Development and implementation of a potential coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of vaccine clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
To date, there is no comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the suitability of COVID-19 vaccines for mass immunization. The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of novel COVID-19 vaccine candidates under clinical trial evaluation and present a contemporary update on the development and implementation of a potential vaccines.Methods
For this study PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase electronic databases were used to search for eligible studies on the interface between novel coronavirus and vaccine design until December 31, 2020.Results
We have included fourteen non-randomized and randomized controlled phase I-III trials. Implementation of a universal vaccination program with proven safety and efficacy through robust clinical evaluation is the long-term goal for preventing COVID-19. The immunization program must be cost-effective for mass production and accessibility. Despite pioneering techniques for the fast-track development of the vaccine in the current global emergency, mass production and availability of an effective COVID-19 vaccine could take some more time.Conclusion
Our findings suggest a revisiting of the reported solicited and unsolicited systemic adverse events for COVID-19 candidate vaccines. Hence, it is alarming to judiciously expose thousands of participants to COVID-19 candidate vaccines at Phase-3 trials that have adverse events and insufficient evidence on safety and effectiveness that necessitates further justification.
SUBMITTER: Sathian B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8033643 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSince the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many researchers in China have performed related clinical research. However, systematic reviews of the registered clinical trials are still lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of clinical trials for COVID-19 to summarize their characteristics.MethodsThis study is based on the PRISMA recommendations in the Cochrane handbook. The Chinese Clinical Registration Center and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify registered clinical trials related to COVID-19. The retrieval inception date was February 9, 2020. Two researchers independently selected the literature based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias.ResultsA total of 75 registered clinical trials (63 interventional studies and 12 observational studies) for COVID-19 were identified. The majority of clinical trials were sponsored by Chinese hospitals. Only 11 trials have begun to recruit patients, and none of the registered clinical trials have been completed; 34 trials were early clinical exploratory trials or in the pre-experiment stage, 13 trials were phase III, and four trials were phase IV. The intervention methods included traditional Chinese medicine in 26 trials, Western medicine in 30 trials, and integrated traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine in 19 trials. The subjects were primarily non-critical adult patients (≥ 18 years old). The median sample size of the trials was 100 (IQR: 60-200), and the median length of the trial periods was 179 d (IQR: 94-366 d). The main outcomes were clinical observation and examinations. Overall, the methodological quality of both the interventional trials and observational studies was low.ConclusionsIntensive clinical trials on the treatment of COVID-19 using traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine are ongoing or will be performed in China. However, based on the uncertain methodological quality, small sample size, and long trial duration, we will not be able to obtain reliable, high-quality clinical evidence regarding the treatment of COVID-19 in the near future. Improving the quality of study design, prioritizing promising drugs, and using different designs and statistical methods are worth advocating and recommending for clinical trials of COVID-19 in the future.
| S-EPMC7338108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to identify miRNAs that were dysregulated after the onset of COVID-19 and thus potentially be used for risk stratification (i.e., mortality). Therefore, we conducted a multi-center, retrospective longitudinal cohort study enrolling 142 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who presented to two Canadian hospitals from May 2020 – December 2020 along with a cohort of 27 SARS-CoV-2 patients with mild upper respiratory tract symptoms and 69 SARS-CoV-2-negative patients from the ICU. Blood was biobanked from SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in the emergency department (mild), ward (moderate) or intensive care unit (severe). Assessment of miRNA expression and co-regulatory network generation revealed significant transcriptome dyregulation in pateints with severe COVID-19 that was largely different from SARS-CoV-2 negative patients in the ICU.
