Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of potential vaccine candidates against coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Search for an effective and safe vaccine to prevent transmission of current pandemic is an unmet need. This study reviews and compares the available early phase clinical data of vaccine candidates which have reached phase 3 of clinical development. The latest update of "DRAFT landscape of coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 candidate vaccines (October 2, 2020)" released by the World Health Organization was accessed to identify the potential vaccine candidates. The full text articles (published and/or preprint) of data of early clinical trials of the selected vaccines were accessed from the links provided in the same document, PubMed and/or medRxiv.com. After extraction and synthesis, the data were critically evaluated for the study efficacy and safety outcomes. Of the total 193 candidate vaccines 10 were found to reach phase 3 of the clinical development. Nine of these were included in the evaluation process. In all of the included studies, immunogenicity and serious adverse events/local or systemic adverse events/laboratory parameters abnormality was considered as efficacy and safety outcomes respectively. Immunogenicity response with most of the vaccines was either higher than or similar to the respective controls except one (recombinant adenovirus type 26 COV2 [Ad26.COV2.S]) for which it was less than that in control. Overall adverse events (related and/or unrelated) were more with vaccines than those with respective control(s) in three studies, in other two, these were similar whereas in one study, the events were less in the vaccine group than in control group and in the rest, data described were descriptive only without any mention for the same for the control. In conclusion all studies showed immunogenic response to target protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 and which was higher than the respective control except for Ad26.CoV2.S. Many of the vaccines caused more adverse events than the controls, however most were mild and transient and/or manageable.

SUBMITTER: Kumar S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8300322 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Until now, there is no clinically approved specific medicine to treat COVID-19. Prior systematic reviews (SRs) have shown that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) reduces the number of patients with severe disease and time to fever clearance, promotes clinical effectiveness, and improves chest images and the negativity rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid test. Few SRs arrived at a definitive conclusion, and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published. We conducted this study to summarize the latest evidence of TCM in COVID-19. Methods: Eight online databases were searched from December 2019 to July 2020, updated to March 2021. Only RCTs evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19 were included. Primary outcomes were clinical cure and the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test. Secondary outcomes included clinical deterioration, ARDS, mechanical ventilation, death, time to fever clearance, duration of hospitalization, and chest imaging improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events and serious adverse events during treatment. Two reviewers selected the included articles, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. Results: A total of 25 RCTs involving 2222 participants were selected in the systematic review, and seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that TCM plus routine treatment was significantly better than routine treatment alone in clinical cure (risk ratio [RR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.04, 1.38], P = 0.01) and chest image improvement (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.07, 1.39], P = 0.01) and could reduce clinical deterioration (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.18, 0.86], P = 0.02), ARDS (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.11, 0.69], P = 0.01), mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.30, 95% CI [0.12, 0.77], P = 0.01), or death rate (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.09, 0.84], P = 0.02). No significant difference between TCM and routine treatment in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test (RR = 1.08, 95% CI [0.94, 1.23], P = 0.29) was observed. Finally, there was no overall significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. The summary of evidence showed moderate confidence of a benefit of 11.8% in clinical cure and 14.0% in chest image improvement and a reduction of 5.9% in clinical deterioration, 25.4% in ARDS, 18.3% in mechanical ventilation, and 4.5% in death with TCM plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone in patients with COVID-19. A low confidence of a benefit of 5.4% in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test was also observed. Conclusions: Synethized evidence of 21 outcomes in 8 RCTs showed moderate certainty that TCM treatment plus routine treatment may promote a clinical cure and chest image improvement compared to routine treatment alone while reducing clinical deterioration, development of ARDS, use of mechanical ventilation, and death in patients with COVID-19. TCM treatment plus routine treatment may not promote the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test compared to routine treatment alone. TCM treatment was found to be safe for patients with COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundTuberculosis (TB) remains a leading cause of death worldwide, with 98% of cases occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The only vaccine licenced for the prevention of TB has limited protection for adolescents, adults and vulnerable populations. A safe and effective vaccine for all populations at risk is imperative to achieve global elimination of TB. We aimed to systematically review the efficacy and safety of TB vaccine candidates in late-phase clinical trials conducted in LMICs.MethodsMedline, Embase, CENTRAL, PubMed, Clinicaltrials.gov and Greylit.org were searched in June 2021 to identify phase 2 or later clinical randomised controlled trials that report the efficacy or safety (adverse events) of TB vaccine candidates with participants of any age living in an LMIC. TB vaccine candidates listed in the 2020 WHO Global TB Report were eligible for inclusion aside from BCG revaccination. Trials were excluded if all participants had active TB at baseline. Two reviewers independently assessed papers for eligibility, and for bias and quality using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and GRADE guidelines, respectively. We report efficacy rates and frequencies of adverse events from each included trial where available and qualitatively synthesise the findings.ResultsThirteen papers representing eleven trials met our inclusion criteria. Seven vaccine candidates were reviewed across seven countries: M72/AS01, RUTI, VPM1002, H56:IC31, MTBVAC, DAR-901 and ID93 + GLA-SE. Two trials reported on efficacy: an efficacy rate of 54% (95% CI 11.5, 76.2) was reported for M72/AS01 in adults with latent TB and 3% (95% CI -13.9, 17.7) for DAR-901 in healthy adolescents. However, the latter trial was underpowered. All vaccine candidates had comparable occurrences of adverse events between treatment arms and demonstrated acceptable safety profiles; though, RUTI resulted in one serious complication in a person living with HIV. M72/AS01 was the only vaccine considered safe across a diverse group of people including people living with HIV or latent TB and healthy infants and adolescents.ConclusionFurther efficacy trials for M72/AS01 are warranted to include additional populations at risk where safety has been demonstrated. Further safety trials are needed for the remaining vaccine candidates to confirm safety in vulnerable populations.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of potential vaccine candidates against coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets