Effectiveness of BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccination in Children Aged 5–17 Years in the United States

Rachel P. Ogilvie, J. Bradley Layton, Patricia C. Lloyd, Yixin Jiao, Djeneba Audrey Djibo, Hui Lee Wong, Joann F. Gruber, Ron Parambi, Jie Deng, Michael Miller, Jennifer Song, Lisa B. Weatherby, Lauren Peetluk, An-Chi Lo, Kathryn Matuska, Michael Wernecke, Christine L. Bui, Tainya C. Clarke, Sylvia Cho, Elizabeth J. Bell, Grace Yang, Kandace L. Amend, Richard A. Forshee, Steven A. Anderson, Cheryl N McMahill-Walraven, Yoganand Chillarige, Mary S. Anthony, John D. Seeger, Azadeh Shoaibi
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.09.06.23294426

ABSTRACT

Importance COVID-19 vaccines are authorized for use in children in the United States; real-world assessment of vaccine effectiveness in children is needed.

Objective To estimate the effectiveness of receiving a complete primary series of monovalent BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine in US children.

Design A cohort study of children aged 5–17 years vaccinated with BNT162b2 matched with unvaccinated children.

Setting Participants identified in Optum and CVS Health insurance administrative claims databases were linked with Immunization Information System (IIS) COVID-19 vaccination records from 16 US jurisdictions between December 11, 2020, and May 31, 2022 (end date varied by database and IIS).

Participants Vaccinated children were followed from their first BNT162b2 dose and matched to unvaccinated children on calendar date, US county of residence, and demographic and clinical factors. Censoring occurred if vaccinated children failed to receive a timely dose 2 or if unvaccinated children received any dose.

Exposure BNT162b2 vaccinations were identified using IIS vaccination records and insurance claims.

Main Outcomes and Measures Two COVID-19 outcome definitions were evaluated: COVID-19 diagnosis in any medical setting and COVID-19 diagnosis in hospitals/emergency departments (EDs). Propensity score-weighted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with Cox proportional hazards models, and vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated as 1 minus HR. VE was estimated overall, within age subgroups, and within variant-specific eras. Sensitivity, negative control, and quantitative bias analyses evaluated various potential biases.

Results There were 453,655 eligible vaccinated children one-to-one matched to unvaccinated comparators (mean age 12 years; 50% female). COVID-19 hospitalizations/ED visits were rare in children, regardless of vaccination status (Optum, 41.2 per 10,000 person-years; CVS Health, 44.1 per 10,000 person-years). Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced incidence of any medically diagnosed COVID-19 (meta-analyzed VE = 38% [95% CI, 36%-40%]) and hospital/ED–diagnosed COVID-19 (meta-analyzed VE = 61% [95% CI, 56%-65%]). VE estimates were lowest among children 5–11 years and during the omicron variant era.

Conclusions and Relevance Receipt of a complete BNT162b2 vaccine primary series was associated with overall reduced medically diagnosed COVID-19 and hospital/ED–diagnosed COVID-19 in children; observed VE estimates differed by age group and variant era.

Question Does receiving a complete primary series of monovalent BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine reduce COVID-19 diagnoses and ED visits/hospitalizations in children aged 5–17 years?

Findings In this cohort study evaluating vaccination records and medical encounters from 827,149 children, recipients of a complete primary series of BNT162b2 generally had lower rates of COVID-19 diagnoses and ED visits/hospitalizations than unvaccinated children. Vaccine effectiveness was lower in children aged 5–11 years and during omicron variant predominance.

Meaning Receiving a primary series of monovalent BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine is effective in preventing COVID-19 diagnoses; changing variants and younger age groups may require further evaluations.

