.
Thomas, S.J., et al., *Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine.* medRxiv, 2021: p. 2021.07.28.21261159.
Moderna, *Personal Communication, June 2021-May 2022*. 2021.
Moderna, *Personal Communication, March 22-May 26, 2022*. 2022.
Moderna, *Personal Communication, March 22-June 3, 2022*. 2022.
Pfizer-BioNTech, *Personal Communication, March 22-June 8, 2022*. 2022.
Woodworth, K.R., et al., *The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Interim Recommendation for Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in Children Aged 5-11 Years – United States, November 2021.* MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2021. **70**(45): p. 1579-1583.
Oliver, S.E., et al., *The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Interim Recommendation for Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine – United States, December 2020.* MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2020. **69**(50): p. 1922-1924.
Tenforde, M.W., et al., *Early Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Emergency Department or Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Immunocompetent Adults – VISION Network, Nine States, September-November 2022.* MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2023. **71**(53): p. 1637-1646.
Surie, D., et al., *Early Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent Adults Aged ≥65 Years – IVY Network, 18 States, September 8-November 30, 2022.* MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2022. **71**(5152): p. 1625-1630.
Tseng, H.F., et al., *Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 bivalent (Original and Omicron BA.4/BA.5) COVID-19 vaccine in preventing hospitalizations for COVID-19, medically attended SARS-CoV-2 infections, and hospital death in the United States.* medRxiv, 2023: p. 2023.05.25.23290456.
Lin, D.-Y., et al., *Effectiveness of Bivalent Boosters against Severe Omicron Infection.* New England Journal of Medicine, 2023. **388**(8): p. 764-766.
Lin, D.-Y., et al., *Durability of Bivalent Boosters against Omicron Subvariants.* New England Journal of Medicine, 2023. **388**(19): p. 1818-1820.
Link-Gelles, R., et al., *Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Durability in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization and Critical Illness Among Adults with and Without Immunocompromising Conditions – VISION Network, September 2022-April 2023.* MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2023. **72**(21): p. 579-588.
Klein, N.P., et al., *Surveillance for Adverse Events After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination.* Jama, 2021. **326**(14): p. 1390-1399.
Klein, N.P., Goddard, K, *COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Surveillance Summary from VSD RCA.* 2023.
Goddard, K., Hanson, K., Lewis, N., Weintraub, E., Fireman, B., Klein, N.P., *Incidence of Myocarditis/Pericarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Among Children and Younger Adults in the United States.* Annals of Internal Medicine, 2022. **175**(12): p. 1169-1771.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, *September 11, 2023 Approval Letter – Spikevax.* 2023.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, *September 11, 2023 Approval Letter – Comirnaty.* 2023.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, *Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization.* 2023.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, *Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization.* 2023.
International Vaccine Access Center (IVAC). *VIEW-hub*. 2023.Table 1: Policy Question and PICO
Table 1a: Policy Question and PICO for Adolescents and Adults
Table 1: Policy Questions and PICO
**Policy question**
Should vaccination with an updated COVID-19 vaccine (2023-2024 Formulation, monovalent with XBB.1.5 component) be recommended for adolescents and adults aged ≥12 years?Population
Adolescents and adults aged ≥12 yearsIntervention
Updated COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., bivalent with ancestral and BA.4/5 components)Comparison
No updated vaccineOutcomes
Medically attended COVID-19 (emergency department/urgent care visits)
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Death due to COVID-19
Post-COVID Conditions
Specified serious adverse events (myocarditis/pericarditis and anaphylaxis)
Reactogenicity (grade ≥3)**Abbreviations**: PICO: population, intervention, comparison, outcomes.Table 1b: Policy Question and PICO for Infants and Children
Table 1: Policy Questions and PICO
**Policy question**
Should vaccination with an updated COVID-19 vaccine (2023-2024 Formulation, monovalent with XBB.1.5 component) be recommended for infants and children aged 6 months – 11 years?Population
Infants and children aged 6 months – 11 yearsIntervention
Updated COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., bivalent with ancestral and BA.4/5 components)Comparison
No updated vaccineOutcomes
Medically attended COVID-19 (emergency department/urgent care visits)
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Death due to COVID-19
Post-COVID Conditions
MIS-C
Specified serious adverse events (myocarditis/pericarditis and anaphylaxis)
Reactogenicity (grade ≥3)**Abbreviations**: PICO: population, intervention, comparison, outcomes.Table 2: Outcomes and Rankings
Table 2a: Outcomes and Rankings for Adolescents and Adults
Table 2a: Outcomes and Rankings for Adolescents and Adults
Outcome
Importancea
Included in evidence profileMedically attended COVID-19 (emergency department/urgent care visits)
Critical
YesHospitalization due to COVID-19
Critical
YesDeath due to COVID-19
Important
YesPost-COVID Conditions
Important
NoSpecified serious adverse events (myocarditis/pericarditis and anaphylaxis)
Critical
YesReactogenicity (grade ≥3)
Important
YesaThree options: 1. Critical; 2. Important but not critical; 3. Not important for decision makingTable 2b: Outcomes and Rankings for Infants and Children
Table 2b: Outcomes and Rankings for Infants and Children
Outcome
Importancea
Included in evidence profileMedically attended COVID-19 (emergency department/urgent care visits)
Critical
YesHospitalization due to COVID-19
Critical
YesDeath due to COVID-19
Important
YesPost-COVID Conditions
Important
NoMIS-C
Important
NoSpecified serious adverse events (myocarditis/pericarditis and anaphylaxis)
Critical
YesReactogenicity (grade ≥3)
Important
YesaThree options: 1. Critical; 2. Important but not critical; 3. Not important for decision makingTable 3a: Summary of Studies Reporting Medically Attended COVID-19 (Emergency Department/Urgent Care Visits)
Table 3a: Summary of Studies Reporting Medically Attended COVID-19 (Emergency Department/Urgent Care Visits)
Authors last name, pub year
Design, study population
No. of patients vaccinated or No. of cases
No. of patients unvaccinated or No. of controls
Days after bivalent booster
Comparator
Vaccine Effectiveness (95% CI)
Study limitations (Risk of Bias)Tseng, 2023a [18]
Observational (retrospective cohort-matched); General population ≥6 years immunocompetent & immunocompromised; United States
855 cases/290,292 vaccinated
2,083 cases/580,584 unvaccinated
≥14 days
≥ 2 doses, monovalent
55 (51 – 59)
Not seriousTenforde, 2022b [16]
Observational (test-negative design); General population ≥18 years immunocompetent; United States
338 vaccinated/4,697 cases
2738 vaccinated/23,099 controls
≥7 days
≥ 2 doses, monovalent
50 (44 – 56)
Not serious
aPre-print article
bErrata published on March 17, 2023.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
Days after bivalent booster
Comparator
Vaccine Efficacy/Effectiveness, % (95% CI)
Study limitations (Risk of Bias)Lin, 2023a [19]
Observational (retrospective cohort); General population ≥12 years immunocompetent & immunocompromised; United States
57 cases/1,070,136 vaccinated
954 cases/5,213,347 unvaccinated
≥14 days
≥ 2 doses, monovalent
59 (44 – 70)
Not seriousLin, 2023 [20]
Observational (retrospective cohort); General population ≥12 years immunocompetent & immunocompromised; United States
379 cases/1,279,802 vaccinated
1,829 cases/5,026,509 unvaccinated
≥14 days
≥ 2 doses, monovalent
40 (26 – 51)
Not seriousTseng, 2023b[18]
Observational (retrospective cohort-matched); General population ≥6 years immunocompetent & immunocompromised; United States
160 cases/290,292 vaccinated
646 cases/580,584 unvaccinated
≥14 days
≥ 2 doses, monovalent
70 (64 – 75)
Not seriousSurie, 2023c [17]
Observational (test negative design); General population ≥65 years immunocompetent; United States
61 vaccinated/844 cases
175 vaccinated/1,059 controls
7 – 59 days
≥2 doses, monovalent
60 (45 – 71)
Not serious105 vaccinated/888 cases
183 vaccinated /1,067 controls
60 – 119 days
35 (14 – 51)73 vaccinated /856 cases
92 vaccinated /976 controls
120 – 179 days
17 (-21 – 42)Tenforde, 2022 a, d [16]
Observational (test-negative design); General population ≥18 years immunocompetent; United States
54 vaccinated /884 cases
444 vaccinated /4549 controls
≥7 days
≥ 2 doses, monovalent
48 (30 – 62)
Not seriousLink-Gelles, 2023e[21]
Observational (test-negative design); General population ≥18 years immunocompetent; United States
327 vaccinated/4857 cases
1791 vaccinated /15514 controls
7 – 59 days
Unvaccinated
62 (57 – 67)
Not serious486 vaccinated /5191 cases
60 – 119 days
47 (41 – 53)315 vaccinated/3310 cases
120 – 179 days
24 (12 – 33)
aVaccine effectiveness estimates were not included in the pooled analysis used for GRADE due to overlapping population with another study.
bPreprint article
cUpdated analysis presented to ACIP on April 19, 2023: “COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Updates”.
dErrata published on March 17, 2023.
e Study included vaccine effectiveness estimates for immunocompromised patients that were not included in the pooled analysis.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 or No. of cases
No. of patients unvaccinated or No. of controls
Days after bivalent booster
Comparator
Vaccine Efficacy/Effectiveness, % (95% CI)
Study limitations (Risk of Bias)Tseng, 2023a[18]
Observational (retrospective cohort-matched); General population ≥6 years immunocompetent & immunocompromised; United States
10 cases/290,292 vaccinated
59 cases/580,584 unvaccinated
≥14 days
≥ 2 doses, monovalent
82 (63 – 91)
Not seriousLin, 2023 [20]
Observational (retrospective cohort); General population ≥12 years immunocompetent & immunocompromised; United States
79 cases/1,279,802 vaccinated
788 cases/5,026,509 unvaccinated
≥14 days
≥ 2 doses, monovalent
44 (9 – 65)
Not serious
a Preprint articleTable 3d: Summary of Studies Reporting Specified Serious Adverse Events (anaphylaxis and myocarditis/pericarditis)
Table 3d: Summary of Studies Reporting Specified Serious Adverse Events (anaphylaxis and myocarditis/pericarditis)
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)Klein (Anaphylaxis) [22]
Age ≥12 years
Rate per million following a first or second dose of an original monovalent primary series in a 0 – 1 day risk interval:
Pfizer: 4.8 (95% CI 3.2 – 6.9)
Moderna: 5.1 (95% CI: 3.3 – 7.4)
–
–
–
Not seriousGoddard, Kleina [23, 24] (Myocarditis/pericarditis)b
5–39 years
Rate per million following an original monovalent booster and a bivalent booster series in a 0 – 7 day risk interval are in Appendix 3
–
–
–
Not serious
aRates of myocarditis and pericarditis following an original monovalent booster were published by Goddard et al in 2022. This analysis was updated in May 2023 and rates following a bivalent booster were presented at the September 12, 2023 ACIP meeting.Table 3e: Summary of Studies Reporting Reactogenicitya
Table 3e: 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)Anderson, 2020 [2]b
Phase I open label study, persons aged >55 years
1/20 (5.0)
–
–
–
cJackson, 2020 [3] b
Phase I open label study, persons aged 18-55 years
1/15 (6.7)
–
–
–
cChu, 2021 [4] b
Phase II RCT, persons aged ≥18 years
32/200 (16.0)
6/200 (3.0)
Placebo
5.3 (2.3, 12.5)
Not seriousBaden 2020, El Sahly 2021 [5, 6] b
Phase III RCT, persons aged ≥18 years
3,243/15,179 (21.4)
679/15,159 (4.5)
Placebo
5.0 (4.7, 5.5)
Not seriousModerna, 2021 [10]
Phase II/III RCT, persons aged 12-17 years
629/2485 (25.3)
60/1240 (4.8)
Placebo
5.2 (4.1, 6.8)
Not seriousWalsh 2020 [7] b
Phase I RCT, persons aged ≥ 16 years
3/24 (8.3)
0/6 (0)
Placebo
2.0 (0.1, 33.6)
Not seriousPolack, 2020
Thomas 2021 [8, 9] b
Phase II/III RCT, persons aged ≥ 16 years
520/4,924 (10.6)
111/4,915 (2.3)
Placebo
4.7(3.8, 5.7)
Not seriousPfizer, 2021 [15]
Phase II/III RCT, persons aged 12-15 years
121/1,131 (10.7)
22/1,129 (1.9)
Placebo
5.5 (3.5, 8.6)
Not seriousModerna, 2022 [11]
Phase II/III RCT, persons aged 6-11 years
514/3,006 (17.1)
33/994 (3.3%)
Placebo
5.2 (3.6, 7.3)
Not seriousModerna, 2022 [12]
Phase II/III RCT, persons aged 6 months-5 years
366/4,774 (7.7)
65/1,582 (4.1)
Placebo
1.9 (1.4, 2.4)
Not SeriousPfizer, 2021 [14]
Phase II/III RCT, persons aged 5-11 years
41/1,517 (2.7)
8/750 (1.1)
Placebo
2.5 (1.2, 5.4)
Not seriousPfizer, 2022 [13]
Phase II/III RCT, persons aged 6 months-4 years
129/3,010 (4.3)
54/1,510 (3.6)
Placebo
1.2 (0.9, 1.6)
Not serious
aReactogenicity outcome includes local and systemic events, grade ≥3. Grade 3: prevents daily routine activity or requires use of a pain reliever. Grade 4: requires emergency room visit or hospitalization.
bAdditional data provided by sponsor.
cRisk of bias was not formally assessed for these small studies with no comparator; these were not included in the quantitative estimate used for GRADE.Table 4: Grade Summary of Findings Table
Table 4a: Grade Summary of Findings Table: Adolescents and Adults (Ages ≥12)
Table 4a: Grade Summary of Findings Table: Adolescents and Adults (Ages ≥12)
No of studies
Study design
Risk of bias
Inconsistency
Indirectness
Imprecision
Other considerations
**No of patients Intervention**
No of patients Comparison
Effect Relative (95% CI)
Effect Absolute (95% CI)
Certainty
ImportanceMedically attended COVID-19 (emergency department/urgent care visit)2
Observational studiesa,b
not seriousc
not serious
not serious
not serious
none
338/4,697 cases; 2,738/23,099 controls
855/290,292 exposed; 2,083/580,584 unexposeda,b
**RR 0.5**
(0.4 to 0.5)d
**186 fewer per 100,000**
(from 196 fewer to 175 fewer)e
Low
CriticalHospitalization due to COVID-194f
Observational studiesa,b
not seriousc
not seriousg
not serioush
not serious
none
1,367/15,946 cases; 12,241/18,616 controls
557/1,570,094 exposed;
2,475/5,607,093 unexposeda,b,i
**RR 0.5**(0.4 to 0.7)j
**53 fewer per 100,000**(from 67 fewer to 33 fewer)e
Low
CriticalDeath due to COVID-192
Observational studiesa,b
not seriousc
seriousk
not serious
not serious
none
89/1,570,094 exposed
847/5,607,098 unexposeda,b,i
**RR 0.4**(0.3 to 0.6)d
**6 fewer per 100,000**(from 8 fewer to 4 fewer)e
Very Low
ImportantSerious adverse events2
Observational study
not serious
not serious
not seriousl
not serious
none
Footnote:m,n
Low
CriticalReactogenicity, grade >=310o
Randomized controlled trial
not serious
not serious
very seriousp
not serious
none
4,556/23,943 (19.0%)
878/22,649 (3.9%)
**RR 4.8** (4.5 to 5.2)
**14,847 more per 100,000** (from 13,568 more to 16,204 more)q
Low
Important**CI:** Confidence interval; **RR:** Risk ratio
*Explanations*
The body of evidence includes preprints.
The body of evidence includes a manufacturer-funded study.
One study contained data only for Moderna mRNA COVID vaccine. This was deemed unlikely to lead to a substantial risk of bias in the magnitude of effect.
Pooled RR based on a fixed effects meta-analysis, using adjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates on a log scale.A 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 among a single observational cohort in the available body of evidence. Absolute risk estimates should be interpreted in this context.
Six studies were available in the body of evidence. Two were excluded because the study population was already represented.
Although I2 value was high (92.6%), no serious concern for inconsistency was present because all studies showed consistent magnitudes of effect at similar time points post bivalent dose.
Measurement of outcomes differed by study (COVID-19 was not necessarily confirmed as the cause of hospitalizations), but this was deemed not serious.
The denominator from one cohort study was based on census population estimates.
Pooled RR based on a random effects meta-analysis, using adjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates on a log scale.
