Background Immunocompromised (IC) patients are at higher risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, morbidity, and mortality compared to the general population. They should be prioritized for primary prevention through vaccination. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in IC patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. Method PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for original articles reporting the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adult patients with IC condition between June 1, 2020 and September 1, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed using either random or fixed effect according to the heterogeneity of the studies. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. Results A total of 26 studies on 3207 IC patients and 1726 healthy individuals were included. The risk of seroconversion in IC patients was 48% lower than those in controls (RR = 0.52 [0.42, 0.65]). IC patients with autoimmune conditions were 54%, and patients with malignancy were 42% more likely to have positive seroconversion than transplant recipients (P < 0.01). Subgroup meta-analysis based on the type of malignancy, revealed significantly higher proportion of positive seroconversion in solid organ compared to hematologic malignancies (RR = 0.88 [0.85, 0.92] vs. 0.61 [0.44, 0.86], P = 0.03). Subgroup meta-analysis based on type of transplantation (kidney vs. others) showed no statistically significant between-group difference of seroconversion (P = 0.55). Conclusions IC patients, especially transplant recipients, developed lower immunogenicity with two-dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Among patients with IC, those with autoimmune conditions and solid organ malignancies are mostly benefited from COVID-19 vaccination. Findings from this meta-analysis could aid healthcare policymakers in making decisions regarding the importance of the booster dose or more strict personal protections in the IC patients.
Background Since the COVID-19 outbreak, pulmonary involvement was one of the most significant concerns in assessing patients. In the current study, we evaluated patient’s signs, symptoms, and laboratory data on the first visit to predict the severity of pulmonary involvement and their outcome regarding their initial findings. Methods All referred patients to the COVID-19 clinic of a tertiary referral university hospital were evaluated from April to August 2020. Four hundred seventy-eight COVID-19 patients with positive real-time reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or highly suggestive symptoms with computed tomography (CT) imaging results with typical findings of COVID-19 were enrolled in the study. The clinical features, initial laboratory, CT findings, and short-term outcomes (ICU admission, mortality, length of hospitalization, and recovery time) were recorded. In addition, the severity of pulmonary involvement was assessed using a semi-quantitative scoring system (0–25). Results Among 478 participants in this study, 353 (73.6%) were admitted to the hospital, and 42 (8.7%) patients were admitted to the ICU. Myalgia (60.4%), fever (59.4%), and dyspnea (57.9%) were the most common symptoms of participants at the first visit. A review of chest CT scans showed that Ground Glass Opacity (GGO) (58.5%) and consolidation (20.7%) were the most patterns of lung lesions. Among initial clinical and laboratory findings, anosmia (P = 0.01), respiratory rate (RR) with a cut point of 25 (P = 0.001), C-reactive protein (CRP) with a cut point of 90 (P = 0.002), white Blood Cell (WBC) with a cut point of 10,000 (P = 0.009), and SpO2 with a cut point of 93 (P = 0.04) was associated with higher chest CT score. Lung involvement and consolidation lesions on chest CT scans were also associated with a more extended hospitalization and recovery period. Conclusions Initial assessment of COVID-19 patients, including symptoms, vital signs, and routine laboratory tests, can predict the severity of lung involvement and unfavorable outcomes.
Background Immunocompromised (IC) patients are at higher risk of more severe COVID-19 infections than the general population. Special considerations should be dedicated to such patients. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines based on the vaccine type and etiology as well as the necessity of booster dose in this high-risk population. Materials and methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for observational studies published between June 1st, 2020, and September 1st, 2021, which investigated the seroconversion after COVID-19 vaccine administration in adult patients with IC conditions. For investigation of sources of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted. Statistical analysis was performed using R software. Results According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, we included 81 articles in the meta-analysis. The overall crude prevalence of seroconversion after the first (n: 7460), second (n: 13,181), and third (n: 909, all population were transplant patients with mRNA vaccine administration) dose administration was 26.17% (95% CI 19.01%, 33.99%, I2 = 97.1%), 57.11% (95% CI: 49.22%, 64.83%, I2 = 98.4%), and 48.65% (95% CI: 34.63%, 62.79%, I2 = 94.4%). Despite the relatively same immunogenicity of mRNA and vector-based vaccines after the first dose, the mRNA vaccines induced higher immunity after the second dose. Regarding the etiologic factor, transplant patients were less likely to develop immunity after both first and second dose rather than patients with malignancy (17.0% vs 37.0% after first dose, P = 0.02; 38.3% vs 72.1% after second dose, P < 0.001) or autoimmune disease (17.0% vs 36.4%, P = 0.04; 38.3% vs 80.2%, P < 0.001). To evaluate the efficacy of the third dose, we observed an increasing trend in transplant patients after the first (17.0%), second (38.3%), and third (48.6%) dose. Conclusion The rising pattern of seroconversion after boosting tends to be promising. In this case, more attention should be devoted to transplant patients who possess the lowest response rate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.