Dataset Information

Immunological and clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Available data show that COVID-19 vaccines may be less effective in immunocompromised populations, who are at increased risk of severe COVID-19.

Objectives

We conducted a systematic review of literature to assess immunogenicity, efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.

Data sources

We searched Medline and Embase databases.

Study eligibility criteria, patients, interventions

We included studies of COVID-19 vaccines after complete vaccination in immunocompromised patients until 31 August 2021. Studies with <10 patients, safety data only and case series of breakthrough infections were excluded.

Methods

Risk of bias was assessed via the tool developed by the National Institutes of Health on interventional and observational studies. Immunogenicity was assessed through non-response rate defined as no anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies, efficacy and effectiveness by the relative reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19. We collected factors associated with the risk of non-response. We presented collected data by immunosuppression type.

Results

We screened 5917 results, included 162 studies. There were 157 on immunogenicity in 25 209 participants, including 7835 cancer or haematological malignancy patients (31.1%), 6302 patients on dialysis (25.0%), 5974 solid organ transplant recipients (23.7%) and 4680 immune-mediated disease patients (18.6%). Proportion of non-responders seemed higher among solid organ transplant recipients (range 18-100%) and patients with haematological malignancy (range 14-61%), and lower in patients with cancer (range 2-36%) and patients on dialysis (range 2-30%). Risk factors for non-response included older age, use of corticosteroids, immunosuppressive or anti-CD20 agent. Ten studies evaluated immunogenicity of an additional dose. Five studies evaluated vaccine efficacy or effectiveness: three on SARS-CoV-2 infection (range 71-81%), one on COVID-19-related hospitalization (62.9%), one had a too small sample size.

Conclusions

This systematic review highlights the risk of low immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations, especially solid organ transplant recipients and patients with haematological malignancy. Despite lack of vaccine effectiveness data, enhanced vaccine regimens may be necessary.

SUBMITTER: Galmiche S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8595936 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of covid-19 vaccines between immunocompromised and immunocompetent people.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Central Register of Controlled Trials, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset Challenge (CORD-19), and WHO covid-19 databases for studies published between 1 December 2020 and 5 November 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched in November 2021 to identify registered but as yet unpublished or ongoing studies.Study selectionProspective observational studies comparing the efficacy of covid-19 vaccination in immunocompromised and immunocompetent participants.MethodsA frequentist random effects meta-analysis was used to separately pool relative and absolute risks of seroconversion after the first and second doses of a covid-19 vaccine. Systematic review without meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 antibody titre levels was performed after first, second, and third vaccine doses and the seroconversion rate after a third dose. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed.Results82 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Of these studies, 77 (94%) used mRNA vaccines, 16 (20%) viral vector vaccines, and 4 (5%) inactivated whole virus vaccines. 63 studies were assessed to be at low risk of bias and 19 at moderate risk of bias. After one vaccine dose, seroconversion was about half as likely in patients with haematological cancers (risk ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.50, I2=80%; absolute risk 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.40, I2=89%), immune mediated inflammatory disorders (0.53, 0.39 to 0.71, I2=89%; 0.29, 0.11 to 0.58, I2=97%), and solid cancers (0.55, 0.46 to 0.65, I2=78%; 0.44, 0.36 to 0.53, I2=84%) compared with immunocompetent controls, whereas organ transplant recipients were 16 times less likely to seroconvert (0.06, 0.04 to 0.09, I2=0%; 0.06, 0.04 to 0.08, I2=0%). After a second dose, seroconversion remained least likely in transplant recipients (0.39, 0.32 to 0.46, I2=92%; 0.35, 0.26 to 0.46), with only a third achieving seroconversion. Seroconversion was increasingly likely in patients with haematological cancers (0.63, 0.57 to 0.69, I2=88%; 0.62, 0.54 to 0.70, I2=90%), immune mediated inflammatory disorders (0.75, 0.69 to 0.82, I2=92%; 0.77, 0.66 to 0.85, I2=93%), and solid cancers (0.90, 0.88 to 0.93, I2=51%; 0.89, 0.86 to 0.91, I2=49%). Seroconversion was similar between people with HIV and immunocompetent controls (1.00, 0.98 to 1.01, I2=0%; 0.97, 0.83 to 1.00, I2=89%). Systematic review of 11 studies showed that a third dose of a covid-19 mRNA vaccine was associated with seroconversion among vaccine non-responders with solid cancers, haematological cancers, and immune mediated inflammatory disorders, although response was variable in transplant recipients and inadequately studied in people with HIV and those receiving non-mRNA vaccines.ConclusionSeroconversion rates after covid-19 vaccination were significantly lower in immunocompromised patients, especially organ transplant recipients. A second dose was associated with consistently improved seroconversion across all patient groups, albeit at a lower magnitude for organ transplant recipients. Targeted interventions for immunocompromised patients, including a third (booster) dose, should be performed.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021272088.