INTRODUCTION

The burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been relatively mild among children,1 but COVID-19 hospitalizations increased among children as new SARS-CoV-2 variants circulated.2 At the time of study execution, monovalent BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech’s messenger ribonucleic acid [mRNA] COVID-19 vaccine, Comirnaty®) was authorized for children aged 5–17 years. In preauthorization trials, BNT162b2 demonstrated immunogenicity and efficacy in preventing confirmed COVID-19 infection in children and adolescents.3,4 However, compared with adults, there are fewer available data on the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in US children.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines has been evaluated in different US geographic and healthcare settings, time periods, and age groups using an array of study designs and data sources.5–10 As part of its continued surveillance of authorized vaccines, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) Initiative evaluated the real-world effectiveness of monovalent BNT162b2 in US children using national insurance claims databases linked to immunization information system (IIS) vaccination records to improve vaccine capture and limit bias. The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of receiving a complete primary series of monovalent BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination compared with being unvaccinated in preventing medically diagnosed COVID-19 and hospital/emergency department (ED)–diagnosed COVID-19 in children aged 5–17 years. Secondary objectives assessed vaccine effectiveness by age subgroup and variant era.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Population and Data Source

This cohort study used two commercial insurance administrative claims data sources: Optum pre-adjudicated claims and CVS Health adjudicated claims databases (Supplemental Methods: Data Sources). To enhance vaccine administration capture, claims databases were supplemented with IIS COVID-19 vaccination records11,12 (Optum, 10 IIS from 10 US states; CVS Health, 11 IIS from 9 US states). Each data source’s study population was restricted to geographic areas of overlap between claims and IIS data.

The study period started on December 11, 2020, when BNT162b2 was authorized for ages 16–17 years, and ended at the latest complete IIS data for each jurisdiction. In Optum, end dates varied by IIS, ranging from September 30, 2021, to May 31, 2022; in CVS Health, the end date was March 31, 2022 for all IISs. BNT162b2 was the only COVID-19 vaccine authorized for children aged 5–17 years during the study period.

Vaccinated children were identified at their first recorded COVID-19 vaccine dose during the study period; children with non-BNT162b2, brand-unspecified, or unclassifiable COVID-19 vaccine records as the first observed dose were excluded. The date of dose 1 was assigned as Time 0 in vaccinated children (eFigure 1). Unvaccinated children were one-to-one exact matched with replacement on calendar date and the following: age groups (5–11, 12–15, 16–17 years), sex, county of residence, immunocompromised status, pregnancy status, previous COVID-19 diagnosis, having a comorbidity increasing the risk of severe COVID-19,13 and influenza vaccine receipt in the previous year. The calendar date of dose 1 for the vaccinated child was set as Time 0 for the matched unvaccinated child.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Weighted Cumulative Incidence of COVID-19 Outcomes in Children Aged 5–17 Years Receiving a Complete Primary Series of BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine and Unvaccinated Children

COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; ED = emergency department; sIPT = stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Children were eligible for inclusion on or after the date BNT162b2 was authorized for their age group (December 11, 2020, for ages 16–17; May 10, 2021, for ages 12–15; October 29, 2021, for ages 5–11). Vaccinated and matched unvaccinated children were required to meet the following inclusion criteria (eFigure 1): at least 365 days of continuous medical and pharmacy coverage before Time 0 (including the date of the age group–specific vaccine authorization to ensure observation of all COVID-19 vaccine doses); be aged within the vaccine-authorized age range at Time 0; and reside within the catchment area of the linked claims-IIS data. Children were excluded if they had a procedure or diagnostic code for one of the following before Time 0: monoclonal antibody or convalescent plasma treatment (90 days); COVID-19 diagnosis (30 days); fever, nausea/vomiting, rash diagnosis (3 days); hospitalization or ED visit (3 days); or hospitalization or long-term care residence (on Time 0). Children selected as unvaccinated comparators could subsequently be vaccinated and enter the vaccinated group with a new Time 0.

Exposure Assessment

BNT162b2 doses were identified using brand-specific procedure codes for vaccine administration, pharmacy codes for vaccine products, or IIS vaccination records.11,14,15 Dose number was inferred from the chronological order of observed doses within a child’s record. An unbranded dose or a dose of the same brand occurring within 3 days following another dose was considered a duplicate and was removed; if a dose for a different brand was received within 3 days, the brand of the dose was considered unclassifiable. Follow-up began for all vaccinated children at dose 1 (Time 0) regardless of future vaccine dose receipt.