2022-04-08 | GSE178246 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundAlthough multiple studies have revealed that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines can reduce COVID-19-related outcomes, little is known about their impact on post-COVID-19 conditions. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against post-COVID-19 conditions (ie, long COVID).MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to April 27, 2022, for studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against post-COVID-19 conditions among individuals who received at least 1 dose of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, or Janssen vaccine. A post-COVID-19 condition was defined as any symptom that was present 3 or more weeks after having COVID-19. Editorials, commentaries, reviews, study protocols, and studies in the pediatric population were excluded. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) for post-COVID-19 conditions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 - DOR).ResultsIn total, 10 studies with 1,600,830 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post-COVID-19 conditions, of which 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for post-COVID-19 conditions among individuals vaccinated with at least 1 dose was 0.708 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.692-0.725) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 29.2% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.8%). The vaccine effectiveness was 35.3% (95% CI, 32.3%-38.1%) among those who received the COVID-19 vaccine before having COVID-19, and 27.4% (95% CI, 25.4%-29.3%) among those who received it after having COVID-19.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination both before and after having COVID-19 significantly decreased post-COVID-19 conditions for the circulating variants during the study period although vaccine effectiveness was low.
| S-EPMC9726631 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:Clinical and laboratory biomarkers to predict the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are essential in this pandemic situation of which resource allocation must be urgently prepared especially in the context of respiratory support readiness. Lymphocyte count has been a marker of interest since the first COVID-19 publication. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to investigate the association of lymphocyte count on admission and the severity of COVID-19. We would also like to analyze whether patient characteristics such as age and comorbidities affect the relationship between lymphocyte count and COVID-19. Methods:Comprehensive and systematic literature search was performed from PubMed, SCOPUS, EuropePMC, ProQuest, Cochrane Central Databases, and Google Scholar. Research articles in adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with information on lymphocyte count and several outcomes of interest, including mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), intensive care unit (ICU) care, and severe COVID-19, were included in the analysis. Inverse variance method was used to obtain mean differences and its standard deviations. Maentel-Haenszel formula was used to calculate dichotomous variables to obtain odds ratios (ORs) along with its 95% confidence intervals. Random-effect models were used for meta-analysis regardless of heterogeneity. Restricted-maximum likelihood random-effects meta-regression was performed for age, gender, cardiac comorbidity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, COPD, and smoking. Results:There were a total of 3099 patients from 24 studies. Meta-analysis showed that patients with poor outcome have a lower lymphocyte count (mean difference - 361.06 μL [- 439.18, - 282.95], p < 0.001; I 2 84%) compared to those with good outcome. Subgroup analysis showed lower lymphocyte count in patients who died (mean difference - 395.35 μL [- 165.64, - 625.07], p < 0.001; I 2 87%), experienced ARDS (mean difference - 377.56 μL [- 271.89, - 483.22], p < 0.001; I 2 0%), received ICU care (mean difference - 376.53 μL [- 682.84, - 70.22], p = 0.02; I 2 89%), and have severe COVID-19 (mean difference - 353.34 μL [- 250.94, - 455.73], p < 0.001; I 2 85%). Lymphopenia was associated with severe COVID-19 (OR 3.70 [2.44, 5.63], p < 0.001; I 2 40%). Meta-regression showed that the association between lymphocyte count and composite poor outcome was affected by age (p = 0.034). Conclusion:This meta-analysis showed that lymphopenia on admission was associated with poor outcome in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7245646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn view of many unanswered clinical questions regarding treatment of COVID-19 with remdesivir, we systematically identified, critically appraised and summarized the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19.MethodsWe searched relevant databases/websites (up to September 2020) and selected English-language RCT publications of remdesivir for COVID-19. We conducted meta-analysis using an inverse variance, random-effects model in addition to trial sequential analysis (TSA) for the efficacy outcomes: all-cause mortality, viral burden and clinical progression. Safety outcomes were diarrhoea, nausea, and vomiting. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for all outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity was calculated using the I2 statistic.ResultsWe included five RCTs (7540 participants) from 7237 citations. Most (80%) were of an unclear to high risk of bias. There was no evidence of a significant improvement with remdesivir (100 mg, 10 days) regarding all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, CI 0.82-1.07; I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs; 7143 patients), clinical progression (RR 1.08, CI 0.99-1.18; I2 = 70.4%; 3 RCTs; 1692 patients), or diarrhoea (RR 0.82, CI 0.40-1.66; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs; 630 patients). Nausea occurred more often with remdesivir (RR 2.77, CI 1.28-6.03; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs; 630 patients). TSA showed that the required information size was not reached for firm conclusions to be drawn.Conclusions and relevanceThere is insufficient evidence to support the use of remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19. More high-quality RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence. Until then, remdesivir should remain an experimental drug for COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8127173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a worldwide outbreak of respiratory illness. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse events of herbal medicines for the treatment of COVID-19.MethodsTwelve databases were searched through 12 May 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of herbal medicines for the treatment of COVID-19 were eligible. The study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for the assessment of the risk of bias in all included RCTs. Mean differences (MDs), risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and the effect sizes of the studies were pooled.ResultsSeven RCTs with a total of 855 patients were included. All included trials compared the combined therapy of herbal medicine with Western medicine to Western medicine alone. The combined therapy significantly improved the total effective rate (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.34, p < 0.001), cough symptom disappearance rate (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.89, p = 0.005), and sputum production symptom disappearance rate (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.50, p = 0.004). Beneficial effects of the combined therapy were also seen in TCM syndrome score of cough (MD -1.18, 95% CI -1.34 to -1.03, p < 0.001), fever (MD -0.62, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.45, p < 0.001), dry and sore throat (MD -0.83, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.20, p = 0.009), and fatigue (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.17, p = 0.007). The overall risk of bias of the included studies was unclear. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionSignificant effects of the combined therapy of herbal medicine with Western medicine were found, and revealed the potential role of herbal medicine in treating COVID-19. More high-quality RCTs are needed to further validate the effectiveness and adverse events of herbal medicine in the treatment of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7290825 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A series of epidemiological explorations has suggested a negative association between national bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination policy and the prevalence and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, these comparisons are difficult to validate due to broad differences between countries such as socioeconomic status, demographic structure, rural vs. urban settings, time of arrival of the pandemic, number of diagnostic tests and criteria for testing, and national control strategies to limit the spread of COVID-19. We review evidence for a potential biological basis of BCG cross-protection from severe COVID-19, and refine the epidemiological analysis to mitigate effects of potentially confounding factors (e.g., stage of the COVID-19 epidemic, development, rurality, population density, and age structure). A strong correlation between the BCG index, an estimation of the degree of universal BCG vaccination deployment in a country, and COVID-19 mortality in different socially similar European countries was observed (r 2 = 0.88; P = 8 × 10-7), indicating that every 10% increase in the BCG index was associated with a 10.4% reduction in COVID-19 mortality. Results fail to confirm the null hypothesis of no association between BCG vaccination and COVID-19 mortality, and suggest that BCG could have a protective effect. Nevertheless, the analyses are restricted to coarse-scale signals and should be considered with caution. BCG vaccination clinical trials are required to corroborate the patterns detected here, and to establish causality between BCG vaccination and protection from severe COVID-19. Public health implications of a plausible BCG cross-protection from severe COVID-19 are discussed.
