Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 10, 2026

Protective Efficacy and Pulmonary Immune Response Following Subcutaneous and Intranasal BCG Administration in Mice
Published on: September 19, 2016
Comparative effectiveness and safety of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in Hong Kong: A target trial emulation
Eric Yuk Fai Wan1, Boyuan Wang2, Amanda Lauren Lee2
1Centre for Safe Medication Practice and Research, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China; Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health (D(2)4H), Hong Kong Science and Technology Park, Hong Kong SAR, China; Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China; Advanced Data Analytics for Medical Science (ADAMS) Limited, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Objectives:
To evaluate the difference between BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in vaccine effectiveness and safety.
Methods:
This target trial emulation study included individuals aged ≥12 during 2022. Propensity score matching was applied to ensure group balance. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the effectiveness outcomes including COVID-19 infection, severity, 28-day hospitalization, and 28-day mortality after infection. Poisson regression was used for safety outcomes including 32 adverse events of special interests between groups.
Results:
A total of 639,818 and 1804,388 individuals were identified for the 2-dose and 3-dose comparison, respectively. In 2-dose and 3-dose comparison, the hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals [CI]) were 0.844 [0.833-0.856] and 0.749 [0.743-0.755] for COVID-19 infection, 0.692 [0.656-0.731] and 0.582 [0.559-0.605] for hospitalization, 0.566 [0.417-0.769] and 0.590 [0.458-0.76] for severe COVID-19, and 0.563 [0.456-0.697] and 0.457 [0.372-0.561] for mortality for BNT162b2 recipients versus CoronaVac recipients, respectively. Regarding safety, 2-dose BNT162b2 recipients had a significantly higher incidence of myocarditis (incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI]: 8.999 [1.14-71.017]) versus CoronaVac recipients, but the difference was insignificant in 3-dose comparison (IRR [95% CI]: 2.000 [0.500-7.996]).
Conclusion:
BNT162b2 has higher effectiveness among individuals aged ≥12 against COVID-19-related outcomes for SARS-CoV-2 omicron compared to CoronaVac, with almost 50% lower mortality risk.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Bioequivalence: Overview
Bioavailability Study Design: Single Versus Multiple Dose Studies
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients
Equivalence: In Vitro and In Vivo Bioequivalence
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
Bioequivalence studies: Biowaivers