Children were followed from Time 0 until the study outcome or censoring at the first occurrence of the following: last day of the IIS-specific study period; disenrollment from health plan; or deviation from the vaccine exposure assigned at Time 0 (eFigure 2). For vaccinated children, deviation from vaccine exposure included receiving BNT162b2 dose 2 before day 17, failure to receive BNT162b2 dose 2 by day 42, receipt of any other brand of COVID-19 vaccine or an unclassifiable dose, or a third dose of BNT162b2 (eFigure 2). For unvaccinated children, deviation included receiving a first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Estimated Effectiveness of Receiving a Complete Primary Series of BNT162b2 Compared With Being Unvaccinated in Children Aged 5–17 Years, Overall and by Age Group

CI = confidence interval; COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; VE = vaccine effectiveness.

Outcome Assessment

Two COVID-19 outcomes were evaluated separately: (1) medically diagnosed COVID-19, identified as a recorded COVID-19 diagnosis from hospital, ED, outpatient, or physician encounters; and (2) hospital/ED–diagnosed COVID-19. Recorded COVID-19 diagnosis codes (ICD-10-CM U07.1) were identified in claims in any coding position. The recorded date of the first diagnosis was assigned as the outcome date.

Covariates

Descriptive characteristics were measured on or before Time 0 (eFigure 1) using enrollment, diagnosis, procedure, and pharmacy data.16 Covariates included demographics, comorbidities, frailty indicators, healthcare utilization, and conditions potentially increasing risk of severe COVID-19.13

Statistical Analysis

Analyses were performed separately by data source. The distribution of characteristics by vaccination group were described with means, standard deviations (SD), medians, and first and third quartiles (Q1, Q3) for continuous variables, and counts and proportions for categorical variables. Covariate balance between vaccination groups was evaluated with absolute standardized differences.17

Propensity scores were estimated with multivariable logistic regression models including all prespecified covariates and matching factors. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment (sIPT) weights were estimated from propensity scores with truncation below the first percentile and above the 99th percentile of the propensity score distribution.

The cumulative incidence of each COVID-19 outcome was estimated in the sIPT-weighted vaccine exposure groups as 1 minus the Kaplan-Meier estimator.18 Hazard ratios (HRs) for the association of vaccination status with COVID-19 outcomes were estimated using sIPT-weighted Cox proportional hazards models; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with robust sandwich variance estimators.19 Cumulative incidence and HRs in the first 14 days of follow-up were evaluated as a negative control outcome (COVID-19 vaccines are not expected to produce an immune response until 10-14 days after vaccination).20,21

Subgroup analyses were performed by age group (5–11, 12–15, 16–17 years) and by variant era (pre-delta era, December 11, 2020–May 31, 2021; delta era, June 1, 2021–December 24, 2021; omicron era, December 25, 2021–end of data availability22). Variant era analyses were restricted to children with Time 0s within the era, with follow-up censored on the last day of the era. A post-hoc analysis evaluated the distribution of person-time spent in each variant era by age subgroup resulting from the staggered authorizations by age group.

Quantitative bias analyses23,24 estimated the impact of potential misclassification because of missing vaccine records by estimating corrected HRs accounting for a range of vaccine exposure sensitivities (Supplemental Methods). A sensitivity analysis evaluated potential informative censoring by delaying censoring 7 days after receipt of a censoring vaccine dose. Additional sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of potential outcome misclassification resulting from a recorded COVID-19 diagnosis on the same day as COVID-19 vaccination by removing Time 0 from follow-up and reordering censoring criteria so censoring for receipt of a censoring dose occurred first.

Data source–specific estimates were meta-analyzed using fixed-effects meta-analysis models. Analyses were performed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). This surveillance activity was conducted as part of the FDA public health surveillance mandate and was not subject to Institutional Review Board oversight. The study protocol was publicly posted on the BEST Initiative website.16

RESULTS

We identified 95,161 eligible children in Optum and 365,312 in CVS Health databases aged 5– 17 years who received a first dose of BNT162b2 during the study period. In Optum, 97% of vaccinated children could be exact matched to an unvaccinated child, leaving 92,338 in each vaccine exposure group (132,528 unique children); in CVS Health, 99% were matched, leaving 361,317 in each group (694,621 unique children) (eFigure 3). In both groups in both data sources, the mean age was 12 years (SD 4 years), and 50% were female. The largest proportion resided in the Midwest in Optum (47%), and in the West in CVS Health (42%). Characteristics of the groups were well balanced on all measured characteristics in both data sources (selected characteristics in Table 1; complete characteristics in eTable1). The propensity score distributions in the matched vaccinated and unvaccinated children were similar, suggesting comparability between the groups before weighting (eFigure 4).

