Comparison of the Test-negative Design and Cohort Design With Explicit Target Trial Emulation for Evaluating COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are used for estimating vaccine effectiveness under real-world conditions. The practical performance of two common approaches-cohort and test-negative designs-need to be compared for COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We compared the cohort and test-negative designs to estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 outcomes using nationwide data from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Specifically, we (1) explicitly emulated a target trial using follow-up data and evaluated the potential for confounding using negative controls and benchmarking to a randomized trial, (2) performed case-control sampling of the cohort to confirm empirically that the same estimate is obtained, (3) further restricted the sampling to person-days with a test, and (4) implemented additional features of a test-negative design. We also compared their performance in limited datasets. RESULTS: Estimated BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness was similar under all four designs. Empirical results suggested limited residual confounding by healthcare-seeking behavior. Analyses in limited datasets showed evidence of residual confounding, with estimates biased downward in the cohort design and upward in the test-negative design. CONCLUSION: Vaccine effectiveness estimates under a cohort design with explicit target trial emulation and a test-negative design were similar when using rich information from the VA healthcare system, but diverged in opposite directions when using a limited dataset. In settings like ours with sufficient information on confounders and other key variables, the cohort design with explicit target trial emulation may be preferable as a principled approach that allows estimation of absolute risks and facilitates interpretation of effect estimates.

Comparative effectiveness of third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines in US veterans.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has been effective in reducing the burden of severe disease and death from COVID-19. Third doses of mRNA-based vaccines have provided a way to address waning immunity and broaden protection against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, their comparative effectiveness for a range of COVID-19 outcomes across diverse populations is unknown. We emulated a target trial using electronic health records of US veterans who received a third dose of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines between 20 October 2021 and 8 February 2022, during a period that included Delta- and Omicron-variant waves. Eligible veterans had previously completed an mRNA vaccine primary series. We matched recipients of each vaccine in a 1:1 ratio according to recorded risk factors. Each vaccine group included 65,196 persons. The excess number of events over 16 weeks per 10,000 persons for BNT162b2 compared with mRNA-1273 was 45.4 (95% CI: 19.4, 84.7) for documented infection, 3.7 (2.2, 14.1) for symptomatic COVID-19, 10.6 (5.1, 19.7) for COVID-19 hospitalization, 2.0 (-3.1, 6.3) for COVID-19 intensive care unit admission and 0.2 (-2.2, 4.0) for COVID-19 death. After emulating a second target trial of veterans who received a third dose between 1 January and 1 March 2022, during a period restricted to Omicron-variant predominance, the excess number of events over 9 weeks per 10,000 persons for BNT162b2 compared with mRNA-1273 was 63.2 (95% CI: 15.2, 100.7) for documented infection. The 16-week risks of COVID-19 outcomes were low after a third dose of mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2, although risks were lower with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2, particularly for documented infection.

Comparative Safety of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccines in a Nationwide Cohort of US Veterans.

Importance: The risk of adverse events has been found to be low for participants receiving the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna Inc) vaccines in randomized trials. However, a head-to-head comparison of their safety for a broader range of potential adverse events over longer follow-up and in larger and more diverse populations is lacking, to our knowledge. Objective: To compare the head-to-head safety in terms of risk of adverse events of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines in the national health care databases of the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest integrated health care system in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, the electronic health records of US veterans who received a first dose of the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine between January 4 and September 20, 2021, were used. Recipients of each vaccine were matched in a 1:1 ratio according to their risk factors. Exposures: Vaccination with either the BNT162b2 vaccine, with a second dose scheduled 21 days later, or the mRNA-1273 vaccine, with a second dose scheduled 28 days later. Main Outcomes and Measures: A large panel of potential adverse events was evaluated; the panel included neurologic events, hematologic events, hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, other thromboembolic events, myocarditis or pericarditis, arrhythmia, kidney injury, appendicitis, autoimmune events, herpes zoster or simplex, arthritis or arthropathy, and pneumonia. Risks over 38 weeks were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Results: Among 433 672 persons included in the matched vaccine groups, the median age was 69 years (IQR, 60-74 years), 93% of individuals were male, and 20% were Black. Estimated 38-week risks of adverse events were generally low after administration of either the BNT162b2 or the mRNA-1273 vaccine. Compared with the mRNA-1273 group, the BNT162b2 group had an excess per 10 000 persons of 10.9 events (95% CI, 1.9-17.4 events) of ischemic stroke, 14.8 events (95% CI, 7.9-21.8 events) of myocardial infarction, 11.3 events (95% CI, 3.4-17.7 events) of other thromboembolic events, and 17.1 events (95% CI, 8.8-30.2 events) of kidney injury. Estimates were largely similar among subgroups defined by age (<40, 40-69, and ≥70 years) and race (Black, White), but there were higher magnitudes of risk differences of ischemic stroke among older persons and White persons, kidney injury among older persons, and other thromboembolic events among Black persons. Small-magnitude differences between the 2 vaccines were seen within 42 days of the first dose, and few differences were seen within 14 days of the first dose. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that there were few differences in risk of adverse events within 14 days of the first dose of either the BNT162b2 or the mRNA-1273 vaccine and small-magnitude differences within 42 days of the first dose. The 38-week risks of adverse events were low in both vaccine groups, although risks were lower for recipients of the mRNA-1273 vaccine than for recipients of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Although the primary analysis was designed to detect safety events unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection, the possibility that these differences may partially be explained by a lower effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine in preventing the sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the mRNA-1273 vaccine could not be ruled out. These findings may help inform decision-making in future vaccination campaigns.