Efficacy and Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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

doi:10.3390/vaccines10030350

Cited by 54 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to age, vaccine types, and the number of doses, most studies have suggested that country and duration since vaccination also affected the efficacy and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines ( 40 , 41 , 96 – 98 ). Nevertheless, we did not detect significant correlations between continent and efficacy or immune effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Liu

et al. 2022

Front. Immunol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOlder adults are more susceptible to severe health outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Universal vaccination has become a trend, but there are still doubts and research gaps regarding the COVID-19 vaccination in the elderly. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older people aged ≥ 55 years and their influencing factors.MethodsRandomized controlled trials from inception to April 9, 2022, were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We estimated summary relative risk (RR), rates, or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects meta-analysis. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314456).ResultsOf the 32 eligible studies, 9, 21, and 25 were analyzed for efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively. In older adults, vaccination was efficacious against COVID-19 (79.49%, 95% CI: 60.55−89.34), with excellent seroconversion rate (92.64%, 95% CI: 86.77−96.91) and geometric mean titer (GMT) (SMD 3.56, 95% CI: 2.80−4.31) of neutralizing antibodies, and provided a significant protection rate against severe disease (87.01%, 50.80−96.57). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses consistently found vaccine types and the number of doses to be primary influencing factors for efficacy and immunogenicity. Specifically, mRNA vaccines showed the best efficacy (90.72%, 95% CI: 86.82−93.46), consistent with its highest seroconversion rate (98.52%, 95% CI: 93.45−99.98) and GMT (SMD 6.20, 95% CI: 2.02−10.39). Compared to the control groups, vaccination significantly increased the incidence of total adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.59, 95% CI: 1.38−1.83), including most local and systemic AEs, such as pain, fever, chill, etc. For inactivated and DNA vaccines, the incidence of any AEs was similar between vaccination and control groups (p > 0.1), while mRNA vaccines had the highest risk of most AEs (RR range from 1.74 to 7.22).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines showed acceptable efficacy, immunogenicity and safety in older people, especially providing a high protection rate against severe disease. The mRNA vaccine was the most efficacious, but it is worth surveillance for some AEs it caused. Increased booster coverage in older adults is warranted, and additional studies are urgently required for longer follow-up periods and variant strains.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Liu

et al. 2022

Front. Immunol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effectiveness of mRNA-based vaccines in reducing infection incidence of COVID-19 after the second dose, irrespective of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2, is comparable (95%—Pfizer–BioNTech; 94.1%—Moderna). In turn, the clinical effectiveness of the analyzed adenovirus-vectored vaccine (Oxford–AstraZeneca) in the prevention of COVID-19 is 70.4% among subjects receiving the two recommended doses at any dosing intervals (between 3 and 23 weeks) [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 34 ]. Moreover, many performed studies have shown that a number of factors can influence the observed difference in efficacy and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety Profile of COVID-19 Vaccines among Healthcare Workers in Poland

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to compare the safety profiles (prevalence of both local and systemic side effects) of COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer–BioNTech, Moderna, Oxford–AstraZeneca) among healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, and pharmacists) administered with a first and a second dose of the vaccines. Another goal of the research was to evaluate potential demographic and clinical risk factors for the frequency and intensity of side effects. A post-marketing, cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out on a sample of 971 respondents (323 doctors, 324 nurses, and 324 pharmacists), all more than 18 years old, who have taken two doses of the following SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) (group 1), mRNA-1273 (Moderna) (group 2), and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) (group 3). A validated, self-administered questionnaire was developed and delivered online to the target population group of healthcare workers. The survey was conducted during the third wave of the COVID-19 (1 February 2021–1 July 2021) pandemic. It was based on the CAWI (computer-assisted web interview) method. Questionnaires were disseminated using selected social media. The BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) vaccine was the most commonly administered COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare professionals in Poland (69.61%). Side effects following a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were reported by 53.11% of respondents in group 1, 72% in group 2, and 67.59% in group 3. The following were the most common side effects regardless of the type of vaccine administered: pain at the injection site, headache, muscle pain, fever, chills, and fatigue. The number and intensity of reported side effects following administration of a BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) vaccine were significantly lower than in the other two study groups (p < 0.00001). Risk factors for side effects following administration of one of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines subject to the analysis included being female, young, and suffering from a diagnosed allergy. Our results clearly show that the short-term safety profiles of the eligible COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer–BioNTech, Moderna, Oxford–AstraZeneca) are acceptable. Nevertheless, the two-dose COVID-19 vaccines available in Poland differ significantly in the frequency of both local and systemic side effects and their intensity. Women, young people, and patients diagnosed with allergies are particularly exposed to the risk of side effects. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.

show abstract

“…COV2.S [J&J/Janssen]), and inactivated vaccines (e.g., CoronaVac [Sinovac]) [12]. It is reported that the inactivated COVID-19 vaccines most widely used in China (e.g., BBIBP--CorV and CoronaVac) have a less effectiveness (66%-78%) [13,14] than the mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, >90%) used in Western countries [15,16]. Despite the proven effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes, the global vaccination coverage remains far below expectations [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived health literacy and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among Chinese college students: A mediation analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although COVID-19 vaccines hold the potential to dramatically alter the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine hesitancy remains a serious threat to the management and control of COVID-19 infections. Vaccination of young adults plays a crucial role in achieving herd immunity. However, the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among the youth in China have not been fully explored. Our study aims to investigate the direct and indirect effects of perceived health literacy on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Methods This survey was conducted among Chinese college students during September and October, 2020. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was defined as the likelihood that participants would get a COVID-19 vaccine. A mediation analysis was employed to explore the direct and indirect effects of perceived health literacy on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Results A total of 2,587 college students were included in our study. The results of the survey revealed that the majority (80.40%) of the participants expressed high COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. After controlling for demographic characteristics, the relationship between perceived health literacy and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was mediated by positive attitudes toward general vaccination (std.β = 0.004, p = 0.037) and self-efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine (std.β = 0.053, p < 0.001). Conclusions The findings suggest that interventions targeting health literacy to promote COVID-19 vaccination coverage might consider placing greater emphasis on enhancing the positive attitude towards and self-efficacy of vaccines among youth.

show abstract

Efficacy and Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cited by 54 publications

References 62 publications

Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Safety Profile of COVID-19 Vaccines among Healthcare Workers in Poland

Perceived health literacy and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among Chinese college students: A mediation analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About