Dataset Information

Safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Various modalities of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), based on different platforms and immunization procedures, have been successively approved for marketing worldwide. A comprehensive review for clinical trials assessing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is urgently needed to make an accurate judgment for mass vaccination.

Main text

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the safety of COVID-19 vaccine candidates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Scopus, Web of Science, and MedRxiv. Included articles were limited to RCTs on COVID-19 vaccines. A total of 73,633 subjects from 14 articles were included to compare the risks of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) after vaccinating different COVID-19 vaccines. Pooled risk ratios (RR) of total AEFI for inactivated vaccine, viral-vectored vaccine, and mRNA vaccine were 1.34 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-1.61, P < 0.001], 1.65 (95% CI 1.31-2.07, P < 0.001), and 2.01 (95% CI 1.78-2.26, P < 0.001), respectively. No significant differences on local and systemic AEFI were found between the first dose and second dose. In addition, people aged ≤ 55 years were at significantly higher risk of AEFI than people aged ≥ 56 years, with a pooled RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.15-1.35, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The safety and tolerance of current COVID-19 vaccine candidates are acceptable for mass vaccination, with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines candidates having the lowest reported AEFI. Long-term surveillance of vaccine safety is required, especially among elderly people with underlying medical conditions.

SUBMITTER: Chen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8256217 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeNitazoxanide is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic that has been tested for COVID-19 due to its anti-inflammatory effects and in vitro antiviral activity. This study synthesized the best evidence on the efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide in COVID-19.MethodsSearches for studies were performed in peer-reviewed and grey-literature from January 1, 2020 to May 23, 2022. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) Population: individuals with COVID-19; (2) Intervention: nitazoxanide; (3) Comparison: placebo; (4) Outcomes: primary outcome was death, and secondary outcomes were viral load, positive RT-PCR status, serum biomarkers of inflammation, composite measure of disease progression (ICU admission or invasive mechanical ventilation), and any adverse events; (5) Study type: blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Treatment effects were reported as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsFive blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs were included and enrolled individuals with mild or moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. We found no difference between nitazoxanide and placebo in reducing viral load (SMD = - 0.16; 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.05) and the frequency of positive RTP-PCR results (RR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06). In addition, there was no decreased risk for disease progression (RR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.04) and death (RR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78) among patients receiving nitazoxanide. Patients with COVID-19 treated with nitazoxanide had decreased levels of white blood cells (SMD = - 0.15; 95% - 0.29 to - 0.02), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (SMD - 0.32; 95% - 0.52 to - 0.13), and D-dimer (SMD - 0.49; 95% CI - 0.68 to - 0.31) compared to placebo, but the magnitude of effect was considered small to moderate.ConclusionThis systematic review showed no evidence of clinical benefits of the use of nitazoxanide to treat patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. In addition, we found a reduction in WBC, LDH, and D-dimer levels among nitazoxanide-treated patients, but the effect size was considered small to moderate.

Project description:In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding potential adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on cognition, based on the Adverse Events Reporting System and a review of the medical literature. We aimed to synthesize randomized clinical trial (RCTs) evidence on the association between statin therapy and cognitive outcomes.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL through December 2012, and reviewed published systematic reviews of statin treatment. We sought RCTs that compared statin treatment versus placebo or standard care, and reported at least one cognitive outcome (frequency of adverse cognitive events or measurements using standard neuropsychological cognitive test scores). Studies reporting sufficient information to calculate effect sizes were included in meta-analyses. Standardized and unstandardized mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes for global cognition and for pre-specified cognitive domains. The main outcome was change in cognition measured by neuropsychological tests; an outcome of secondary interest was the frequency of adverse cognitive events observed during follow-up.We identified 25 RCTs (all placebo-controlled) reporting cognitive outcomes in 46,836 subjects, of which 23 RCTs reported cognitive test results in 29,012 participants. Adverse cognitive outcomes attributable to statins were rarely reported in trials involving cognitively normal or impaired subjects. Furthermore, meta-analysis of cognitive test data (14 studies; 27,643 participants) failed to show significant adverse effects of statins on all tests of cognition in either cognitively normal subjects (standardized mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.01 to 0.03, p?=?0.42) or Alzheimer's disease subjects (standardized mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10, p?=?0.38).Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.

Project description:To systematically review and synthesize the safety and efficacy of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in children and adolescents. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR), and ClinicalTrials.gov website were searched to collect accessible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the safety and efficacy of human COVID-19 vaccines in children and adolescents until May 1, 2022. Three steps, including duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, and full-text review, were used to screen the studies. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs was used to assess the bias risk of the included studies. Microsoft Excel 16.57 (2021) software was used for data extraction and analysis. (PROSPERO Code No: CRD42021295422). COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated in a total of 10 950 children and adolescents in seven published studies and over 49 530 participants in 26 ongoing randomized controlled trials. Descriptive findings of the included published studies were reported stratified by vaccine type. The overall, local, and systemic adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) reported in most trials were similar between the vaccine and placebo groups. Most of the reactions reported were mild to moderate, whereas a few were severe. The common adverse events were injection-site pain, fever, headache, cough, fatigue, and muscle pain. Few clinical trials reported serious adverse events, but most of them were unrelated to vaccination. In terms of efficacy, the investigated messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was found to be 90.7%-100% efficacious in preventing COVID-19 among children and adolescents, revealing good efficacy profiles in this age group. Among children and adolescents, the safety of current COVID-19 vaccines is acceptable, and studies have suggested that mRNA vaccines can provide high protection against COVID-19 infection in pediatric age groups.