Nowadays, the vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines is being promoted worldwide, professionals and common people are very concerned about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. No published systematic review and meta-analysis has assessed the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines based on data from phase III clinical trials. Therefore, this study has estimated the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines and the differences between vaccine types. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, medRxiv databases and two websites were used to retrieve the studies. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety with risk ratio (RR). A total of eight studies, seven COVID-19 vaccines and 158,204 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. All the vaccines had a good preventive effect on COVID-19 (RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09–0.32), and the mRNA vaccine (RR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03–0.09) was the most effective against COVID-19, while the inactivated vaccine (RR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19–0.54) was the least. In terms of safety, the risk of overall adverse events showed an increase in the vaccine group after the first (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.03–2.05) or second (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.04–2.20) injection. However, compared with the first injection, the risk of local (RR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.02–6.83 vs. RR = 2.25, 95% CI: 0.52–9.75) and systemic (RR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.21–1.46 vs. RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.84–3.01) adverse events decreased after the second injection. As for the mRNA vaccine, the risk of overall adverse events increased significantly, compared with the placebo, no matter whether it was the first (RR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.80–1.86) or the second (RR = 2.16, 95% CI = 2.11–2.20) injection. All the COVID-19 vaccines that have published the data of phase III clinical trials have excellent efficacy, and the risk of adverse events is acceptable. The mRNA vaccines were the most effective against COVID-19, meanwhile the risk and grade of adverse events was minimal, compared to that of severe symptoms induced by COVID-19.

No abstract

A prime–boost strategy of COVID-19 vaccines brings hope to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, while the immunogenicity of the vaccines is waning over time. Whether a booster dose of vaccine is needed has become a widely controversial issue. However, no published meta-analysis has focused on the issue. Therefore, this study assessed the immunogenicity and safety of the different combinations of prime–boost vaccinations. Electronic databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, medRxiv, Wanfang and CNKI were used to retrieve the original studies. A total of 28 studies, 9 combinations of prime–boost vaccinations and 5870 subjects were included in the meta-analysis, and random effect models were used to estimate pooled immunogenicity and safety. The immunity against COVID-19 after the prime vaccination waned over time, especially in the populations primed with inactivated vaccines, in which the seropositive rate of antibodies was only 28% (95% CI: 17–40%). Booster vaccination could significantly increase the antibody responses, and heterologous immunization was more effective than homologous immunization (neutralization titers: 1.65 vs. 1.27; anti-RBD IgG: 1.85 vs. 1.15); in particular, the combination of inactivated–mRNA vaccines had the highest antibody responses (neutralization titers: MRAW = 3.64, 95% CI: 3.54–3.74; anti-RBD IgG: 3.73, 95% CI: 3.59–3.87). Moreover, compared with the initial two doses of vaccines, a booster dose did not induce additional or severe adverse events. The administration of the booster dose effectively recalled specific immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 and increased antibody levels, especially in heterologous immunization. Considering the long-term immunogenicity and vaccine equity, we suggest that now, only individuals primed with inactivated vaccines require a booster dose.