A Systematic Review on COVID-19 Vaccine Strategies, Their Effectiveness, and Issues.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Khandker SS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8708628 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSex and gender are believed to influence vaccine response. Yet, the relationship between sex and gender and COVID-19 vaccine efficacy is poorly understood and remains under-investigated.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to determine whether and to what extent post-approval COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies report sex-disaggregated VE data. We searched four publication and pre-publication databases and additional grey literature sources for relevant published/preprint studies released between 1 January 2020 and 1 October 2021 (i.e., pre-Omicron era). We included observational studies providing VE estimates for one or more licensed/approved COVID-19 vaccines and including both males and females. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk-of-bias through a modified version of Cochrane's ROBINS-I tool. A qualitative data synthesis was performed.ResultsHere we show that, among 240 eligible publications, 68 (28.3%) do not report the sex distribution among participants. Only 21/240 (8.8%) studies provide sex-disaggregated VE estimates, and high between-study heterogeneity regarding design, target population, outcomes, and vaccine type/timing prevent the assessment of sex in determining COVID-19 VE across studies.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that few COVID-19 vaccine research publications account for sex. Improved adherence to recommended reporting guidelines will ensure that the evidence generated can be used to better understand the relationship between sex and gender and VE.
| S-EPMC10196298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccination is vital to protect the public against COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We searched a range of databases (Embase, Medline, Psychology & Behavioral Science, PsycInfo, Web of Science and NIH Preprints Portfolio) from March 2020 to July 2021 for studies which reported primary quantitative or qualitative research on interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Outcome measures included vaccination uptake and reported intention to vaccinate. Reviews, position papers, conference abstracts, protocol papers and papers not in English were excluded. The NHLBI quality assessment was used to assess risk of bias. In total, 39 studies across 33 papers met the inclusion criteria. A total of 28 were assessed as good quality. They included interventions relating to communication content, communication delivery, communication presentation, policy or vaccination delivery, with 7 measuring vaccination uptake and 32 measuring vaccination intention. A narrative synthesis was conducted, which highlighted that there is reasonable evidence from studies investigating real behaviour suggesting that personalising communications and sending booking reminders via text message increases vaccine uptake. Findings on vaccination intention are mixed but suggest that communicating uncertainty about the vaccine does not decrease intention, whereas making vaccination mandatory could have a negative impact. Although much of the research used experimental designs, very few measured real behavioural outcomes. Understanding which interventions are most effective amongst vaccine-hesitant populations and in the context of booster vaccinations will be important as vaccine roll outs continue across the world.
| S-EPMC8949230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The world is engulfed by one of the most widespread and significant public health crises in decades as COVID-19 has become among the leading causes of death internationally. The novel SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus which causes COVID-19 has unified the scientific community in search of therapeutic and preventative solutions. The top priorities at the moment are twofold: first, to repurpose already-approved pharmacologic agents or develop novel therapies to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with the ever-spreading virus. Secondly, the scientific and larger pharmaceutical community have been tasked with the development, testing, and production of a safe and effective vaccine as a longer-term solution to prevent further spread and recurrence throughout the populace. The purpose of this article is to review the most up-to-date published data regarding both the leading pharmacological therapies undergoing clinical trials and vaccine candidates in development to stem the threat of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7670907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of heterologous and homologous covid-19 vaccine regimens with and without boosting in preventing covid-19 related infection, hospital admission, and death.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 databases, including 38 sources of published studies and preprints.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies.Methods38 WHO covid-19 databases were searched on a weekly basis from 8 March 2022 to 31 July 2022. Studies that assessed the effectiveness of heterologous and homologous covid-19 vaccine regimens with or without a booster were identified. Studies were eligible when they reported the number of documented, symptomatic, severe covid-19 infections, covid-19 related hospital admissions, or covid-19 related deaths among populations that were vaccinated and unvaccinated. The primary measure was vaccine effectiveness calculated as 1−odds ratio. Secondary measures were surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores and the relative effects for pairwise comparisons. The risk of bias was evaluated by using the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for all cohort and case-control studies. The Cochrane risk of bias tool (version 2; ROB-2) was used to assess randomised controlled trials.ResultsThe second iteration of the analysis comprised 63 studies. 25 combinations of covid-19 vaccine regimens were identified, of which three doses of mRNA vaccine were found to be 93% (95% credible interval 70% to 98%) effective against asymptomatic or symptomatic covid-19 infections for non-delta or non-omicron related infections. Heterologous boosting using two dose adenovirus vector vaccines with one dose mRNA vaccine showed a vaccine effectiveness of 94% (72% to 99%) against non-delta or non-omicron related asymptomatic or symptomatic infections. Three doses of mRNA vaccine were found to be the most effective in reducing non-delta or non-omicron related hospital admission (96%, 82% to 99%). The vaccine effectiveness against death in people who received three doses of mRNA vaccine remains uncertain owing to confounders. The estimate for a four dose mRNA vaccine regimen was of low certainty, as only one study on the effectiveness of four doses could be included in this update. More evidence on four dose regimens will be needed to accurately assess the effectiveness of a fourth vaccine dose. For people with delta or omicron related infection, a two dose regimen of an adenovirus vector vaccine with one dose of mRNA booster was 77% (42% to 91%) effective against asymptomatic or symptomatic covid-19 infections, and a three dose regimen of a mRNA vaccine was 93% (76% to 98%) effective against covid-19 related hospital admission.ConclusionAn mRNA booster is recommended to supplement any primary vaccine course. Heterologous and homologous three dose regimens work comparably well in preventing covid-19 infections, even against different variants. The effectiveness of three dose vaccine regimens against covid-19 related death remains uncertain.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol is included in the supplementary document.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 1 of the original article published on 31 May 2022 (BMJ 2022;377:e069989), and previous versions can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj-2022-069989/related). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.
| S-EPMC9724446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSince the release of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there have been reports of vaccine-related neurologic complications. This study aimed to perform a descriptive systematic review of movement disorders associated with COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsWe described the demographics, clinical presentation, management, outcomes, and proposed pathomechanism of the patients. A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A standardized tool was used to assess the quality of the cases.ResultsWe identified 8 articles that met our inclusion criteria; these articles included 10 patients who developed movement disorders after vaccination. The majority were males (n = 8), with a median age of 64.5 years. The most common movement disorder was hemichorea. The rest presented with generalized chorea with myoclonus, cervical dystonia, and akathisia. Most patients respond to immunotherapy. The standardized tool used showed that most studies had a low risk of bias.ConclusionThe reported incidence of vaccine-related movement disorders was low based on available published cases.
| S-EPMC11300390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBackgroundThe effectiveness of non-invasive respiratory strategies, namely CPAP and HFNO, in reducing the risk of mortality and tracheal intubation in patients with severe COVID-19 is not well established.MethodsA thorough literature search was conducted across 3 electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central) from inception through July 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the impact of CPAP or HFNO on clinical outcomes in patients infected with COVID-19 were considered for inclusion. End-points included all-cause mortality and risk of tracheal intubation. Evaluations were reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and analysis was performed using a random effects model. I2 index was used to assess heterogeneity.ResultsFrom the 1041 articles retrieved from initial search, 7 potentially relevant studies (n = 2831 patients) were included in the final analysis. Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, non-invasive respiratory strategies reduced the risk of tracheal intubation (RR = 0.84, [95% CI 0.72, 0.98]; p = 0.02, I2 = 43%) and all-cause mortality (RR = 0.83, [95% CI 0.71-0.97]; p = 0.02, I2 = 0%) in patients infected with COVID-19 However, reduction in length of hospital stay was not significant between the non-invasive respiratory group and conventional oxygen therapy (MD = -0.60, [95% CI -2.17 - 0.98]; p = 0.46, I2 = 26%).ConclusionThis meta-analysis supports the application of non-invasive respiratory strategy is feasible as it can delay the start of tracheal intubation and reduce mortality rates among patients infected with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9640384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the last two years, the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been a scientific and social challenge worldwide. Vaccines have been the most effective intervention for reducing virus transmission and disease severity. However, virus genetic variants are still circulating among vaccinated individuals with different symptomatology disease cases. Understanding the protective or disease associated mechanisms in vaccinated individuals is relevant to advance in vaccine development and implementation. To address this objective, serum protein profiles were characterized by quantitative proteomics and data analysis algorithms in four cohorts of vaccinated individuals uninfected and SARS-CoV-2 infected with asymptomatic, nonsevere and severe disease symptomatology. The results showed that immunoglobulins were the most overrepresented proteins in infected cohorts when compared to PCR-negative individuals. The immunoglobulin profile varied between different infected cohorts and correlated with protective or disease associated capacity. Overrepresented immunoglobulins in PCR-positive individuals correlated with protective response against SARS-CoV-2, other viruses, and thrombosis in asymptomatic cases. In nonsevere cases, correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 and HBV together with risk of myasthenia gravis and allergy and autoantibodies were observed. Patients with severe symptoms presented risk for allergy, chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, and autoantibodies. The analysis of underrepresented immunoglobulins in PCR-positive compared to PCR-negative individuals identified vaccine-induced protective epitopes in various coronavirus proteins including the Spike receptor-binding domain RBD. Non-immunoglobulin proteins were associated with COVID-19 symptoms and biological processes. These results evidence host-associated differences in response to vaccination and the possibility of improving vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2.
2022-10-14 | PXD031969 | Pride
Project description:BackgroundThe temporal evolution of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness (VE) against infection, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 is incompletely defined. The temporal evolution of VE could be dependent on age, vaccine types, variants of the virus, and geographic region. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the duration of VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic COVID-19 and severe COVID-19.MethodsMEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the World Health Organization Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease, and CoronaCentral databases were searched and studies were selected. Independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and cohort studies with the outcome of interest. Independent reviewers extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty (quality) of the evidence. Primary outcomes included VE as a function of time against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic and severe COVID-19.ResultsEighteen studies were included representing nearly 7 million individuals. VE against all SARS-CoV-2 infections declined from 83% in the first month after completion of the original vaccination series to 22% at 5 months or longer. Similarly, VE against symptomatic COVID-19 declined from 94% in the first month after vaccination to 64% by the fourth month. VE against severe COVID-19 for all ages was high overall, with the level being 90% (95% CI, 87-92%) at five months or longer after being fully vaccinated. VE against severe COVID-19 was lower in individuals ≥ 65 years and those who received Ad26.COV2.S.ConclusionsVE against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 waned over time but protection remained high against severe COVID-19. These data can be used to inform public health decisions around the need for booster vaccination.
| S-EPMC9077344 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on our society, with drastic policy restrictions being implemented to contain the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This study aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of various coronavirus disease 2019 policy measures.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Health economic evaluations considering both costs and outcomes were included. Their quality was comprehensively assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist. Next, the quality of the epidemiological models was evaluated.ResultsA total of 3688 articles were identified (March 2021), of which 23 were included. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to methodological quality, contextual factors, strategies' content, adopted perspective, applied models, and outcomes used. Overall, testing/screening, social distancing, personal protective equipment, quarantine/isolation, and hygienic measures were found to be cost-effective. Furthermore, the most optimal choice and combination of strategies depended on the reproduction number and context. With a rising reproduction number, extending the testing strategy and early implementation of combined multiple restriction measures are most efficient.ConclusionsThe quality assessment highlighted numerous flaws and limitations in the study approaches; hence, their results should be interpreted with caution because the specific context (country, target group, etc) is a key driver for cost-effectiveness. Finally, including a societal perspective in future evaluations is key because this pandemic has an indirect impact on the onset and treatment of other conditions and on our global economy.
| S-EPMC8481648 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough multiple studies have revealed that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines can reduce COVID-19-related outcomes, little is known about their impact on post-COVID-19 conditions. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against post-COVID-19 conditions (ie, long COVID).MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to April 27, 2022, for studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against post-COVID-19 conditions among individuals who received at least 1 dose of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, or Janssen vaccine. A post-COVID-19 condition was defined as any symptom that was present 3 or more weeks after having COVID-19. Editorials, commentaries, reviews, study protocols, and studies in the pediatric population were excluded. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) for post-COVID-19 conditions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 - DOR).ResultsIn total, 10 studies with 1,600,830 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post-COVID-19 conditions, of which 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for post-COVID-19 conditions among individuals vaccinated with at least 1 dose was 0.708 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.692-0.725) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 29.2% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.8%). The vaccine effectiveness was 35.3% (95% CI, 32.3%-38.1%) among those who received the COVID-19 vaccine before having COVID-19, and 27.4% (95% CI, 25.4%-29.3%) among those who received it after having COVID-19.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination both before and after having COVID-19 significantly decreased post-COVID-19 conditions for the circulating variants during the study period although vaccine effectiveness was low.
| S-EPMC9726631 | biostudies-literature