Serious concern for inconsistency was present. The magnitude of effect and 95% CIs from the two studies in the body of evidence varied widely, possibly reflecting differences in study methods.
Indirectness was noted for anaphylaxis as rates were from the primary series. Primary series rates of anaphylaxis are likely an overestimate of the rate in the current phase of COVID-19 after an updated vaccine, and this was deemed not serious.
An analysis from Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) evaluated chart-reviewed cases of myocarditis occurring among persons aged 12 – 39 years following a monovalent booster dose and a bivalent dose. Based on events occurring in a 7-day risk interval after vaccination vs. a comparison interval in vaccinated individuals. Among adolescents aged 12 – 17 years who received a bivalent booster dose of Pfizer-BioNTech, there were 0 cases of myocarditis among 55,549 males and 0 cases among 57,776 females (rate per million doses in men was 0 [95% CI: 0 – 5] and women was 0 [95% CI: 0 – 52]). Among adults aged 18 – 49 years there were 2 myocarditis cases in 221,576 males, and 0 in 319,676 females. Among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients, rates per million doses were: 17 (95% CI: 1 – 92) in males ages 18 – 29 years; 0 (95% CI: 0 – 32) in females ages 18 – 29 years; 0 (95% CI: 0–31) in males ages 30 – 39 years and 0 (95% CI: 0 – 23) in females ages 30 – 39 years. Among Moderna recipients, rates per million doses were: 0 (95% CI: 0 – 135) in males ages 18 – 29 years; 0 (95% CI: 0–85) in females ages 18 – 29 years; 24 (95% CI: 1 – 133) in males ages 30 – 39 years and 0 (95% CI: 0–54) in females ages 30 – 39 years. Among adolescents ages 12 – 15 years who received a monovalent booster dose of Pfizer-BioNTech, there were 5 cases of myocarditis among 81,613 males and 0 cases among 84,114 females (rate per million doses in males was 61 [95% CI: 20 – 143] and in females was 0 [95% CI: 0 – 36]). Among adolescents ages 16 – 17 years, there were 9 cases of myocarditis among 47,874 males and 2 cases among 55,004 females (rate per million doses in males was 188 [95% CI: 86 – 357] and in females was 36 [95% CI: 4 – 131]). Among adults ages 18 – 29 years, there were 7 cases of myocarditis among 166,973 males and 1 case among 240,226 females (rate per million doses in males was 42 [95% CI: 17 – 86] and in females was 4 [95% CI: 0 – 23]).  Among adults ages 30 – 39 years, there were 3 cases of myocarditis among 197,554 males and 1 case among 268,412 females (rate per million doses in males was 15 [95% CI: 3 – 44] and in females was 4 [95% CI: 0 – 23]).  Among adults ages 18 – 29 years who received a monovalent booster dose of Moderna, there were 7 cases of myocarditis among 109,337 males and 1 case among 156,707 females (rate per million doses in males was 64 [95% CI: 26 – 132] and in females was 6 [95% CI: 0 – 36]). Among adults ages 30 – 39 years, there was 1 case of myocarditis among 149,468 males and 2 cases among 191,765 females (rate per million doses in males was 7 [95% CI: 0 – 37] and in females was 10 [95% CI: 1 – 38).
An 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 among adolescents and adults was 4.8 (95% CI: 3.2 – 6.9) per million doses of BNT162B2 and 5.1 (95% CI: 3.3 – 7.4) per million doses of mRNA-1273. There were fewer cases of anaphylaxis post dose 2 compared with dose 1.
Twelve studies were available for the body of evidence. Two small Phase I observational studies with no comparison group were not included in the GRADE analysis.
Very serious concern for indirectness was present. The available body of evidence did not include anyone who received an updated dose and excluded persons with prior COVID-19 infection, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and persons who were immunocompromised.
