Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of H7N9 vaccines in healthy individuals.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Avian H7N9 influenza viruses possess a potential pandemic threat to public health worldwide, and have caused severe infection and high mortality in humans. A series of clinical trials of H7N9 vaccines have been completed. Meta-analyses need to be performed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of H7N9 vaccines. METHODS:Database research with defined selection criteria was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, etc. Data from randomized clinical trials regarding the immunogenicity and safety of H7N9 vaccines were collected and meta-analyzed. RESULTS:For non-adjuvanted H7N9 vaccines, high dose formulations induced limited immunogenicity and increased the risk of local and systemic adverse events, simultaneously. For adjuvanted H7N9 vaccines, on the one hand, ISCOMATRIX, MF59, AS03 and aluminium adjuvants applied in H7N9 vaccines could improve immune responses effectively, and non-aluminium adjuvants had superior performance in saving vaccine dose; on the other hand, aluminium adjuvant had the advantages of safety amongst these adjuvants applied in H7N9 vaccines. CONCLUSION:H7N9 influenza vaccines with adjuvant might represent the optimal available option in an influenza pandemic, at present.

SUBMITTER: Zheng D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6363152 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of H7N9 vaccines in healthy individuals.

Zheng Dan D Gao Feixia F Zhao Cheng C Ding Yahong Y Cao Yemin Y Yang Tianhan T Xu Xuesong X Chen Ze Z

Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics 20180914 1

<h4>Background</h4>Avian H7N9 influenza viruses possess a potential pandemic threat to public health worldwide, and have caused severe infection and high mortality in humans. A series of clinical trials of H7N9 vaccines have been completed. Meta-analyses need to be performed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of H7N9 vaccines.<h4>Methods</h4>Database research with defined selection criteria was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organizatio ...[more]

PMID: 30148691

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral vaccines with demonstrated efficacy for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) are available. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the COVID mRNA based and adenovector based vaccines' differential effectiveness during the time of circulation of the Delta variant and determine what impact this would have on population health and cost effectiveness.MethodsWe used de-identified claims in a research database that included vaccination status and Covid-positivity status. Individuals ≥18 years, fully vaccinated with Ad26.COV2·S/J&J/Janssen, mRNA-1273/Moderna, or BNT162b2/Pfizer-BioNTech by September 30, 2021, were included. Outcomes were SARS-CoV-2-infection, emergency department visits, outpatient visits, inpatient hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, death, and hospice transfers through September 30, 2021.ResultsAmong ∼6.5 million fully vaccinated individuals in the UHC Medicare Advantage and our commercially insured research database, mRNA-1273 performed better than BNT162b2 for infection, composite-hospitalization (hospitalization/ICU transfer/hospice transfer/death), and composite-ICU transfer (ICU transfer/hospice transfer/death) caused by B.1.612.7 (delta) variant infection. 26 CE.COV2.S performed worse than BNT162b2 for infection, composite-hospitalization, and composite-ICU transfers. The number needed to vaccinate (NNV) with mRNA1273 to prevent one hospitalization at 90 days was 3130 compared to 26 CE.COV2·S and 15,472 compared to BNT162b2. The NNV with mRNA1273 to prevent one ICU transfer at 90 days was 6358 compared to 26 CE.COV2·S and 34,279 compared to BNT162b2. For every one million individuals vaccinated with BNT162b compared to mRNA-1273, the approximate incremental inpatient cost would be $405,000 and the approximate incremental ICU cost would be $662,000.ConclusionsThe two-dose mRNA vaccines' effectiveness significantly exceeded the single-dose Ad26.COV2·S vaccine's effectiveness from population health and cost-effectiveness perspectives. The mRNA1273 vaccine showed slightly more effectiveness than the BNT162b vaccine.

Project description:BackgroundThe messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are more than 90% effective against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, their comparative effectiveness for a range of outcomes across diverse populations is unknown.MethodsWe emulated a target trial using the electronic health records of U.S. veterans who received a first dose of the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine between January 4 and May 14, 2021, during a period marked by predominance of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant. We matched recipients of each vaccine in a 1:1 ratio according to their risk factors. Outcomes included documented severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, symptomatic Covid-19, hospitalization for Covid-19, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for Covid-19, and death from Covid-19. We estimated risks using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. To assess the influence of the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant, we emulated a second target trial that involved veterans vaccinated between July 1 and September 20, 2021.ResultsEach vaccine group included 219,842 persons. Over 24 weeks of follow-up in a period marked by alpha-variant predominance, the estimated risk of documented infection was 5.75 events per 1000 persons (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.39 to 6.23) in the BNT162b2 group and 4.52 events per 1000 persons (95% CI, 4.17 to 4.84) in the mRNA-1273 group. The excess number of events per 1000 persons for BNT162b2 as compared with mRNA-1273 was 1.23 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.81) for documented infection, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.70) for symptomatic Covid-19, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.83) for hospitalization for Covid-19, 0.10 (95% CI, 0.00 to 0.26) for ICU admission for Covid-19, and 0.02 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.12) for death from Covid-19. The corresponding excess risk (BNT162b2 vs. mRNA-1273) of documented infection over 12 weeks of follow-up in a period marked by delta-variant predominance was 6.54 events per 1000 persons (95% CI, -2.58 to 11.82).ConclusionsThe 24-week risk of Covid-19 outcomes was low after vaccination with mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2, although risks were lower with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2. This pattern was consistent across periods marked by alpha- and delta-variant predominance. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and others.).

