Introduction The spring 2023 COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England used both Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccines. All people aged 75 years or over and the clinically vulnerable were eligible to receive a booster dose. Direct comparisons of the effectiveness of these two vaccines in boosting protection against severe COVID-19 events have not been made in trials or observational data. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database to compare effectiveness of the Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccines during the spring 2023 booster programme, between 1 April and 30 June 2023. We investigated two cohorts separately: those aged 75 or over (75+); and those aged 50 or over and clinically vulnerable (CV). In each cohort, vaccine recipients were matched on date of vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine history, age, and other characteristics. Effectiveness outcomes were COVID-19 hospital admission, COVID-19 critical care admission, and COVID-19 death up to 16 weeks after vaccination. Safety outcomes were pericarditis and myocarditis up to 4 weeks after vaccination. We report the cumulative incidence of each outcome, and compare safety and effectiveness using risk differences (RD), relative risks (RR), and incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Results 492,642 people were 1-1 matched in the CV cohort, and 673,926 in the 75+ cohort, contributing a total of 7,423,251 and 10,173,230 person-weeks of follow-up, respectively. The incidence of COVID-19 hospital admission was higher for Sanofi than for Pfizer BA.4-5. In the CV cohort, 16-week risks per 10,000 people were 22.3 (95%CI 20.4 to 24.3) for Pfizer BA.4-5 and 26.4 (24.4 to 28.7) for Sanofi, with an IRR of 1.19 (95%CI 1.06 to 1.34). In the 75+ cohort, these were 17.5 (16.1 to 19.1) for Pfizer BA.4-5 and 20.4 (18.9 to 22.1) for Sanofi, with an IRR of 1.18 (1.05-1.32). These findings were similar across all pre-specified subgroups. More severe COVID-19 related outcomes (critical care admission and death), and safety outcomes at 4 weeks, were rare in both vaccines so we could not reliably compare effectiveness of the two vaccines. Conclusion This observational study comparing effectiveness of Pfizer BA.4-5 and Sanofi vaccine during the spring 2023 programme in England in the two main eligible cohorts - people aged 75 and over and in clinically vulnerable people - found some evidence of superior effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission for Pfizer BA.4-5 compared with Sanofi within 16 weeks after vaccination.

BG has received research funding from the Bennett Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, the Health Foundation, the World Health Organisation, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he has previously been a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. BMK is also employed by NHS England working on medicines policy and clinical lead for primary care medicines data.

This work was jointly funded by UKRI (COV0076;MR/V015737/1), the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme (MC_PC_20030; MC_PC_20059; COV-LT-0009), NIHR and Asthma UK-BLF. The OpenSAFELY data science platform is funded by the Wellcome Trust (222097/Z/20/Z) and MRC (MR/V015737/1, MC_PC_20059, MR/W016729/1). In addition, development of OpenSAFELY has been funded by the the NIHR funded CONVALESCENCE programme (COV-LT-0009), NIHR (NIHR135559, COV-LT2-0073), and the Data and Connectivity National Core Study funded by UK Research and Innovation (MC_PC_20058) and Health Data Research UK (HDRUK2021.000). BG's work on better use of data in healthcare more broadly is currently funded in part by: the Bennett Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation; all Bennett Institute staff are supported by BG's grants on this work. EW holds grants from MRC. RHK was funded by UK Research and Innovation (Future Leaders Fellowship MR/S017968/1). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS England, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission.

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:

Health Research Authority (REC reference 20/LO/0651) and by London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Ethics Board (reference 21863).

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

Access to the underlying identifiable and potentially re-identifiable pseudonymised electronic health record data is tightly governed by various legislative and regulatory frameworks, and restricted by best practice. The data in the NHS England OpenSAFELY COVID-19 service is drawn from General Practice data across England where TPP is the data processor. TPP developers initiate an automated process to create pseudonymised records in the core OpenSAFELY database, which are copies of key structured data tables in the identifiable records. These pseudonymised records are linked onto key external data resources that have also been pseudonymised via SHA-512 one-way hashing of NHS numbers using a shared salt. University of Oxford, Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science developers and PIs, who hold contracts with NHS England, have access to the OpenSAFELY pseudonymised data tables to develop the OpenSAFELY tools. These tools in turn enable researchers with OpenSAFELY data access agreements to write and execute code for data management and data analysis without direct access to the underlying raw pseudonymised patient data, and to review the outputs of this code. All code for the full data management pipeline - from raw data to completed results for this analysis - and for the OpenSAFELY platform as a whole is available for review at www.github.com/OpenSAFELY.