Absolute risk was calculated using the observed outcomes in the placebo arm during the available clinical trial follow-up. Absolute risk estimates should be interpreted in this context.Table 4b: Grade Summary of Findings Table: Infants and Children Ages 6 Months to 11
Table 4b: Grade Summary of Findings Table: Infants and Children Ages 6 Months to 11
No of studies
Study design
Risk of bias
Inconsistency
Indirectness
Imprecision
Other considerations
No of patients Intervention
No of patients Comparison
Effect Relative
(95% CI)
Effect Absolute
(95% CI)
Certainty
ImportanceMedically attended COVID-19 (ED/UC visits)2
Observational studiesa,b
not seriousc
not serious
seriousd
not serious
none
338/4,697 cases; 2,738/23,099 controls
855/290,292 exposed 2,083/580,584 unexposeda,b
**RR 0.5**
(0.4 to 0.5)e
**186 fewer per 100,000**
(from 196 fewer to 175 fewer)f
Very Low
CriticalHospitalization due to COVID-194g
Observational studiesa,b
not seriousc
not serioush
seriousi
not serious
none
1,367/15,946 cases; 12,241/18,616 controls
557/1,570,094 exposed;
2,475/5,607,093 unexposeda,b,j
**RR 0.5**(0.4 to 0.7)k
**53 fewer per 100,000**(from 67 fewer to 33 fewer)f
Very Low
CriticalDeath due to COVID-192
Observational studiesa,b
not seriousc
seriousl
seriousd
not serious
none
89/1,570,094 exposed; 847/5,607,098 unexposeda,b,j
**RR 0.4**(0.3 to 0.6)e
**6 fewer per 100,000**(from 8 fewer to 4 fewer)f
Very Low
ImportantSpecified serious adverse events (anaphylaxis and myocarditis/pericarditis)1
Observational studies
not serious
not serious
seriousm
not serious
none
Footnoten,o
Very Low
Critical**Reactogenicity, grade ≥3**2
Randomized controlled trial
not serious
not serious
very seriousp,q
not serious
None
555/4,523 (12.3%)
41/1,744 (2.4%)
RR 4.7k (3.4 to 6.4)
8,675 more per 100,000 (from 5,713 more to 12,718 more)r
Low
Important
**CI:** Confidence interval; **RR:** Risk ratio
*Explanations*
The body of evidence includes preprints.
The body of evidence includes a manufacturer-funded study.
One study contained data only for Moderna mRNA COVID vaccine. This was deemed unlikely to lead to a substantial risk of bias in the magnitude of effect.
Serious concern for indirectness was present. The vast majority of the body of evidence contained data from adolescents and adults.
Pooled RR based on a fixed effects meta-analysis, using adjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates on a log scale. A 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 among a single observational cohort in the available body of evidence. Absolute risk estimates should be interpreted in this context.
Six studies were available in the body of evidence. Two were excluded because the study population was already represented.
Although I2 value was high (92.6%), no serious concern for inconsistency was present because all studies showed consistent magnitudes of effect at similar time points post bivalent dose.
Serious concern for indirectness was present. The vast majority of the body of evidence contained data from adolescents and adults. Measurement of outcomes differed by study (COVID-19 was not necessarily confirmed as the cause of hospitalizations), but this was deemed not serious.
The denominator from one cohort study was based on census population estimates.
Pooled RR based on a random effects meta-analysis, using adjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates on a log scale.
Serious concern for imprecision was present. The magnitude of effect and 95% CIs from the two studies in the body of evidence varied widely, possibly reflecting differences in study methods.
Serious concern for indirectness was present, as the body of evidence for myocarditis was only among children aged 5 – 11 receiving a monovalent booster and the body of evidence for anaphylaxis was among adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older receiving a primary series.
An analysis from Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) evaluated chart-reviewed cases of myocarditis occurring among children aged 5 – 11 years following a bivalent dose. Based on events occurring in a 7-day risk interval after vaccination vs. a comparison interval in vaccinated individuals, among children aged 5 – 11 years who received an updated dose of Pfizer-BioNTech, there were 0 cases of myocarditis among 50,415 males and 0 cases among 49,261 females (rate per million doses in men was 0 [95% CI: 0 – 59.4] and women was 0 [95% CI: 0-60.8])
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 among adolescents and adults 4.8 (95% CI: 3.2 – 6.9) per million doses of Pfizer and 5.1 (95% CI: 3.3 – 7.4) per million doses of Moderna. There were fewer cases of anaphylaxis post dose 2 compared with dose 1.
Very serious concern for indirectness was present. The available body of evidence did not include anyone who received an updated dose and excluded children who were immunocompromised. While children with a history of COVID-19 infection were included in the safety sets, the RCTs were conducted at a time of low seroprevalence.
