Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness of treatment options against SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Thoguluva Chandrasekar V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7404948 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe temporal evolution of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness (VE) against infection, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 is incompletely defined. The temporal evolution of VE could be dependent on age, vaccine types, variants of the virus, and geographic region. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the duration of VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic COVID-19 and severe COVID-19.MethodsMEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the World Health Organization Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease, and CoronaCentral databases were searched and studies were selected. Independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and cohort studies with the outcome of interest. Independent reviewers extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty (quality) of the evidence. Primary outcomes included VE as a function of time against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic and severe COVID-19.ResultsEighteen studies were included representing nearly 7 million individuals. VE against all SARS-CoV-2 infections declined from 83% in the first month after completion of the original vaccination series to 22% at 5 months or longer. Similarly, VE against symptomatic COVID-19 declined from 94% in the first month after vaccination to 64% by the fourth month. VE against severe COVID-19 for all ages was high overall, with the level being 90% (95% CI, 87-92%) at five months or longer after being fully vaccinated. VE against severe COVID-19 was lower in individuals ≥ 65 years and those who received Ad26.COV2.S.ConclusionsVE against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 waned over time but protection remained high against severe COVID-19. These data can be used to inform public health decisions around the need for booster vaccination.
| S-EPMC9077344 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As of June 2020, the number of people infected with severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to skyrocket, with more than 6.7 million cases worldwide. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations (UN) has highlighted the need for better control of SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, developing novel virus-specific vaccines, monoclonal antibodies and antiviral drugs against SARS-CoV-2 can be time-consuming and costly. Convalescent sera and safe-in-man broad-spectrum antivirals (BSAAs) are readily available treatment options. Here, we developed a neutralization assay using SARS-CoV-2 strain and Vero-E6 cells. We identified the most potent sera from recovered patients for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. We also screened 136 safe-in-man broad-spectrum antivirals against the SARS-CoV-2 infection in Vero-E6 cells and identified nelfinavir, salinomycin, amodiaquine, obatoclax, emetine and homoharringtonine. We found that a combination of orally available virus-directed nelfinavir and host-directed amodiaquine exhibited the highest synergy. Finally, we developed a website to disseminate the knowledge on available and emerging treatments of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7354438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the level and characteristics of protection from past SARS-CoV-2 infection against subsequent re-infection, symptomatic COVID-19 disease, and severe disease is essential for predicting future potential disease burden, for designing policies that restrict travel or access to venues where there is a high risk of transmission, and for informing choices about when to receive vaccine doses. We aimed to systematically synthesise studies to estimate protection from past infection by variant, and where data allow, by time since infection.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified, reviewed, and extracted from the scientific literature retrospective and prospective cohort studies and test-negative case-control studies published from inception up to Sept 31, 2022, that estimated the reduction in risk of COVID-19 among individuals with a past SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to those without a previous infection. We meta-analysed the effectiveness of past infection by outcome (infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease), variant, and time since infection. We ran a Bayesian meta-regression to estimate the pooled estimates of protection. Risk-of-bias assessment was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health quality-assessment tools. The systematic review was PRISMA compliant and was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42022303850).FindingsWe identified a total of 65 studies from 19 different countries. Our meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant. Pooled effectiveness against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant was 45·3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 17·3-76·1) and 44·0% (26·5-65·0) against omicron BA.1 symptomatic disease. Mean pooled effectiveness was greater than 78% against severe disease (hospitalisation and death) for all variants, including omicron BA.1. Protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants declined over time but remained at 78·6% (49·8-93·6) at 40 weeks. Protection against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant declined more rapidly and was estimated at 36·1% (24·4-51·3) at 40 weeks. On the other hand, protection against severe disease remained high for all variants, with 90·2% (69·7-97·5) for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants, and 88·9% (84·7-90·9) for omicron BA.1 at 40 weeks.InterpretationProtection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe disease was high for all variants. The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, and J and E Nordstrom.
