Are vaccines against COVID-19 tailored to the most vulnerable people?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Antonelli Incalzi R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7983447 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Multiple approaches can be used to communicate public health messages through mass media. It is unclear which approaches are superior for meeting the needs of the general community along with vulnerable population subgroups. To compare different public health strategy communication approaches for influencing the COVID-safe behavioural intentions of both community and vulnerable population subgroups. This study will conduct three concurrent 'helix' randomised controlled trials with Latin square sequencing and factorial intervention allocation to assess the effectiveness of different communication strategies amongst the Australian general community and six subgroups that are considered vulnerable to contracting, transmitting or experiencing severe consequences of COVID-19 infection. Communication approaches being compared include: the format of communication (written versus video), who is providing information (general practitioner, politician, community-representative), what is said and how it is delivered (direct information provision versus conversational approach) and the visual content of video messaging (animation versus 'talking head'). Recruited participants will be randomly allocated to receive a specific combination of health messaging strategies using six different COVID-19 context areas. Outcomes will be assessed in a survey using behaviour intention questions, and questions surrounding level of agreement with feeling represented in the health messaging strategy. These trials will use a unique research approach to provide an experimental evidence base to help guide development of impactful and inclusive COVID-19 and related public health messaging. All three trials are registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). Trial 1: Update and impact of Government recommendations about COVID-19 (coronavirus)-Stage 3, Trial 1, vulnerable subgroup populations (ACTRN12622000606785). Trial 2: Update and impact of Government recommendations about COVID-19 (coronavirus)-Stage 3, Trial 2, community group (ACTRN12622000605796). Trial 3: Update and impact of Government recommendations about COVID-19 (coronavirus)-Stage 3, Trial 3, What communication strategy is most effective for both vulnerable and community group populations? (ACTRN12622000617763).
| S-EPMC9882702 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although pivotal trials with varying populations and study methods suggest higher efficacy for mRNA than adenoviral Covid-19 vaccines, not many studies have directly compared vaccine effectiveness in the population. Here, we conduct a head-to-head comparison of BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1 against Covid-19. We analyse 235,181 UK Biobank participants aged 50 years or older and vaccinated with one or two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. People are followed from the vaccination date until 18/10/2021. Inverse probability weighting is used to minimise confounding and the Cox models to derive hazard ratio. We find that, compared with one dose of ChAdOx1, vaccination with BNT162b2 is associated with a 28% (95% CI, 12-42) decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Also, two doses of BNT162b2 vs ChAdOx1 confers 30% (95% CI, 25-35) and 29% (95% CI, 10-45) lower risks of both infection and hospitalisation during the study period when the Delta variant is dominant. Furthermore, the comparative protection against the infection persists for at least six months among the fully vaccinated, suggesting no differential waning between the two vaccines. These findings can inform evidence-based Covid-19 vaccination campaigns and booster strategies.
| S-EPMC8938429 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccines are urgently needed to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to help the return to pre-pandemic normalcy. A great many vaccine candidates are being developed, several of which have completed late-stage clinical trials and are reporting positive results. In this Progress article, we discuss which viral elements are used in COVID-19 vaccine candidates, why they might act as good targets for the immune system and the implications for protective immunity.
| S-EPMC7747004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by a novel coronavirus known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is associated with several fatal cases worldwide. The rapid spread of this pathogen and the increasing number of cases highlight the urgent development of vaccines. Among the technologies available for vaccine development, DNA vaccination is a promising alternative to conventional vaccines. Since its discovery in the 1990s, it has been of great interest because of its ability to elicit both humoral and cellular immune responses while showing relevant advantages regarding producibility, stability, and storage. This review aimed to summarize the current knowledge and advancements on DNA vaccines against COVID-19, particularly those in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC7749647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which emerged in late 2019, is a highly variable causative agent of COVID-19, a contagious respiratory disease with potentially severe complications. Vaccination is considered the most effective measure to prevent the spread and complications of this infection. Spike (S) protein-based vaccines were very successful in preventing COVID-19 caused by the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain; however, their efficacy was significantly reduced when coronavirus variants antigenically different from the original strain emerged in circulation. This is due to the high variability of this major viral antigen caused by escape from the immunity caused by the infection or vaccination with spike-targeting vaccines. The nucleocapsid protein (N) is a much more conserved SARS-CoV-2 antigen than the spike protein and has therefore attracted the attention of scientists as a promising target for broad-spectrum vaccine development. Here, we summarized the current data on various N-based COVID-19 vaccines that have been tested in animal challenge models or clinical trials. Despite the high conservatism of the N protein, escape mutations gradually occurring in the N sequence can affect its protective properties. During the three years of the pandemic, at least 12 mutations have arisen in the N sequence, affecting more than 40 known immunogenic T-cell epitopes, so the antigenicity of the N protein of recent SARS-CoV-2 variants may be altered. This fact should be taken into account as a limitation in the development of cross-reactive vaccines based on N-protein.
| S-EPMC10747980 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As of September 2021, twenty-one anti-COVID-19 vaccines have been approved in the world. Their utilization will expedite an end to the current pandemic. Besides the usual vaccine formats that include inactivated viruses (eight approved vaccines) and protein-based vaccines (four approved vaccines), three new formats have been validated: recombinant adenovirus (six approved vaccines), DNA (one approved vaccine), and messenger RNA (mRNA, two approved vaccines). The latter was the fastest (authorized in 2020 in the EU, the USA, and Switzerland). Most Western countries have reserved or use the protein vaccines, the adenovirus vaccines, and mRNA vaccines. I describe here the different vaccine formats in the context of COVID-19, detail the three formats that are chiefly reserved or used in Europe, Canada, and the USA, and discuss why the mRNA vaccines appear to be the superior format.
| S-EPMC8534873 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7283060 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9974059 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8282488 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article is a narrative review of the rapidly moving coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine field with an emphasis on clinical efficacy established in both randomized trials and postmarketing surveillance of clinically available vaccines. We review the major clinical trials that supported authorization for general use of the Janssen (Ad.26.CoV2), Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), and Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccines and the publicly available postmarketing information with the goal of providing a broad, clinically relevant comparison of efficacy and safety. This review is primarily focused on the US market.
| S-EPMC8802612 | biostudies-literature