Estimates only includes ages children ages 4/5 – 11 years due to differences in events and measurement of reactogenicity among children 6 months – 4/5 years. Among children 6 months – 4/5 years pooled reactogenicity was 1.58 (95% CI: 1.30 – 1.93).
Absolute risk was calculated using the observed outcomes in the placebo arm during the available clinical trial follow-up. Absolute risk estimates should be interpreted in this context.Table 5. Summary of Evidence for Outcomes of Interest
Summary of Evidence for Outcomes of Interest– Adolescents and Adults (12 years and older)
Summary of Evidence for Outcomes of Interest– Adolescents and Adults (12 years and older)
Outcome
Importance
Included in profile
CertaintyMedically attended COVID-19 (emergency department/urgent care visit)
Critical
Yes
LowHospitalization due to COVID-19
Critical
Yes
LowDeath due to COVID-19
Important
Yes
Very LowPost COVID Conditions
Important
–
–Specified serious adverse events (myocarditis and anaphylaxis)
Critical
Yes
LowReactogenicity (≥ grade 3)
Important
Yes
Low
Summary of Evidence for Outcomes of Interest – Infants and Children (6 months – 11 years)
Summary of Evidence for Outcomes of Interest – Infants and Children (6 months – 11 years)
Outcome
Importance
Included in profile
CertaintyMedically attended COVID-19 (emergency department/urgent care visit)
Critical
Yes
Very lowHospitalization due to COVID-19
Critical
Yes
Very lowDeath due to COVID-19
Important
Yes
Very LowPost COVID Conditions
Important
–
–MIS-C
Important
–
–Specified serious adverse events (myocarditis and anaphylaxis)
Critical
Yes
Very lowReactogenicity (≥ grade 3)
Important
Yes
LowAppendices
Appendix 1. Studies Included in the Review of Evidence
Appendix 1. Studies Included in the Review of Evidence
Last name first author, Publication year
Study design
Age group
Total population
N Intervention
N comparison
Outcomes
Funding sourceAnderson, 2020 [2]
Phase I open label study
>55 years
40
20
0
Reactogenicity
Government and Industry fundedJackson, 2020a [3]
Phase I open label study
18-55 years
45
15
0
Reactogenicity
Government and Industry fundedChu, 2021a [4]
Phase II RCT
≥18 years
600
200
200
Reactogenicity
Industry fundedBaden 2020, El Sahly 2021a,b [5, 6]
Phase III RCT
≥18 years
30,415
14,287
14,164
Reactogenicity
Industry fundedWalsh, 2020 [7]
Phase I RCT
18-55, 65-85 years
195
12
3
Reactogenicity
Industry fundedPolack 2020; Thomas, 2021a; [8, 9]b
Phase II/III RCT
≥16 years
43,548
19,711
19,741
Reactogenicity
Industry fundedModerna, 2021 [10]
Phase II/III RCT
Persons aged 12-17 years
3725
2486
1240
Reactogenicity
Industry fundedPfizer, 2021 [15]
Phase II/III RCT
Persons aged 12-15 years
2260
1131
1129
Reactogenicity
Industry fundedModerna, 2022 [11]
Phase II/III RCT
Persons aged 6–11 years
4002
3007
995
Reactogenicity
Industry fundedModerna, 2022 [12]
Phase II/III RCT
Persons aged 6 months-5 years
6,388
4,791
1,597
Reactogenicity
Industry fundedPfizer, 2021 [14]
Phase II/III RCT
Children aged 5─11 years
4,647
3,109
1,538
Reactogenicity
Industry fundedPfizer, 2022 [13]
Phase II/III RCT
Persons aged 6 months-4 years
4,526
3,013
1,513
Reactogenicity
Industry fundedObservational Retrospective Cohort Studies
Observational Retrospective Cohort Studies
Last name first author, Publication year
Study design
Age group
Total population
N Intervention
N comparison
Outcomes
Funding sourceLin, 2023 [19]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort)
≥12 years
6,283,483
1,070,136
5,213,347
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Government fundingLin, 2023 [20]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort)
≥12 years
6,306,311
1,279,802
5,026,509
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Death due to COVID-19
Government fundingTseng, 2023a [18]