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Estimated Effectiveness of Receiving a Complete Primary Series of BNT162b2 Compared With Being Unvaccinated in Children Aged 5–17 Years, Overall and by Variant Era

CI = confidence interval; COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; VE = vaccine effectiveness.

Note: pre-delta era, December 11, 2020–May 31, 2021; delta era, June 1, 2021–December 24, 2021; omicron era, December 25, 2021–end of data availability.

View this table:
Table 1. Selected Characteristics of Children Vaccinated With BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine and Matched Unvaccinated Children

The amount of follow-up time ranged across data sources and analyses, but the maximum follow-up time was 529 days in Optum and 468 days in CVS Health; the median follow-up tended to be longer for the vaccinated group in both data sources for each analysis (eTable 2). The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 outcomes over time by vaccination group is shown in Figure 1. Across all analyses in both data sources, the rates of hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19 cases were relatively small (Optum, 41.2 per 10,000 person-years; CVS Health, 44.1 per 10,000 person-years). For the main analyses, the risk of COVID-19 outcomes was higher in the unvaccinated than vaccinated groups throughout follow-up. The overall sIPT-weighted VE estimates for medically diagnosed COVID-19 were 35% (95% CI, 31%-39%) in Optum and 39% (95% CI, 37%-41%) in CVS Health (meta-analyzed VE = 38% [95% CI, 36%-40%]). For hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19, VE estimates were 55% (95% CI, 41%-65%) in Optum and 62% (95% CI, 57%-67%) in CVS Health (meta-analyzed VE = 61% [95% CI, 56%-65%]) (Figure 2, eTable 3). Using sensitivity estimates for the claims/IIS-based measures of COVID-19 vaccine exposure of 83% and 71% in Optum and 89% and 69% in CVS Health, quantitative bias analyses suggested that the observed VE estimates may underestimate the true VE by 2% to 13% (eTable 4).

During the 14-day negative control period (Time 0 to day 13), the absolute risk of COVID-19 outcomes was low, and the absolute difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups was small (eFigure 5). However, estimated VEs during this period indicated potential associations of vaccination with medically diagnosed COVID-19: Optum VE = 15% (95% CI, - 1.7% to 28%); CVS Health VE = 25% (95% CI, 17%-32%) (eTable 5); negative control estimates for hospital/ED–diagnosed COVID-19 were imprecise as a result of having few cases. Post-hoc explorations of COVID-19 testing patterns during the negative control period in Optum suggested outcome misclassification caused by less frequent COVID-19 testing and diagnoses in the vaccinated group in the 3 to 4 days after vaccination (eFigure 7).

When stratifying by age subgroup, VE estimates were generally high and similar across data sources for 16- to 17-year-olds (medically diagnosed COVID-19 meta-analyzed VE = 51% [95% CI, 47%-54%]; hospital/ED–diagnosed COVID-19 meta-analyzed VE = 70% [95% CI, 62%-75%]) and 12- to 15-year-olds (medically diagnosed COVID-19 meta-analyzed VE = 46% [95% CI, 43%-48%]; hospital/ED–diagnosed COVID-19 meta-analyzed VE = 64% [95% CI, 57%-70%]) (Figure 2). In both data sources, VE estimates were lower in 5- to 11-year-olds. For 5- to 11-year-olds, the meta-analyzed VE for hospital/ED–diagnosed COVID-19 was 40% (95% CI, 25%-52%); however, for medically diagnosed COVID-19, heterogeneity was observed across data sources (p < 0.01), with an Optum VE estimate of −3% (95% CI, −15% to 8%) and a CVS Health VE estimate of 19% (95% CI, 15%-24%).

