Co-Administration of BNT162b2 COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccines in Adults: A Global Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Co-administration of BNT162b2 with licensed seasonal influenza vaccines (SIVs) is recommended by health authorities. We provide a comprehensive summary of the data supporting this practice in adults. METHODS: This systematic review consolidates available evidence on the prevalence, safety, immunogenicity, efficacy, and effectiveness of co-administering BNT162b2 and SIVs. Searches were conducted for English studies in adults ≥ 18 years of age between January 2021 and August 2024, with no geographic restriction. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twenty studies (15 observational and 5 clinical trials) were included, mainly conducted in seven countries in Europe and North America. Eight observational studies reported prevalence, twelve reported safety/reactogenicity, six reported immunogenicity, and three evaluated efficacy/effectiveness. Reported co-administration of BNT162b2 vaccines with SIVs increased over time. Of persons receiving BNT162b2, the proportion that reported co-administered SIVs increased from 2.7% in 2021 to 34.1% in 2023. Although variability in outcomes was observed, no consistent pattern indicating a negative impact on immunogenicity from same-day co-administration was identified. Effectiveness was not observed to change when BNT162B2 was co-administered with SIVs. The incidence of systemic and local adverse events was comparable between individuals receiving the vaccines separately and those receiving them co-administered. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this review indicate that the co-administration of BNT162B2 with SIVs is both safe and effective. This highlights the value of co-administration, which could enhance vaccine uptake by streamlining immunization protocols and reducing health visits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".