| S-EPMC9998097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundKnowing whether COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness wanes is crucial for informing vaccine policy, such as the need for and timing of booster doses. We aimed to systematically review the evidence for the duration of protection of COVID-19 vaccines against various clinical outcomes, and to assess changes in the rates of breakthrough infection caused by the delta variant with increasing time since vaccination.MethodsThis study was designed as a systematic review and meta-regression. We did a systematic review of preprint and peer-reviewed published article databases from June 17, 2021, to Dec 2, 2021. Randomised controlled trials of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and observational studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness were eligible. Studies with vaccine efficacy or effectiveness estimates at discrete time intervals of people who had received full vaccination and that met predefined screening criteria underwent full-text review. We used random-effects meta-regression to estimate the average change in vaccine efficacy or effectiveness 1-6 months after full vaccination.FindingsOf 13 744 studies screened, 310 underwent full-text review, and 18 studies were included (all studies were carried out before the omicron variant began to circulate widely). Risk of bias, established using the risk of bias 2 tool for randomised controlled trials or the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions tool was low for three studies, moderate for eight studies, and serious for seven studies. We included 78 vaccine-specific vaccine efficacy or effectiveness evaluations (Pfizer-BioNTech-Comirnaty, n=38; Moderna-mRNA-1273, n=23; Janssen-Ad26.COV2.S, n=9; and AstraZeneca-Vaxzevria, n=8). On average, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased from 1 month to 6 months after full vaccination by 21·0 percentage points (95% CI 13·9-29·8) among people of all ages and 20·7 percentage points (10·2-36·6) among older people (as defined by each study, who were at least 50 years old). For symptomatic COVID-19 disease, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness decreased by 24·9 percentage points (95% CI 13·4-41·6) in people of all ages and 32·0 percentage points (11·0-69·0) in older people. For severe COVID-19 disease, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness decreased by 10·0 percentage points (95% CI 6·1-15·4) in people of all ages and 9·5 percentage points (5·7-14·6) in older people. Most (81%) vaccine efficacy or effectiveness estimates against severe disease remained greater than 70% over time.InterpretationCOVID-19 vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against severe disease remained high, although it did decrease somewhat by 6 months after full vaccination. By contrast, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against infection and symptomatic disease decreased approximately 20-30 percentage points by 6 months. The decrease in vaccine efficacy or effectiveness is likely caused by, at least in part, waning immunity, although an effect of bias cannot be ruled out. Evaluating vaccine efficacy or effectiveness beyond 6 months will be crucial for updating COVID-19 vaccine policy.FundingCoalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.
| S-EPMC8863502 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt was urgent and necessary to synthesize the evidence for vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness profile of COVID-19 vaccines against VOC.MethodsPublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies that evaluated the VE against VOC (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Omicron) were searched until 4 March 2022. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. VE was defined as (1-estimate).ResultsEleven RCTs (161,388 participants), 20 cohort studies (52,782,321 participants), and 26 case-control studies (2,584,732 cases) were included. Eleven COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, Ad26.COV2.S, NVX-CoV2373, BBV152, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, SCB-2019, CVnCoV, and HB02) were included in this analysis. Full vaccination was effective against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants, with VE of 88.0% (95% CI, 83.0-91.5), 73.0% (95% CI, 64.3-79.5), 63.0% (95% CI, 47.9-73.7), 77.8% (95% CI, 72.7-82.0), and 55.9% (95% CI, 40.9-67.0), respectively. Booster vaccination was more effective against Delta and Omicron variants, with VE of 95.5% (95% CI, 94.2-96.5) and 80.8% (95% CI, 58.6-91.1), respectively. mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273/BNT162b2) seemed to have higher VE against VOC over others; significant interactions (pinteraction < 0.10) were observed between VE and vaccine type (mRNA vaccines vs. not mRNA vaccines).ConclusionsFull vaccination of COVID-19 vaccines is highly effective against Alpha variant, and moderate effective against Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants. Booster vaccination is more effective against Delta and Omicron variants. mRNA vaccines seem to have higher VE against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants over others.