When evaluating VE by variant era, the largest sample sizes and follow-up were observed in the delta era (eTable 6, eTable 7). Variant era was highly correlated with age group, with the majority of person-time in the pre-delta era coming from the 16- to 17-year-olds, the majority of delta era person-time from 12- to 15-year-olds, and the majority of omicron era person-time coming from 5- to 11-year-olds (eTable 6). The VE estimates during the omicron era against medically diagnosed COVID-19 (meta-analyzed VE = 9% [95% CI, −1% to 19%]) and against hospital/ED–diagnosed COVID-19 (meta-analyzed VE = 13% [95% CI, −39% to 46%]) were markedly lower than during the pre-delta or delta eras (Figure 3). However, although there was no statistical heterogeneity between the source-specific omicron era VE estimates against hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19 (p = 0.24), there was a large range between the VE estimates: Optum VE = 60% [95% CI, −54% to 90%]); CVS Health VE = 4% [95% CI, −59% to 42%]) (eTable 7). Results of sensitivity analyses were similar to those of the primary analyses (eFigure 6).

DISCUSSION

In this large, real-world evaluation of the effectiveness of monovalent BNT162b2 vaccination in children aged 5–17 years, lower rates of COVID-19 diagnoses were observed among children receiving a complete primary series of BNT162b2 compared with unvaccinated children, indicating that this vaccine is effective in routine care. Vaccine effectiveness was higher for hospital/ED–diagnosed COVID-19 than for any medically diagnosed COVID-19 and lower for children aged 5–11 years and during the omicron era.

These observed VE estimates in children are generally lower than many VE estimates reported for the primary series of BNT162b2 in adults.25–27 US children aged less than 16 were vaccinated relatively late in the pandemic after many months of potential COVID-19 exposures and infection, largely during the delta variant era. Many COVID-19 infections in children were relatively mild during the early pandemic,28,29 and previous history of COVID-19 infection earlier in the pandemic before vaccination may have conveyed some level of natural immunity in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, reducing the observed VE estimates.

Our study utilized two data sources, and the overall results of higher VE estimates for hospital/ED–diagnosed COVID-19 than for medically diagnosed COVID-19 across all age groups is consistent with the results of other studies.30,31 Additionally, many of the age and variant subgroup results were largely consistent across data sources. Children aged 5–11 years were the last age group receiving vaccine authorization during the study period, making it difficult to disentangle the effect of age group and variant era. Both data sources suggested lower VE in 5- to 11-year-olds and in the omicron era—consistent with other studies31—but there were key differences in the magnitude of the VE estimates across data sources in these subgroups. Although calendar time and geography were balanced across vaccination groups within each data source (accounting for local differences in COVID-19 circulation and severity), the two data sources covered different geographic areas and timeframes. For example, the end date for all IIS jurisdictions in CVS Health was March 31, 2022, but in Optum, the end dates varied from September 30, 2021 (before the beginning of the omicron era) to May 31, 2022 (into the “second omicron wave” starting in April/May 2022).32

This study has several strengths including a large sample size, inclusion of multiple US geographic regions, and combining vaccine administrative claims with IIS vaccine records. The linkage of claims to IIS data supplemented the vaccine exposure data and reduced vaccine exposure misclassification from vaccine doses not recorded in claims data. However, some vaccine administrations may still have been missed. The study used external estimates of vaccine coverage among individuals younger than 65 years to quantify potential residual exposure misclassification and applied quantitative bias analysis to correct VE estimates. Because younger children tended to be vaccinated later in the study period when mass vaccination clinics were less common, and younger children may have lower levels of vaccination compared with adults,33 the extent of exposure misclassification may be overestimated.

Because pandemic conditions varied widely across geographic areas and time periods, vaccinated and unvaccinated children were matched on calendar time and county of residence to account for these differences. The eligibility and matching criteria were designed to identify vaccinated and unvaccinated children who were eligible for vaccination on each calendar day, avoiding selection bias. Starting follow-up on Time 0 without considering future vaccination behaviors avoided immortal person-time bias.34

This real-world study has limitations. This study did not analyze laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 status, so the study relied on recorded claims-based diagnoses of COVID-19. Although COVID-19 diagnosis codes have shown reasonable validity for hospitalized cases,35–40 many COVID-19 cases may never be formally diagnosed in a health care setting, and the dynamics of COVID-19 testing and diagnosis changed over time.

Despite matching and propensity score weighting, residual and unmeasured confounding may remain. The negative control analysis suggested a potential difference between the exposure groups immediately after vaccination when vaccines are assumed to have no biologic effect. However, the post hoc negative control analysis demonstrated differential COVID-19 testing and diagnoses in the 3-4 days after Time 0, because recently vaccinated individuals may not seek COVID-19 testing.41 This difference in testing and diagnosis behavior appeared to resolve after day 4, but longer term differences in health care–seeking behavior cannot be ruled out.

Because of the staged authorization of vaccines by age group, the study could not evaluate vaccine effectiveness by variant era and age groups simultaneously (e.g., only children aged 16-17 years were authorized to be vaccinated until nearly the end of the pre-delta era).

CONCLUSIONS

Receiving a complete primary series of BNT162b2 was associated with reduced COVID-19 incidence compared to being unvaccinated in the pediatric population. BNT162b2’s effectiveness was higher for hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19 than for any medically diagnosed COVID-19, and it was higher among children aged 12-17 compared to 5-11 years. In the rapidly changing dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic, additional real-world studies are needed to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness as booster doses and additional vaccine brands become available for this population.

Data Availability

The data that has been used is confidential.

FUNDING SOURCES

This work was supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

COMPETING INTERESTS

RPO, RP, JD, MM, JS, LBW, LP, EJB, GY, KLA, and JDS are employees of Optum and may own stock in UnitedHealth Group. JBL, CLB, and MSA are employees of RTI International, an independent, not-for-profit research institute that performs research on behalf of governmental and commercial clients, including pharmaceutical and vaccine manufacturers. CNM and DAD are employees of CVS Health. PCL, YJ, HLW, JG, ACL, KM, MW, TCC, SC, RAF, SAA, YC, and AS have no conflicts of interest to declare.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the assistance of the following: Shanlai Shangguan, MPH, Blair Cha, BA, Wenxuan Zhou, BS, and Jessica Hervol, MPH, of Acumen, LLC for editorial review of the manuscript and interpretation of results; Anne Marie Kline, MS, Nancy B. Shaik, BS, Ana M. Martinez-Baquero, MA, Vaibhav Sharma, MS, and Smita Bhatia, MCA, of CVS Health Clinical Trial Services for acquisition and analysis of the data; Vivian Wilt, MPH, Julia McIlmail, BS, and Rebecca Warsawski, MPH, of Optum Epidemiology for project management; Michael Kirksey, MBA, of Optum Enterprise Analytics for data analysis; Karen Schneider, PhD, and Emily Myers, MPH, of Optum Serve Consulting for feasibility evaluation and analytic support; Eli Wolter and Edward Novak, MS, of Optum Technology for data acquisition, processing, and technology leadership; Rebecca Braun, BA, of Optum Serve Consulting for data and information technology support; Megan Ketchell, BS, of Optum Serve Consulting for project coordination and communications support; Kathryn Federici, MSW, of Optum Serve Consulting for communications and legal support; Sarah Harris, MA, of RTI International for projectmanagement support; Michelle Myers, BS, and Virginia Ferguson, BFA, of RTI International for editorial review of the manuscript; and Melissa McPheeters, PhD, of RTI International for supervision.

Footnotes

  • ↵* Co-first authors

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Delahoy MJ, Ujamaa D, Whitaker M, et al. Hospitalizations Associated with COVID-19 Among Children and Adolescents − COVID-NET, 14 States, March 1, 2020-August 14, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Sep 10 2021;70(36):1255–1260. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7036e2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Marks KJ, Whitaker M, Anglin O, et al. Hospitalizations of Children and Adolescents with Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 − COVID-NET, 14 States, July 2021-January 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Feb 18 2022;71(7):271–278. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7107e4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Walter EB, Talaat KR, Sabharwal C, et al. Evaluation of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine in Children 5 to 11 Years of Age. N Engl J Med. Jan 6 2022;386(1):35–46. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2116298
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Frenck RW, Jr., Klein NP, Kitchin N, et al. Safety, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine in Adolescents. N Engl J Med. Jul 15 2021;385(3):239–250. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107456
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Risk M, Miao H, Freed G, Shen C. Vaccine Effectiveness, School Reopening, and Risk of Omicron Infection Among Adolescents Aged 12-17 Years. J Adolesc Health. Jan 2023;72(1):147–152. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.09.006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.
    Dorabawila V, Hoefer D, Bauer UE, Bassett MT, Lutterloh E, Rosenberg ES. Risk of Infection and Hospitalization Among Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children and Adolescents in New York After the Emergence of the Omicron Variant. JAMA. Jun 14 2022;327(22):2242–2244. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.7319
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.
    Klein NP, Stockwell MS, Demarco M, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination in preventing COVID-19–associated emergency department and urgent care encounters and hospitalizations among nonimmunocompromised children and adolescents aged 5–17 Years—VISION Network, 10 States, April 2021–January 2022. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2022;71(9):352.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.
    Olson SM, Newhams MM, Halasa NB, et al. Effectiveness of BNT162b2 Vaccine against Critical Covid-19 in Adolescents. N Engl J Med. Feb 24 2022;386(8):713–723. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2117995
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    Fowlkes AL, Yoon SK, Lutrick K, et al. Effectiveness of 2-dose BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) mRNA vaccine in preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection among children aged 5–11 years and adolescents aged 12–15 years—PROTECT Cohort, July 2021–February 2022. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2022;71(11):422.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    Fleming-Dutra KE, Britton A, Shang N, et al. Association of Prior BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccination With Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children and Adolescents During Omicron Predominance. JAMA. Jun 14 2022;327(22):2210–2219. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.7493
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    CBER Surveillance Program. Supplementing Administrative Claims COVID-19 Vaccine Data with Immunization Information Systems (IIS) Data: A Feasibility Study Report. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research OoBaP; 2022. July 26. Accessed October 20, 2022. https://bestinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/IIS-Feasibility-Optum-Study-Report-2022.pdf
  12. 12.↵
    CDC. About Immunization Information Systems. 2019. 7 June. Accessed 22 November 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/iis/about.html
  13. 13.↵
    CDC. People with certain medical conditions. 2022. COVID-19. 2 May. Accessed 25 July 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html
  14. 14.↵
    CMS. COVID-19 vaccines and monoclonal antibodies. 2022. 9 December. Accessed 13 December 2022. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-part-b-drug-average-sales-price/covid-19-vaccines-and-monoclonal-antibodies
  15. 15.↵
    CDC. COVID-19 vaccine related codes. 2022. Immunization Information Systems (IIS). 12 December. Accessed 13 December 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/iis/COVID-19-related-codes.html
  16. 16.↵
    CBER Surveillance Program. Assessment of Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination in the United States: Protocol. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research OoBaE; 2022. 3 March. Accessed 26 July 2022. https://bestinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/C19-VX-Effectiveness-Protocol_2022_508.pdf
  17. 17.↵
    Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. Nov 10 2009;28(25):3083–107. doi:10.1002/sim.3697
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    Hernan MA, Robins JM. Causal survival analysis. Causal inference: what if. Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020.
  19. 19.↵
    Webster-Clark M, Sturmer T, Wang T, et al. Using propensity scores to estimate effects of treatment initiation decisions: State of the science. Stat Med. Mar 30 2021;40(7):1718–1735. doi:10.1002/sim.8866
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Walsh EE, Frenck RW, Jr., Falsey AR, et al. Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates. N Engl J Med. Dec 17 2020;383(25):2439–2450. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2027906
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Dagan N, Barda N, Kepten E, et al. BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting. N Engl J Med. Apr 15 2021;384(15):1412–1423. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    CDC. COVID data tracker: variant proportions. 2022. 26 February. Accessed 3 March 2022. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/=variant-proportions
  23. 23.↵
