Healthy vaccinee effect did not bias COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness estimates

Health status influences COVID-19 vaccine uptake, with vaccinated individuals generally being healthier than unvaccinated ones. This difference may impact vaccine effectiveness estimates. This study investigated the magnitude of this healthy vaccinee effect on effectiveness estimates. Three national, matched, retrospective cohort studies were conducted on Qatar’s population from February 5, 2020-May 14, 2024, to estimate effectiveness of primary-series and booster vaccinations and of natural infection against infection and severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19. The studies explored three matching scenarios by coexisting conditions, reflecting varying levels of health-status imbalance between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Each matched cohort included >810,000 individuals in the primary-series analysis, >330,000 in the booster analysis, and >730,000 in the natural-infection analysis. Effectiveness was derived from adjusted hazard ratios estimated using Cox regression models. Here we show that vaccine effectiveness against infection and severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 remained consistent across matching strategies, despite differences in non-COVID-19 mortality. For example, primary-series effectiveness against severe COVID-19 was 96.3% (95% CI: 94.5–97.5) when matching by exact coexisting conditions, 94.2% (95% CI: 92.5–95.6) when matching by number of coexisting conditions, and 94.0% (95% CI: 92.3–95.3) with no matching by coexisting conditions. Similar results were observed in subgroup analyses by follow-up duration and among clinically vulnerable individuals. Comparable findings applied to natural infection’s effectiveness against reinfection and severe COVID-19. Health status differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals did not introduce measurable bias in real-world vaccine effectiveness estimates. Findings highlight the importance of using specific outcomes in vaccine effectiveness studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Communications Health
Published
2026-07-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44528-026-00006-5
Primary Topic
SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Healthy vaccinee effect did not bias COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness estimates

Laith Jamal Abu-Raddad, Hiam S. Chemaitelly, Roberto Bertollini, Yassine HM et al.
Communications Health
SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
article

Healthy vaccinee effect did not bias COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness estimates

Laith Jamal Abu-Raddad, Hiam S. Chemaitelly, Roberto Bertollini, Yassine HM, Anvar Hassan Kaleeckal, Patrick Tang, Ali Nizar Latif, Houssein H. Ayoub, Andrew Jeremijenko, Gheyath K. Nasrallah, Adeel A. Butt, Asmaa A. Al Thani, Hanan F. Abdul-Rahim, Abdullatif Al-Khal, Hamad Eid Al-Romaihi, Einas Al-Kuwari, Zaina Al-Kanaani, Mohamed H. Al-Thani, Peter Coyle, Mohamed Ghaith Al-Kuwari, Riyazuddin Mohammad Shaik, Mohammad R. Hasan
article en

Abstract

Health status influences COVID-19 vaccine uptake, with vaccinated individuals generally being healthier than unvaccinated ones. This difference may impact vaccine effectiveness estimates. This study investigated the magnitude of this healthy vaccinee effect on effectiveness estimates. Three national, matched, retrospective cohort studies were conducted on Qatar’s population from February 5, 2020-May 14, 2024, to estimate effectiveness of primary-series and booster vaccinations and of natural infection against infection and severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19. The studies explored three matching scenarios by coexisting conditions, reflecting varying levels of health-status imbalance between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Each matched cohort included >810,000 individuals in the primary-series analysis, >330,000 in the booster analysis, and >730,000 in the natural-infection analysis. Effectiveness was derived from adjusted hazard ratios estimated using Cox regression models. Here we show that vaccine effectiveness against infection and severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 remained consistent across matching strategies, despite differences in non-COVID-19 mortality. For example, primary-series effectiveness against severe COVID-19 was 96.3% (95% CI: 94.5–97.5) when matching by exact coexisting conditions, 94.2% (95% CI: 92.5–95.6) when matching by number of coexisting conditions, and 94.0% (95% CI: 92.3–95.3) with no matching by coexisting conditions. Similar results were observed in subgroup analyses by follow-up duration and among clinically vulnerable individuals. Comparable findings applied to natural infection’s effectiveness against reinfection and severe COVID-19. Health status differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals did not introduce measurable bias in real-world vaccine effectiveness estimates. Findings highlight the importance of using specific outcomes in vaccine effectiveness studies.

Communications HealthVol. 1(1)
Queen's University Belfast (GB), Cornell University (US), Ministry of Public Health (QA), Primary Health Care (QA), Hamad bin Khalifa University (QA), Hackensack Meridian Health (US), Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar (QA), Hamad Medical Corporation (QA), Qatar University (QA), McMaster University (CA)
Qatar Research, Development and Innovation Council, Weill Cornell Medicine - Qatar
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.