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:Background Thromboembolic and bleeding events after vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are major public concerns leading to vaccine hesitancy. Due to low incidence, an individual randomized controlled trial (RCT) is underpowered to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 vaccines increase the risks of thromboembolism and hemorrhage. Methods We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, medRxiv databases, and reference lists of relevant articles to identify RCTs that reported thromboembolic, hemorrhagic events, and thromboembolism/hemorrhage-related death after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the pooled thromboembolic risk related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines compared to placebo. The secondary outcomes included estimating the risks of arterial thromboembolism (ATE), venous thromboembolisms (VTE), hemorrhage, thrombocytopenia, and thromboembolism/hemorrhage-related death. Results Eight RCTs of 4 vaccine platforms comprised of 195,196 participants were retrieved. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were not associated with an increased risk of overall thromboembolism (risk ratio [RR], 1.14; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.61–2.14; I2 = 35%), ATE (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.46–2.06; I2 = 21%), VTE (RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.72–2.99; I2 = 0%), hemorrhage (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.35–2.68; I2 = 0), and thromboembolism/hemorrhage-related death (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.16–1.79; I2 = 0). Compared to the baseline estimated risk of these outcomes in participants administered placebos, the risk differences with vaccines were very small and not statistically significant. These findings were consistent in the subgroup analysis across 4 vaccine platforms. Conclusion Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, hemorrhage, and thromboembolism/hemorrhage-related death. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12959-021-00340-4.

Project description:BACKGROUND:As a new generation antihistamine, fexofenadine has been widely used in allergic diseases. However, there is still a lack of collective evidence regarding the antihistamine effects and safety profiles of fexofenadine relative to other antihistamine drugs and placebo. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate the antihistamine effects and safety of fexofenadine. METHODS:An electronic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed using Embase, Cochrane and PubMed from establishment to January 1st, 2018. RCTs comparing the antihistamine effects or safety (adverse events, sedative effects, and cognitive/psychomotor function) of fexofenadine with either other antihistamines or placebo for healthy subjects and patients with allergy were selected. RESULTS:Fifty-one studies of 14,551 participants met the inclusion criteria. When compared with the first-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine produced significantly lower adverse events frequency (OR = 0.446; 95% CI: 0.214 to 0.929, P = 0.031), significantly lower sedative effects frequency (OR = 0.265; 95% CI: 0.072 to 0.976, P = 0.046) and significantly less change of all cognitive/psychomotor function. When compared with the second-generation antihistamines, fexofenadine produced significantly marginal sedative effects (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.93; P = 0.02) and significantly less change of most of the cognitive/psychomotor function. When compared with placebo, fexofenadine produced more significant antihistamine effects. CONCLUSIONS:Fexofenadine has a positive antihistamine effect, which is probably no worse than the second-generation antihistamines. Fexofenadine probably has a favorable safety profile, which is more likely better than that of the first-generation antihistamines. There is lack of data to support that fexofenadine has a better overall safety profile compared to the second-generation antihistamines, however, some presently available evidence on sedative effects and certain aspects of cognitive/psychomotor function favors fexofenadine. Therefore, fexofenadine may be worthy of recommendation for safety related workers.

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.