ABSTRACT
Background The mRNA vaccines mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 demonstrated high efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection in phase 3 clinical trials, including among older adults. To inform COVID-19 vaccine selection, this systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis assessed the comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 in older adults.
Methods We systematically searched for relevant studies reporting COVID-19 outcomes with mRNA vaccines in older adults aged ≥50 years by first cross-checking relevant published SLRs. Based on the cutoff date from a previous similar SLR, we then searched the WHO COVID-19 Research Database for relevant articles published between April 9, 2022 and June 2, 2023. Outcomes of interest were SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19‒related hospitalization, and COVID-19‒related death following ≥2 vaccine doses. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to pool risk ratios (RRs) across studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated using chi-squared testing. Evidence certainty was assessed per GRADE framework.
Results 24 non-randomized real-world studies reporting clinical outcomes with mRNA vaccines in individuals aged ≥50 years were included in the meta-analysis. Vaccination with mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64‒0.80]), symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.62‒0.83]), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.67 [95% CI 0.57‒0.78]), COVID-19‒related hospitalization (RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.53‒0.79]) and COVID-19‒related death (RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.64‒0.99]) compared with BNT162b2. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies for all outcomes (I2>75%) except death (I2=0%). Multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses excluding specific studies generally demonstrated consistent results. Certainty of evidence across outcomes was rated as low (type 3) or very low (type 4), reflecting the lack of randomized-controlled trial data.
Conclusion Meta-analysis of 24 observational studies demonstrated significantly lower risk of asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infections; hospitalizations; and deaths with the mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 vaccine in older adults aged ≥50 years.
SUMMARY POINTS
The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected older adults, as this population is generally more susceptible to infection and severe outcomes due to immune senescence and underlying comorbidities.
The 2 available mRNA vaccines mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 demonstrated high efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection in phase 3 clinical trials, including among older adults.
To inform COVID-19 vaccine selection, this systematic literature review and meta-analysis assessed the comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 among older adults in real-world settings.
Vaccination with homologous primary or booster mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly lower risk of infection (including asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infections), hospitalization, and death due to COVID-19 than vaccination with BNT162b2 in older adults aged ≥50 years.
Competing Interest Statement
MTB-J, NV, and EB are employees of Moderna, Inc., and hold stock/stock options in the company. KH, XW, MN, NKM, MM, and PS are employees of ICON plc, a clinical research organization paid by Moderna, Inc., to conduct the study. SK is a former employee of ICON plc. NG is an independent consultant employed at University College of London, and was paid by Moderna, Inc., to conduct aspects of this study. This study was funded by Moderna, Inc. Authors employed by Moderna, Inc., were involved in the study design, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=443149
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Moderna, Inc.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Statement not required because only existing publicly available data were used.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.