Real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a literature review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To estimate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) against concerned outcomes in real-world settings.Methods
Studies reporting COVID-19 VE from August 6, 2020 to October 6, 2021 were included. The summary VE (with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)) against disease related to COVID-19 was estimated. The results were presented in forest plots. Predefined subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were also performed.Results
A total of 51 records were included in this meta-analysis. In fully vaccinated populations, the VE against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit, and death was 89.1% (95% CI 85.6-92.6%), 97.2% (95% CI 96.1-98.3%), 97.4% (95% CI 96.0-98.8%), and 99.0% (95% CI 98.5-99.6%), respectively. The VE against infection in the general population aged ≥16 years, the elderly, and healthcare workers was 86.1% (95% CI 77.8-94.4%), 83.8% (95% CI 77.1-90.6%), and 95.3% (95% CI 92.0-98.6%), respectively. For those fully vaccinated against infection, the observed effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 91.2% and of the Moderna vaccine was 98.1%, while the effectiveness of the CoronaVac vaccine was found to be 65.7%.Conclusions
The COVID-19 vaccines are highly protective against SARS-CoV-2-related diseases in real-world settings.
SUBMITTER: Zheng C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8595975 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesWe aimed to assess the short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among immunocompromised patients to prevent laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio [DOR] (95% CI) for COVID-19 infection between immunocompromised patients and healthy people or those with stable chronic medical conditions. VE was estimated as 100% x (1-DOR). We also investigated the rates of developing anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG between the 2 groups.ResultsTwenty studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine response, and four studies evaluating VE were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised patients was 0.296 (95% CI: 0.108-0.811) with an estimated VE of 70.4% (95% CI: 18.9%- 89.2%). When stratified by diagnosis, IgG antibody levels were much higher in the control group compared to immunocompromised patients with solid organ transplant (pOR 232.3; 95% Cl: 66.98-806.03), malignant diseases (pOR 42.0, 95% Cl: 11.68-151.03), and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pOR 19.06; 95% Cl: 5.00-72.62).ConclusionsWe found COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were effective against symptomatic COVID-19 among the immunocompromised patients but had lower VE compared to the controls. Further research is needed to understand the discordance between antibody production and protection against symptomatic COVID-19 infection.
| S-EPMC8720049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Real-world effectiveness studies are important for monitoring performance of COVID-19 vaccination programmes and informing COVID-19 prevention and control policies. We aimed to synthesise methodological approaches used in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies, in order to evaluate which approaches are most appropriate to implement in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). For this rapid systematic review, we searched PubMed and Scopus for articles published from inception to July 7, 2021, without language restrictions. We included any type of peer-reviewed observational study measuring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, for any population. We excluded randomised control trials and modelling studies. All data used in the analysis were extracted from included papers. We used a standardised data extraction form, modified from STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Study quality was assessed using the REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021264658. Our search identified 3,327 studies, of which 42 were eligible for analysis. Most studies (97.5%) were conducted in high-income countries and the majority assessed mRNA vaccines (78% mRNA only, 17% mRNA and viral vector, 2.5% viral vector, 2.5% inactivated vaccine). Thirty-five of the studies (83%) used a cohort study design. Across studies, short follow-up time and limited assessment and mitigation of potential confounders, including previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and healthcare seeking behaviour, were major limitations. This review summarises methodological approaches for evaluating real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and highlights the lack of such studies in LMICs, as well as the importance of context-specific vaccine effectiveness data. Further research in LMICs will refine guidance for conducting real-world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies in resource-constrained settings.
| S-EPMC8752025 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionBelimumab is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody that binds to soluble B-lymphocyte stimulator and inhibits its biological activity. Since receiving approvals for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), several observational studies have investigated the effectiveness of belimumab in the real-world setting. This study reports a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of belimumab for the treatment of SLE.MethodsA literature search following PRISMA Guidelines and limited to studies in English was performed (2014-2020) to identify relevant studies reporting effectiveness outcomes of belimumab in patients with SLE. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. Outcomes, including SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score, prednisone-equivalent use, and SLE flare were pooled and analyzed using statistical aggregation methods.ResultsThe literature search identified 514 articles for initial review. Of these, 17 articles were suitable for data extraction and summary. Baseline characteristics of patients in real-world studies were generally similar to those of relevant clinical trials, including age, sex, disease duration, SLEDAI score, and prednisone-equivalent use. Real-world use of belimumab was associated with reductions in SLEDAI score (mean baseline score to month 6: 10.1-4.4; 57% reduction), prednisone-equivalent dosing (mean baseline dose to month 6: 12.1 mg/day to 6.9 mg/day; 43% reduction), and flare frequency (12 months prior to belimumab to 12 months after belimumab: 1.15-0.39 mean flares per patient per year; 66% reduction). Long-term data (up to 2 years post-treatment initiation) for SLEDAI score and prednisone-equivalent dose indicated that improvements in both outcomes continue over time among patients remaining on therapy.ConclusionsIn the real-world setting, observed outcomes with belimumab for the treatment of SLE are consistent with those reported from randomized clinical trials. Improvements persist long-term for SLEDAI activity and prednisone-equivalent use with belimumab.
| S-EPMC9314515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The high transmissibility, mortality, and morbidity rate of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) variant have raised concerns regarding vaccine effectiveness (VE). To address this issue, all publications relevant to the effectiveness of vaccines against the Delta variant were searched in the Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and Medline (via PubMed) databases up to 15 October 2021. A total of 15 studies (36 datasets) were included in the meta-analysis. After the first dose, the VE against the Delta variant for each vaccine was 0.567 (95% CI 0.520-0.613) for Pfizer-BioNTech, 0.72 (95% CI 0.589-0.822) for Moderna, 0.44 (95% CI 0.301-0.588) for AstraZeneca, and 0.138 (95% CI 0.076-0.237) for CoronaVac. Meta-analysis of 2,375,957 vaccinated cases showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had the highest VE against the infection after the second dose, at 0.837 (95% CI 0.672-0.928), and third dose, at 0.972 (95% CI 0.96-0.978), as well as the highest VE for the prevention of severe infection or death, at 0.985 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), amongst all COVID-19 vaccines. The short-term effectiveness of vaccines, especially mRNA-based vaccines, for the prevention of the Delta variant infection, hospitalization, severe infection, and death is supported by this study. Limitations include a lack of long-term efficacy data, and under-reporting of COVID-19 infection cases in observational studies, which has the potential to falsely skew VE rates. Overall, this study supports the decisions by public health decision makers to promote the population vaccination rate to control the Delta variant infection and the emergence of further variants.
| S-EPMC8778641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is still a lack of consensus on the efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) treatment in COVID-19 patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of CP vs standard treatment/non-CP on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.MethodsCochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from December 2019 to 16 July 2021, for data from clinical trials and observational studies. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk estimates were pooled using a random-effect model. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for clinical trials and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.ResultsIn total, 18 peer-reviewed clinical trials, 3 preprints and 26 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. In the meta-analysis of 18 peer-reviewed trials, CP use had a 31% reduced risk of all-cause mortality compared with standard treatment use (pooled risk ratio [RR] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.86, P = .001, I2 = 50.1%). Based on severity and region, CP treatment significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality in patients with severe and critical disease and studies conducted in Asia, pooled RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.47-0.81, P = .001, I2 = 0.0%; pooled RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.92, P = .013, I2 = 0.0%; and pooled RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48-0.80, P < .001, I2 = 20.3%, respectively. The meta-analysis of observational studies showed the similar results to the clinical trials.ConclusionsConvalescent plasma use was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality in severe or critical COVID-19 patients. However, the findings were limited with a moderate degree of heterogeneity. Further studies with well-designed and larger sample size are needed.
| S-EPMC8420367 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy of dulaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but results may not be generalizable in routine practice. This pragmatic literature review aimed to summarize real-world evidence (RWE) for dulaglutide. METHODS:The MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and Health Technology Assessment databases were searched from January 2014 to July 2019 for studies providing RWE for dulaglutide in adults with T2DM regarding at least one outcome of interest (change in glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c]; weight; adherence; persistence; discontinuation; costs; healthcare resource utilization; health-related quality of life; patient satisfaction; and preference). Relevant congress abstracts were identified from EMBASE. RESULTS:A total of 29 studies (11 articles; 18 abstracts) were included. RWE for dulaglutide was not identified for all outcomes of interest. Dulaglutide reduced HbA1c from baseline to 3-24 months by 0.5-2.2% across studies (n?=?20), and 23.4-55.7% of patients achieved HbA1c?<?7.0%. Weight was reduced by 2.1-6.4 kg across studies of 3-12 months (n?=?15). Based on outcomes from ten studies, 27.2-61.0% of dulaglutide patients were adherent. Mean persistence was 146-152 days and?>?250 days in 6- and 12-month studies, respectively. Most studies reported discontinuation rates of 26.2-37.0%. Adherence and persistence were consistently reported to be greater in dulaglutide-treated patients in RW settings compared with other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Dulaglutide was associated with lower costs per 1% reduction in HbA1c compared with exenatide, liraglutide, or basal insulin (n?=?3 studies). CONCLUSION:Evidence from RWE studies suggests that dulaglutide may be associated with clinically relevant reductions in HbA1c, with a favorable adherence, persistence, and discontinuation profile in patients with T2DM in routine clinical practice. These findings provide additional insights regarding the potential value of dulaglutide in real-world settings that may assist healthcare decision makers in the delivery of patient-centered care.