    Funk MJ, Landi SN. Misclassification in administrative claims data: quantifying the impact on treatment effect estimates. Curr Epidemiol Rep. Dec 2014;1(4):175–185. doi:10.1007/s40471-014-0027-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    Lash TL, Fox MP, MacLehose RF, Maldonado G, McCandless LC, Greenland S. Good practices for quantitative bias analysis. Int J Epidemiol. Dec 2014;43(6):1969–85. doi:10.1093/ije/dyu149
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Tartof SY, Slezak JM, Fischer H, et al. Effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine up to 6 months in a large integrated health system in the USA: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. Oct 16 2021;398(10309):1407–1416. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.
    Bajema KL, Dahl RM, Prill MM, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization − Five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, United States, February 1-August 6, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Sep 17 2021;70(37):1294–1299. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7037e3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Thompson MG, Stenehjem E, Grannis S, et al. Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines in Ambulatory and Inpatient Care Settings. N Engl J Med. Oct 7 2021;385(15):1355–1371. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2110362
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Sinaei R, Pezeshki S, Parvaresh S, Sinaei R. Why COVID-19 is less frequent and severe in children: a narrative review. World Journal of Pediatrics. 2021;17(1):10–20.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Tsankov BK, Allaire JM, Irvine MA, et al. Severe COVID-19 Infection and Pediatric Comorbidities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Infect Dis. Feb 2021;103:246–256. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.163
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Watanabe A, Kani R, Iwagami M, Takagi H, Yasuhara J, Kuno T. Assessment of Efficacy and Safety of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Children Aged 5 to 11 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. Jan 23 2023; doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.6243
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 31.↵
    Gao P, Kang LY, Liu J, Liu M. Immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among children and adolescents aged 2-18 years: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Pediatr. Feb 1 2023:1–14. doi:10.1007/s12519-022-00680-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    CDC. COVID data tracker: trends in number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory. 2023. 15 February. Accessed 15 February 2023. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/=trends_weeklycases_select_00
  33. 33.↵
    CDC. COVID data tracker: Trends in demographic characteristics of people receiving COVID-19 vaccinations in the United States. 2023. 2 February. Accessed 6 February 2023. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/=vaccination-demographics-trends
  34. 34.↵
    Hernan MA, Sauer BC, Hernandez-Diaz S, Platt R, Shrier I. Specifying a target trial prevents immortal time bias and other self-inflicted injuries in observational analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. Nov 2016;79:70–75. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Kluberg SA, Hou L, Dutcher SK, et al. Validation of diagnosis codes to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients in health care claims data. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. Apr 2022;31(4):476–480. doi:10.1002/pds.5401
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.
    Bosch NA, Law AC, Peterson D, Walkey AJ. Validation of the International Classification of Diseases Code for COVID-19 among Critically Ill Patients. Ann Am Thorac Soc. May 2022;19(5):861–863. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.202110-1147RL
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.
    Lynch KE, Viernes B, Gatsby E, et al. Positive Predictive Value of COVID-19 ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes Across Calendar Time and Clinical Setting. Clin Epidemiol. 2021;13:1011–1018. doi:10.2147/CLEP.S335621
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.
    Bhatt AS, McElrath EE, Claggett BL, et al. Accuracy of ICD-10 Diagnostic Codes to Identify COVID-19 Among Hospitalized Patients. J Gen Intern Med. Aug 2021;36(8):2532–2535. doi:10.1007/s11606-021-06936-w
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.
    Kadri SS, Gundrum J, Warner S, et al. Uptake and Accuracy of the Diagnosis Code for COVID-19 Among US Hospitalizations. JAMA. Dec 22 2020;324(24):2553–2554. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.20323
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Blatz AM, David MZ, Otto WR, Luan X, Gerber JS. Validation of International Classification of Disease-10 Code for Identifying Children Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease-2019. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. Apr 30 2021;10(4):547–548. doi:10.1093/jpids/piaa140
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    Ostropolets A, Hripcsak G. COVID-19 vaccination effectiveness rates by week and sources of bias: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. Aug 23 2022;12(8):e061126. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061126
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Posted September 08, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Effectiveness of BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccination in Children Aged 5–17 Years in the United States
Rachel P. Ogilvie, J. Bradley Layton, Patricia C. Lloyd, Yixin Jiao, Djeneba Audrey Djibo, Hui Lee Wong, Joann F. Gruber, Ron Parambi, Jie Deng, Michael Miller, Jennifer Song, Lisa B. Weatherby, Lauren Peetluk, An-Chi Lo, Kathryn Matuska, Michael Wernecke, Christine L. Bui, Tainya C. Clarke, Sylvia Cho, Elizabeth J. Bell, Grace Yang, Kandace L. Amend, Richard A. Forshee, Steven A. Anderson, Cheryl N McMahill-Walraven, Yoganand Chillarige, Mary S. Anthony, John D. Seeger, Azadeh Shoaibi
medRxiv 2023.09.06.23294426; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.09.06.23294426
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area