Observational (Retrospective Cohort-matched)
≥6 years
870,876
290,292
580,584
Medically attended COVID-19 (ED/UC)
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Death due to COVID-19
Industry funding
Observational Case-Control Studies
Observational Case-Control Studies
Last name
first author, Publication year
Study design
Age, central tendency or range
Total populationd
N
casesd
N
controlsd
Outcomes
Funding sourceSurie, 2023b [17]
Observational
(Test-Negative Case Control)
≥18 years
5,690
2,588
3,102
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Government fundingLink-Gelles, 2022 [21]
Observational
(Test-Negative Case Control)
≥18 years
28,872
13,358
15,514
Hospitalization due to COVID-19
Government fundingTenforde, 2022c [16]
Observational
(Test-Negative Case Control)
≥18 years
27,796
4,697
23,099
Medically attended COVID-19 (ED/UC)
Government fundingSafety Surveillance
Safety Surveillance
Name of system
Study design
Age group
Total population
N
vaccinated
N
unvaccinated
Outcomes
Funding sourceVaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) [22-24]
Cohort
≥12 years (anaphylaxis);
5–39 years (myocarditis)



Serious Adverse Events
Government fundingaPre-printbUpdated analysis from April 19, 2023 ACIP meeting “COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Updates”.cErrata published on March 17, 2023dTotal population, cases, and controls reflect the population used in the meta-analysis.Appendix 2. Databases and strategies used for systematic review
Appendix 2. Databases and strategies used for systematic review
Database
Strategy**clinicaltrials.gov**
**Inclusion**:
Relevant Phase I, II, II/III, or III randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 vaccine
Involved human subjects
Reported primary data
Included data on reactogenicity**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 vaccine
Vaccine effectiveness estimates include confidence intervals if possible**Additional criteria for GRADE review:**
Restricted to PICO-defined population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes
Studies set in the United States
Majority of study period between September 2, 2022 and April 19, 2023
Vaccines with updated formulation (i.e., bivalent)
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 ACIPAppendix 3. Myocarditis and pericarditis rates 0 to 7 Days after mRNA COVID-19 monovalent and bivalent boosters among persons aged ≥5 years by age group, sex, and product
Appendix 3. Myocarditis and pericarditis rates 0 to 7 Days after mRNA COVID-19 monovalent and bivalent boosters among persons aged ≥5 years by age group, sex, and product
Monovalent Booster Dose
Bivalent Booster DoseAge group (years)
Cases/Doses Administered
Incidence Rate/Million Doses (95% CI)
Cases/Doses Administered
Incidence Rate/Million Doses (95% CI)PfizerMale5 – 11
0/50415
0.0 (0.0-59.4)
–
–12 – 17
–
–
0/55,649
0.0 (0.0 – 53.8)12 – 15
5/81,613
61.3 (19.9 – 143.0)
–
–16 – 17
9/47,874
188.0 (86.0 – 356.9)
–
–18 – 29
7/166,973
41.9 (16.9 – 86.4)
1/60,338
16.6 (0.4 – 92.3)30 – 39
3/197,554
15.2 (3.1 – 44.4)
0/97,171
0.0 (0.0 – 30.8)Female5 – 11
0/49,261
0.0 (0.0-60.8)
–
–12 – 17
–
–
0/57,776
0.0 (0.0 – 51.9)12 – 15
0/84,114
0.0 (0.0 – 35.6)
–
–16 – 17
2/55,004
36.4 (4.4 – 131.3)
–
–18 – 29
1/240,226
4.2 (0.1 – 23.2)
0/95,162
0.0 (0.0 – 31.5)30 – 39
1/268,412
3.7 (0.1 – 20.8)
0/133,305
0.0 (0.0 – 22.5)ModernaMale18 – 29
7/109,337
64.0 (25.7 – 131.9)
0/22,247
0.0 (0.0 – 134.7)30 – 39
1/149,468
6.7 (0.2 – 37.3)
1/41,820
23.9 (0.6 – 133.2)Female18 – 29
1/156,707
6.4 (0.2 – 35.6)
0/35,393
0.0 (0.0 – 84.6)30 – 39
2/191,765
10.4 (1.3 – 37.7)
0/55,816
0.0 (0.0 – 53.7)Top of Page
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  September 27, 2023						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