Project description:IntroductionDespite representing only 3% of the US population, immunocompromised (IC) individuals account for nearly half of the COVID-19 breakthrough hospitalizations. IC individuals generate a lower immune response after vaccination in general, and the US CDC recommended a third dose of either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines as part of their primary series. Influenza vaccine trials have shown that increasing dosage could improve effectiveness in IC populations. The objective of this systematic literature review and pairwise meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of mRNA-1273 (50 or 100 mcg/dose) vs BNT162b2 (30 mcg/dose) in IC populations using the GRADE framework.MethodsThe systematic literature search was conducted in the World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database. Studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis if they reported comparisons of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 in IC individuals ≥18 years of age; outcomes of interest were symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization due to COVID-19, and mortality due to COVID-19. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models. Outcomes were also analyzed in subgroups of patients with cancer, autoimmune disease, and solid organ transplant. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework.ResultsOverall, 17 studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis. Compared with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.97]; P=0.0151; I2 = 67.7%), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.93]; P=0.0009; I2 = 0%), COVID-19-associated hospitalization (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]; P<0.0001; I2 = 0%), and COVID-19-associated mortality (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.44-0.90]; P=0.0119; I2 = 0%) in IC populations. Results were consistent across subgroups. Because of sample size limitations, relative effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in IC populations cannot be studied in randomized trials. Based on nonrandomized studies, evidence certainty among comparisons was type 3 (low) and 4 (very low), reflecting potential biases in observational studies.ConclusionThis GRADE meta-analysis based on a large number of consistent observational studies showed that the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine is associated with improved clinical effectiveness in IC populations compared with BNT162b2.

Project description:Background Both BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) vaccines have shown high efficacy against COVID-19 in randomized controlled trials. However, their comparative effectiveness against COVID-19 is unclear in the real world. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against COVID-19 in the UK general population. Methods We emulated a target trial using IQVIA Medical Research Database (IMRD), an electronic primary care database from the UK (2021). We included 1,311,075 participants, consisting of 637,549 men and 673,526 women age≥18 years, who received vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 between January 1 and August 31, 2021. The outcomes consisted of confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalisation for COVID-19 and death from COVID-19 in the IMRD. We performed a cox-proportional hazard model to compare the risk of each outcome variable between the two vaccines adjusting for potential confounders with time-stratified overlap weighting of propensity score (PS). Results During a mean of 6.7 months of follow-up, 20,070 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in individuals who received BNT162b2 vaccine (PS weighted incidence rate: 3.65 per 1000 person-months), and 31,611 SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in those who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (PS weighted incidence rate: 5.25 per 1000 person-months). The time-stratified PS weighted rate difference of SARS-CoV-2 infection for BNT162b2 group vs. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group was -1.60 per 1000 person-months (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.76 to -1.43 per 1000 person-months), and the hazard ratio was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.71). The results were similar across the stratum of sex, age (<65 and ≥65 years), and study periods (i.e., alpha-variant predominance period and delta-variant predominance period). The PS weighted incidence of hospitalisation for COVID-19 was also lower in the BNT162b2 vaccine group than that in the ChAdOx1 vaccine group (RD: -0.09, 95%CI: -0.13 to -0.05 per 1000 person-months; HR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.57 to 0.74). No significant difference in the risk of death from COVID-19 was observed between the two comparison groups. Conclusions In this population-based study, the BNT162b2 vaccine appears to be more efficacious than the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation for COVID-19 but not death from COVID-19. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-023-02795-w.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a lack of data regarding how the Delta variant of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) vaccines at preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19 hospitalization.MethodsWe compared the effectiveness of the three vaccines during the pre- and post-Delta variant period (before and after 1 July 2021) in a large cohort of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in the Michigan Medicine healthcare system. We assessed vaccine effectiveness (VE) using 2 analyses: an inverse propensity weighted (IPW) Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis based on time from vaccination, and a Cox model based on calendar time with vaccination as a time-varying covariate.ResultsCompared to Ad26.COV2.S recipients, the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 in the post-Delta variant period was lower for BNT162b2 recipients (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [.14-.98]; P = .05) and mRNA-1273 recipients (HR = 0.21; 95% CI: [.07-.64]; P = .006). Recipients of the mRNA-1273 vaccine had a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than Ad26.COV2.S recipients (HR = 0.6; 95% CI: [.43-.83]; P = .003) and BNT162b2 recipients (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: [.54-.76]; P < .001). After 1 July, efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection declined for Ad26.COV2.S recipients (VE = 76% before; VE = 49% after; P = .02), BNT162b2 recipients (VE = 87% before; VE = 52% after; P < .001), and mRNA-1273 recipients (VE = 92% before; VE = 70% after; P < .001). Waning immunity and the Delta variant contributed independently and significantly to this decline.ConclusionsAlthough there is a substantial decline in effectiveness, the approved COVID-19 vaccines remain effective against infection and hospitalization due to the Delta variant. The mRNA-based vaccines are more effective than the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of H7N9 vaccines in healthy individuals.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of H7N9 vaccines in healthy individuals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets