Dataset Information

The Impact of Age Difference on the Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of five kinds of COVID-19 vaccines in different age groups (young adults and older adults), aiming to analyze the difference of adverse events (AEs) rate and virus geometric mean titer (GMT) values between young and older people, in order to find a specific trend, and explore the causes of this trend through meta-analysis.

Method

Meta-analysis was used to analyze the five eligible articles. The modified Jadad scoring scale was used to evaluate the quality of eligible literature with a scoring system of 1 to 7. The primary endpoint of the effectiveness index was GMT. The primary endpoints of the safety index were the incidence of local AEs and systemic AEs. Stata 12.0 software was used for meta-analysis. Revman 5.0 software was used to map the risk of publication bias, and Egger's test was used to analyze publication bias.

Results

The GMT values of young adults were higher than older adults (SMD = 1.40, 95% CI (0.79, 2.02), P<0.01). There was a higher incidence of local and systemic AEs in young people than in the elderly (OR = 1.10, 95% CI (1.08, 1.12), P<0.01; OR = 1.18, 95% CI (1.14, 1.22), P<0.01).

Conclusion

The immune effect of young people after being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines was better than that of the elderly, but the safety was worse than that of old people, the most common AEs were fever, rash, and local muscle pain, which were tolerable for young people. As the AEs of the elderly were lower, they can also be vaccinated safely; the reason for the low level of GMT in the elderly was related to Immunosenescence. The vaccine tolerance of people of different ages needs to be studied continuously.

SUBMITTER: Wang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8685545 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Nowadays, the vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines is being promoted worldwide, professionals and common people are very concerned about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. No published systematic review and meta-analysis has assessed the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines based on data from phase III clinical trials. Therefore, this study has estimated the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines and the differences between vaccine types. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, medRxiv databases and two websites were used to retrieve the studies. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety with risk ratio (RR). A total of eight studies, seven COVID-19 vaccines and 158,204 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. All the vaccines had a good preventive effect on COVID-19 (RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09-0.32), and the mRNA vaccine (RR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03-0.09) was the most effective against COVID-19, while the inactivated vaccine (RR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19-0.54) was the least. In terms of safety, the risk of overall adverse events showed an increase in the vaccine group after the first (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.03-2.05) or second (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.04-2.20) injection. However, compared with the first injection, the risk of local (RR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.02-6.83 vs. RR = 2.25, 95% CI: 0.52-9.75) and systemic (RR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.21-1.46 vs. RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.84-3.01) adverse events decreased after the second injection. As for the mRNA vaccine, the risk of overall adverse events increased significantly, compared with the placebo, no matter whether it was the first (RR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.80-1.86) or the second (RR = 2.16, 95% CI = 2.11-2.20) injection. All the COVID-19 vaccines that have published the data of phase III clinical trials have excellent efficacy, and the risk of adverse events is acceptable. The mRNA vaccines were the most effective against COVID-19, meanwhile the risk and grade of adverse events was minimal, compared to that of severe symptoms induced by COVID-19.

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.