Project description:BackgroundImmunocompromised (IC) patients are at higher risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, morbidity, and mortality compared to the general population. They should be prioritized for primary prevention through vaccination. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in IC patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis approach.MethodPubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for original articles reporting the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adult patients with IC condition between June 1, 2020 and September 1, 2021. Meta-analysis was performed using either random or fixed effect according to the heterogeneity of the studies. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity.ResultsA total of 26 studies on 3207 IC patients and 1726 healthy individuals were included. The risk of seroconversion in IC patients was 48% lower than those in controls (RR = 0.52 [0.42, 0.65]). IC patients with autoimmune conditions were 54%, and patients with malignancy were 42% more likely to have positive seroconversion than transplant recipients (P < 0.01). Subgroup meta-analysis based on the type of malignancy, revealed significantly higher proportion of positive seroconversion in solid organ compared to hematologic malignancies (RR = 0.88 [0.85, 0.92] vs. 0.61 [0.44, 0.86], P = 0.03). Subgroup meta-analysis based on type of transplantation (kidney vs. others) showed no statistically significant between-group difference of seroconversion (P = 0.55).ConclusionsIC patients, especially transplant recipients, developed lower immunogenicity with two-dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Among patients with IC, those with autoimmune conditions and solid organ malignancies are mostly benefited from COVID-19 vaccination. Findings from this meta-analysis could aid healthcare policymakers in making decisions regarding the importance of the booster dose or more strict personal protections in the IC patients.

Project description:New Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are available to prevent the ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. We compared the efficacy of new COVID-19 vaccines to prevent symptomatic and severe disease in the adult population and to prevent symptomatic COVID-19 among the elderly. Leading medical databases were searched until August 30, 2021. Published phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated efficacy of the vaccine to prevent symptomatic and sever COVID-19 in adults were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated the literature search results and independently extracted summary data. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) according to PRISMA-NMA 2015 to pool indirect comparisons between different vaccines regarding their relative efficacy. The primary outcomes were the efficacy of the vaccine against symptomatic COVID-19 in adults (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021235364). Above 200,000 adult participants from eight phase 3 RCTs were included in NMA, of whom 52% received the intervention (active COVID-19 vaccine). While each of nine vaccines was tested in the unique clinical trial as compared to control, based on indirect comparison, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were ranked with the highest probability of efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 (P-scores 0.952 and 0.843, respectively), followed by Gam-COVID-Vac (P-score 0.782), NVX-CoV23730 (P-score 0.700), CoronaVac (P-score 0.570), BN02 (P-score 0.428), WIV04 (P-score 0.327), and Ad26.COV2.S (P-score 0.198). No statistically significant difference was seen in the ability of the vaccines to prevent symptomatic disease in the elderly population. No vaccine was statistically significantly associated with a decreased risk for severe COVID-19 than other vaccines, although mRNA-1273 and Gam-COVID-Vac have the highest P-scores (0.899 and 0.816, respectively), indicating greater protection against severe disease than other vaccines. In our indirect comparison, the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, which use mRNA technology, were associated with the highest efficacy to prevent symptomatic COVID-19 compared to other vaccines. This finding may have importance when deciding which vaccine to use, together with other important factors as availability of the vaccines, costs, logistics, side effects, and patient acceptability.

Project description:BackgroundInactivated, whole-virion vaccines have been used extensively in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Its efficacy and effectiveness across regions have not been systematically evaluated. Efficacy refers to how well a vaccine performs in a controlled environment. Effectiveness refers to how well it performs in real world settings.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed published, peer-reviewed evidence on all WHO-approved inactivated vaccines and evaluated their efficacy and effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic infection, severe clinical outcomes, and severe COVID-19. We searched Pubmed (including MEDLINE), EMBASE (via OVID), Web of Science Core Collection, Web of Science Chinese Science Citation Database, and Clinicaltrials.gov.FindingsThe final pool included 28 studies representing over 32 million individuals reporting efficacy or effectiveness estimates of complete vaccination using any approved inactivated vaccine between January 1, 2019 and June 27, 2022. Evidence was found for efficacy and effectiveness against symptomatic infection (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16-0.27, I2 = 28% and OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.64, I2 = 98%, respectively) and infection (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.49-0.57, I2 = 90% and OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.24-0.41, I2 = 0%, respectively) for early SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoCs) (Alpha, Delta), and for waning of vaccine effectiveness with more recent VoCs (Gamma, Omicron). Effectiveness remained robust against COVID-related ICU admission (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04-1.08, I2 = 99%) and death (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00-2.02, I2 = 96%), although effectiveness estimates against hospitalization (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37-0.53, I2 = 0%) were inconsistent.InterpretationThis study showed evidence of efficacy and effectiveness of inactivated vaccines for all outcomes, although inconsistent reporting of key study parameters, high heterogeneity of observational studies, and the small number of studies of particular designs for most outcomes undermined the reliability of the findings. Findings highlight the need for additional research to address these limitations so that more definitive conclusions can be drawn to inform SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and vaccination policies.FundingHealth and Medical Research Fund on COVID-19, Health Bureau of the Government of the Hong Kong SAR.