| S-EPMC9126103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of asymptomaticity have arisen from inconsistent terminology as well as conflation of index and secondary cases which biases toward lower asymptomaticity. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and World Health Organization Global Research Database on COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 2, 2021 to identify studies that reported silent infections at the time of testing, whether presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Index cases were removed to minimize representational bias that would result in overestimation of symptomaticity. By analyzing over 350 studies, we estimate that the percentage of infections that never developed clinical symptoms, and thus were truly asymptomatic, was 35.1% (95% CI: 30.7 to 39.9%). At the time of testing, 42.8% (95% prediction interval: 5.2 to 91.1%) of cases exhibited no symptoms, a group comprising both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections. Asymptomaticity was significantly lower among the elderly, at 19.7% (95% CI: 12.7 to 29.4%) compared with children at 46.7% (95% CI: 32.0 to 62.0%). We also found that cases with comorbidities had significantly lower asymptomaticity compared to cases with no underlying medical conditions. Without proactive policies to detect asymptomatic infections, such as rapid contact tracing, prolonged efforts for pandemic control may be needed even in the presence of vaccination.
| S-EPMC8403749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHydroxychloroquine (HCQ)/Chloroquine (CQ) has been evaluated for treatment and prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection in various studies with conflicting results. We performed a systematic review to synthesize the currently available evidence over the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ therapy alone against SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies published until October 15, 2020 and assessing the efficacy of HCQ alone against SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included studies evaluating HCQ/CQ alone as intervention and placebo/standard care as a control group. Retrospective studies and studies using other drugs (namely azithromycin, corticosteroids, immunomodulators, etc.) we excluded. Thirteen RCTs and three prospective cohort studies were included in this review. We pooled data using a random-effect model.ResultsPooled data from 12 studies (9917 participants) showed that HCQs increase mortality as compared to placebo/standard of care (RR 1.10; 95% CI:1.00-1.20). Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the need for hospitalization in out-patients (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.31-1.02). HCQ group has a significantly higher rate of any adverse event (RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.55-4.64), as compared to the control group. Also, using HCQ for prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection did not reduce the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.58-1.88).ConclusionsHCQ therapy for COVID-19 is associated with an increase in mortality and other adverse events. The negative effects are more pronounced in hospitalized patients. Therefore, with the available evidence, HCQ should not be used in prophylaxis or treatment of patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7899036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe global surge in the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant has resulted in many individuals with hybrid immunity (immunity developed through a combination of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination). We aimed to systematically review the magnitude and duration of the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against infection and severe disease caused by the omicron variant.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-regression, we searched for cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO COVID-19 database, and Europe PubMed Central from Jan 1, 2020, to June 1, 2022, using keywords related to SARS-CoV-2, reinfection, protective effectiveness, previous infection, presence of antibodies, and hybrid immunity. The main outcomes were the protective effectiveness against reinfection and against hospital admission or severe disease of hybrid immunity, hybrid immunity relative to previous infection alone, hybrid immunity relative to previous vaccination alone, and hybrid immunity relative to hybrid immunity with fewer vaccine doses. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions Tool. We used log-odds random-effects meta-regression to estimate the magnitude of protection at 1-month intervals. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022318605).Findings11 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 15 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of hybrid immunity were included. For previous infection, there were 97 estimates (27 with a moderate risk of bias and 70 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of previous infection against hospital admission or severe disease was 74·6% (95% CI 63·1-83·5) at 12 months. The effectiveness of previous infection against reinfection waned to 24·7% (95% CI 16·4-35·5) at 12 months. For hybrid immunity, there were 153 estimates (78 with a moderate risk of bias and 75 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of hybrid immunity against hospital admission or severe disease was 97·4% (95% CI 91·4-99·2) at 12 months with primary series vaccination and 95·3% (81·9-98·9) at 6 months with the first booster vaccination after the most recent infection or vaccination. Against reinfection, the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following primary series vaccination waned to 41·8% (95% CI 31·5-52·8) at 12 months, while the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following first booster vaccination waned to 46·5% (36·0-57·3) at 6 months.InterpretationAll estimates of protection waned within months against reinfection but remained high and sustained for hospital admission or severe disease. Individuals with hybrid immunity had the highest magnitude and durability of protection, and as a result might be able to extend the period before booster vaccinations are needed compared to individuals who have never been infected.FundingWHO COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.
| S-EPMC10014083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, promoted vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 are being given out globally. However, the occurrence of numerous COVID-19 variants has hindered the goal of rapid mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic by effective mass vaccinations. The real-word effectiveness of the current vaccines against COVID-19 variants has not been assessed by published reviews. Therefore, our study evaluated the overall effectiveness of current vaccines and the differences between the various vaccines and variants.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv were searched to screen the eligible studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Egger test were applied to estimate the quality of the literature and any publication bias, respectively. The pooled incident rates of different variants after vaccination were estimated by single-arm analysis. Meanwhile, the pooled efficacies of various vaccines against variants were evaluated by two-arm analysis using odds ratios (ORs) and vaccine effectiveness (VE).ResultsA total of 6,118 studies were identified initially and 44 articles were included. We found that the overall incidence of variants post first/second vaccine were 0.07 and 0.03, respectively. The VE of the incidence of variants post first vaccine between the vaccine and the placebo or unvaccinated population was 40% and post second vaccine was 96%, respectively. The sub-single-arm analysis showed a low prevalence rate of COVID-19 variants after specific vaccination with the pooled incidence below 0.10 in most subgroups. Meanwhile, the sub-two-arm analysis indicated that most current vaccines had a good or moderate preventive effect on certain variants considering that the VE in these subgroups was between 66 and 95%, which was broadly in line with the results of the sub-single-arm analysis.ConclusionOur meta-analysis shows that the current vaccines that are used globally could prevent COVID-19 infection and restrict the spread of variants to a great extent. We would also support maximizing vaccine uptake with two doses, as the effectiveness of which was more marked compared with one dose. Although the mRNA vaccine was the most effective against variants according to our study, specific vaccines should be taken into account based on the local dominant prevalence of variants.
| S-EPMC9160927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are currently many treatment options for patients with subacromial shoulder conditions (SSCs). Clinical decision-making regarding the best treatment option is often difficult. This study aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment options for relieving pain and improving function in patients with SSCs.MethodsEight databases [including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry] were searched from inception until April 2020. Randomised clinical/controlled trials of adult patients investigating the effects of nonsurgical (e.g. corticosteroid injections, therapeutic exercise, shockwave therapy) and surgical treatment for SSCs, compared with each other, placebo, usual care or no treatment, were retrieved. Pairs of reviewers screened studies independently, quality appraised eligible studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, extracted and checked data for accuracy. Primary outcomes were pain and disability in the short term (⩽3 months) and long term (⩾6 months). Direct and indirect evidence of treatment effectiveness was synthesised using random-effects network meta-analysis.ResultsThe review identified 177 eligible trials. Summary estimates (based on 99 trials providing suitable data, 6764 patients, 20 treatment options) showed small to moderate effects for several treatments, but no significant differences on pain or function between many active treatment comparisons. The primary analysis indicated that exercise and laser therapy may provide comparative benefit in terms of both pain and function at different follow-up time-points, with larger effects found for laser in the short term at 2-6 weeks, although direct evidence was provided by one trial only, and for exercise in the longer term [standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18, 0.59 at 3-6 months] compared with control. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies at increased risk of bias confirmed only the comparative effects of exercise as being robust for both pain and function up until 3-month follow-up.ConclusionCurrent evidence shows small to moderate effect sizes for most treatment options for SSCs. Six treatments had a high probability of being most effective, in the short term, for pain and function [acupuncture, manual therapy, exercise, exercise plus manual therapy, laser therapy and Microcurrent (MENS) (TENS)], but with low certainty for most treatment options. After accounting for risk of bias, there is evidence of moderate certainty for the comparative effects of exercise on function in patients with SSCs. Future large, high-quality pragmatic randomised trials or meta-analyses are needed to better understand whether specific subgroups of patients respond better to some treatments than others.
| S-EPMC8435933 | biostudies-literature