Efficacy and Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: A systematic review and a meta-analysis.

Ghazy, Ramy Mohamed; Ashmawy, Rasha; Hamdy, Noha Alaa; Elhadi, Yasir Ahmed Mohammed; Reyad, Omar; Almalawany, Dina; Shaaban, Ramy; Taha, Sarah Hamed N.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-936074/v1

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 46 trials have been conducted on the COVID-19 vaccine, from messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, inactivated vaccines, protein subunit vaccines, to viral vector vaccines (5). The vaccination program has reported a good outcome, with an efficacy of 61%-95%, thus decreasing the mortality rate, the incidence of severe diseases and the incidence of infection to almost 90% after the implementation of the vaccination program, despite growing concerns of short-term immunity, especially concerning the mRNA vaccines (6)(7)(8)(9).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety profile of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in patients with hematological malignancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Rinaldi

Pratama²,

Wiyono³

et al. 2022

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient populations, including those with hematological malignancies, have different responses to COVID-19 vaccines. This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies. Studies reporting on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in cohorts with hematological malignancies compared to healthy controls were systematically searched in four databases. Meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were performed to generate quantitative synthesis. Fifteen studies with 2,055 cohorts with hematological malignancies and 1,105 healthy subjects as control were included. After two doses of COVID-19 vaccination, only 60% of cohorts with hematological malignancies were seroconverted compared to healthy controls (RR 0.60; 95%CI 0.50–0.71). A single dose of the vaccine resulted in a significantly lower seroconversion rate (RR 0.30; 95%CI 0.16–0.54). Non-Hodgkin lymphoma cohorts had the lowest rate of seroconversion (RR 0.5; 95%CI 0.35–0.71) and those who received active treatments had lower immunological responses (RR 0.59; 95%CI 0.46–0.75). Antibody titers were lower in cohorts with hematological malignancies without any differences in adverse effects in both groups. In conclusion, cohorts with hematological malignancies showed a lower seroconversion rate and antibody titers after receiving COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The type of malignancy and the status of treatment had a significant impact on the response to vaccination. The vaccines were shown to be safe for both patients with hematological malignancies and healthy controls. Booster doses and stricter health protocols might be beneficial for patient populations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety profile of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in patients with hematological malignancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Rinaldi

Pratama²,

Wiyono³

et al. 2022

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A study of the benefits of vaccine mandates and vaccine passports for SARS-CoV-2

Prosser

Streiner

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits of vaccine mandates and vaccine passports (VMVP) for SARS-CoV-2 by estimating the benefits of vaccination and exclusion of unvaccinated people from different settings.MethodsQuantified the benefits of vaccination using meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and transmission studies to estimate the relative risk reduction (RRR), absolute risk reduction (ARR), and number needed to vaccinate (NNV) for transmission, infection, and severe illness/hospitalization. Estimated the baseline infection risk and the baseline transmission risks for different settings. Quantified the benefits of exclusion using these data to estimate the number of unvaccinated people needed to exclude (NNE) to prevent one transmission in different settings. Modelled how the benefits of vaccination and exclusion change as a function of baseline infection risk. Studies were identified from recent systematic reviews and a search of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, Global Health, and Google Scholar.ResultsData on infection and severe illness/hospitalization were obtained from 10 RCTs and 19 cohort studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, totalling 5,575,049 vaccinated and 4,341,745 unvaccinated participants. Data from 7 transmission studies were obtained, totalling 557,020 index cases, 49,328 contacts of vaccinated index cases, and 1,294,372 contacts of unvaccinated index cases. The estimated baseline infection risk in the general population is 3.04%. The estimated breakthrough infection risk in the vaccinated population is 0.57%. Vaccines are very effective at reducing the risk of infection (RRR=88%, ARR=2.59%, NNV=39) and severe illness/hospitalization (RRR=89%, ARR=0.15%, NNV=676) in the general population. While the latter effect is small, vaccines nearly eliminate the baseline risk of severe illness/hospitalization (0.16%). Among an infected person’s closest contacts (primarily household members), vaccines reduce transmission risk (RRR=41%, ARR=11.04%, NNV=9). In the general population, the effect of vaccines on transmission risk is likely very small for most settings and baseline infection risks (NNVs ≥ 1,000). Infected vaccinated people have a nontrivial transmission risk for their closest contacts (14.35%), but it is less than unvaccinated people (23.91%). The transmission risk reduction gained by excluding unvaccinated people is very small for most settings: healthcare (NNE=4,699), work/study places (NNE=2,193), meals/gatherings (NNE=531), public places (NNE=1,731), daily conversation (NNE=587), and transportation (NNE=4,699). Exclusion starts showing benefits on transmission risk for some settings when the baseline infection risk is between 10% to 20%.ConclusionsThe benefits of VMVP are clear: the coercive element to these policies will likely lead to increased vaccination levels. Our study shows that higher vaccination levels will drive infections lower and almost eliminate severe illness/hospitalization from the general population. This will substantially lower the burden on healthcare systems. The benefits of exclusion are less clear. The NNEs suggest that hundreds, and even thousands, of unvaccinated people may need to be excluded from various settings to prevent one SARS-CoV-2 transmission from unvaccinated people. Therefore, consideration of the costs of exclusion is warranted, including staffing shortages from losing unvaccinated healthcare workers, unemployment/unemployability, financial hardship for unvaccinated people, and the creation of a class of citizens who are not allowed to fully participate in many areas of society.RegistrationThis study is not registered.FundingThis study received no grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. It has also received no support of any kind from any individual or organization.

show abstract

Efficacy and Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: A systematic review and a meta-analysis.

Cited by 2 publications

References 9 publications

Efficacy and safety profile of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in patients with hematological malignancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety profile of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in patients with hematological malignancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

A study of the benefits of vaccine mandates and vaccine passports for SARS-CoV-2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About