| S-EPMC7395502 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerging infectious disease that has caused a global pandemic. The presenting symptoms are mainly respiratory symptom, yet studies have reported nervous system involvement in the disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis of these studies are required to understanding the neurologic characteristic of the disease and help physicians with early diagnosis and management. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the neurologic characteristics in patients with COVID-19. Evidence Review: Authors conducted a literature search through PubMed from January 1st, 2020 to April 8th, 2020. Furthermore, the authors added additional sources by reviewing related references. Studies presenting the neurologic features of COVID-19 patients in their data were included. Case reports and case series were also included in this review. The quality of the studies was assessed based on the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Selected studies were included in the meta-analysis of proportion and the heterogeneity test. Finding: From 280 identified studies, 33 were eligible, with 7,559 participants included. Most of the included studies were from China (29 [88%]). Muscle injury or myalgia was the most common (19.2%, 95%CI 15.4-23.2%) neurologic symptom of COVID-19, followed by headache (10.9%, 95%CI 8.62-13.51%); dizziness (8.7%, 95%CI 5.02-13.43%); nausea with or without vomiting (4.6%, 95%CI 3.17-6.27%); concurrent cerebrovascular disease (4.4%, 95%CI 1.92-7.91%); and impaired consciousness (3.8%, 95%CI 0.16-12.04%). Underlying cerebrovascular disease was found in 8.5% (95%CI 4.5-13.5%) of the studies. Conclusion: Neurologic findings vary from non-specific to specific symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Some severe symptoms or diseases can present in the later stage of the disease. Physicians should be aware of the presence of neurologic signs and symptoms as a chief complaint of COVID-19, in order to improve management and prevent a worsening outcome of the patients.
| S-EPMC7273516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To provide a comprehensive and systematic analysis of demographic characteristics, clinical symptoms, laboratory findings, and imaging features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in pediatric patients. A meta-analysis was carried out to identify studies on COVID-19 from 25 December 2019 to 30 April 2020. A total of 48 studies with 5829 pediatric patients were included. Children of all ages were at risk for COVID-19. The main illness classification ranged as: 20% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-26%; I2 = 91.4%) asymptomatic, 33% (95% CI: 23%-43%; I2 = 95.6%) mild and 51% (95% CI: 42%-61%; I2 = 93.4%) moderate. The typical clinical manifestations were fever 51% (95% CI: 45%-57%; I2 = 78.9%) and cough 41% (95% CI: 35%-47%, I2 = 81.0%). The common laboratory findings were normal white blood cell 69% (95% CI: 64%-75%; I2 = 58.5%), lymphopenia 16% (95% CI: 11%-21%; I2 = 76.9%) and elevated creatine-kinase MB 37% (95% CI: 25%-48%; I2 = 59.0%). The frequent imaging features were normal images 41% (95% CI: 30%-52%; I2 = 93.4%) and ground-glass opacity 36% (95% CI: 25%-47%; I2 = 92.9%). Among children under 1 year old, critical cases account for 14% (95% CI: 13%-34%; I2 = 37.3%) that should be of concern. In addition, vomiting occurred in 33% (95% CI: 18%-67%; I2 = 0.0%) cases that may also need attention. Pediatric patients with COVID-19 may experience milder illness with atypical clinical manifestations and rare lymphopenia. High incidence of critical illness and vomiting symptoms reward attention in children under 1 year old.
| S-EPMC7436402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly developed into a pandemic. Increased levels of ferritin due to cytokine storm and secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis were found in severe COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the role of ferritin in COVID-19.MethodsStudies investigating ferritin in COVID-19 were collected from PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, SinoMed, and WANFANG. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the ferritin level between different patient groups: non-survivors versus survivors; more severe versus less severe; with comorbidity versus without comorbidity; ICU versus non-ICU; with mechanical ventilation versus without mechanical ventilation.ResultsA total of 52 records involving 10 614 COVID-19-confirmed patients between December 25, 2019, and June 1, 2020, were included in this meta-analysis, and 18 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The ferritin level was significantly increased in severe patients compared with the level in non-severe patients [WMD 397.77 (95% CI 306.51-489.02), P < .001]. Non-survivors had a significantly higher ferritin level compared with the one in survivors [WMD 677.17 (95% CI 391.01-963.33), P < .001]. Patients with one or more comorbidities including diabetes, thrombotic complication, and cancer had significantly higher levels of ferritin than those without (P < .01). Severe acute liver injury was significantly associated with high levels of ferritin, and its level was associated with intensive supportive care, including ICU transfer and mechanical ventilation.ConclusionsFerritin was associated with poor prognosis and could predict the worsening of COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7595919 | biostudies-literature