| S-EPMC7324465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19, has affected the world on a pandemic scale resulting in catastrophic outcomes and deaths. Currently, there is limited safety data specific to mRNA vaccine use in pregnant or lactating individuals and the potential risks to a pregnant individual and the fetus are unknown. We report an updated literature review of current information and evidence available to aid in the decision whether to vaccinate against COVID-19 currently being made by pregnant individuals and their healthcare providers so that they are able to make a well-informed recommendation and decision.
| S-EPMC8652509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Surveys showed that vaccine hesitancy may influence the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines in healthcare workers (HCWs) and the general population. Currently, the actual acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in HCWs has rarely been reported. In the present survey, we investigated the real-world acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in HCWs in perinatal medicine during the first three-month period of vaccination in China and to identify the main reason for the decline of vaccination. HCWs (1087) who participated in a Chinese national symposium on perinatal medicine during 16-18 April 2021 were invited to answer a 27-question questionnaire online. A total of 1051 HCWs completed the questionnaire. Of them, 86.2% (906/1051) accepted the COVID-19 vaccination and 13.8% (145/1051) declined the vaccination. Because of the vaccine hesitancy, one-fourth of the vaccinated participants did not accept the vaccination until consulted with others or requested by employers. The main reason for the decline of vaccination in 145 unvaccinated HCWs was the concern about vaccine safety. The results indicate that vaccination request by employers may promote vaccine acceptance. More convincing data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines appears to be important to increase the acceptance of vaccination.
| S-EPMC8310137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 vaccines are supposed to be critical measure for ending the pandemic. Governments had to decide on the type of vaccine to provide for their population. In this decision-making process, cost-effectiveness analysis is considered a helpful tool. This study is a cost-effectiveness analysis utilized to calculate the incremental cost per averted disability-adjusted life year (DALY) by vaccination compared to no vaccination for different COVID-19 vaccines. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was estimated at 6.2 to 121.2 USD to avert one DALY and 566.8 to 10,957.7 USD per one death. The lowest and highest ICERs belong to Ad26.COV2.S and CoronaVac, respectively. Considering the scenario of Iran, vaccines that are recommended include ad26.cov2.s, chadox1-S, rAd26-S + rAd5-S, and BNT162b2 in the order of recommendation.
| S-EPMC8777749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to summarize reliable medical evidence by the meta-analysis of all published clinical trials that investigated the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of vaccine candidates against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and medRxiv databases were used to select the studies. 7094 articles were identified initially and 43 were retrieved for more detailed evaluation. 5 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were selected. A total of 1604 subjects with either vaccines or placebo infections were included in the meta-analysis within the scope of these articles. According to the results, there is an increase in total adverse events for subjects with either low (95% CI : 1.90-4.29) or high ( CI : 2.65-5.63) dose vaccination. The adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccine are mainly local ones including pain, itching, and redness, and no significant difference was identified in the systemic reactions. All adverse effects were transient and resolved within a few days. Moreover, the neutralizing and IgG antibody levels post different dose vaccinations were all significantly increased at day 14/21 ( P = 0.0004 and P = 0.0003, respectively) and day 28/35 ( P < 0.00001) in vaccine groups compared to placebo controls. Besides, the levels of neutralizing and IgG antibodies were also elevated significantly at from day 14 to 35, versus day 0 (All P < 0.001). In conclusion, our analysis suggests that the current COVID-19 vaccine candidates are safe, tolerated, and immunogenic, which provides important information for further development, evaluation, and clinical application of COVID-19 vaccine.
| S-EPMC7654888 | biostudies-literature