A Systematic Review on COVID-19 Vaccine Strategies, Their Effectiveness, and Issues.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Khandker SS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8708628 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A Systematic Review on COVID-19 Vaccine Strategies, Their Effectiveness, and Issues.
Khandker Shahad Saif SS Godman Brian B Jawad Md Irfan MI Meghla Bushra Ayat BA Tisha Taslima Akter TA Khondoker Mohib Ullah MU Haq Md Ahsanul MA Charan Jaykaran J Talukder Ali Azam AA Azmuda Nafisa N Sharmin Shahana S Jamiruddin Mohd Raeed MR Haque Mainul M Adnan Nihad N
Vaccines 20211124 12
COVID-19 vaccines are indispensable, with the number of cases and mortality still rising, and currently no medicines are routinely available for reducing morbidity and mortality, apart from dexamethasone, although others are being trialed and launched. To date, only a limited number of vaccines have been given emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. There is a need to systematically review the existing vaccine candidates and investiga ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background Sex 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. Methods We 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. Results Here 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. Conclusions Our 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. Plain Language Summary The level of protection that vaccines provide against COVID-19 might depend on a person’s sex or gender. However, sex and gender are not always reported in studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. Here, we systematically reviewed the literature on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and looked at whether the studies we found separated out their data on vaccine effectiveness by participants’ sex. Out of the 240 publications we identified, 68 (28.3%) did not report the sex of the participants in their study, and only 21 studies (8.8%) reported vaccine effectiveness data separated by sex. These results show that a substantial proportion of COVID-19 vaccine research publications do not account for sex. Efforts should be made by researchers to study and report the relationship between sex and vaccine effectiveness, to help to optimise vaccination strategies so that all people are adequately protected. Sulis et al. perform a systematic review to investigate to what extent post-approval COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies report sex-disaggregated data. They identified 240 relevant publications, of which only a small percentage (8.8%) provided sex-disaggregated effectiveness estimates.
| S-EPMC10196298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe rapid development of COVID-19 bivalent vaccines (BVs) has encompassed both the original virus strains and the variant strain. However, the effectiveness of BVs is largely unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of BVs.MethodsLiterature research was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science up until November 4, 2023. Both randomized control trials and observational studies were considered for inclusion. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in cohort and case-control studies.ResultsA total of 1,174 articles were reviewed and 22 eligible studies were included. All included studies were observational (15 cohort studies, 7 case-control studies). The total number of participants was 39,673,160, and the number of people vaccinated with BVs as an intervention group was 11,585,182. Two mRNA BVs were mainly involved, including the ancestral strain and the BA.1 or BA.4-5 variants. Meta-analysis results showed, compared with the monovalent vaccines (MVs), the relative effectiveness (rVE) of the BVs in COVID-19-associated infections/symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths was 30.90% [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.43-53.37], 39.83% (95% CI, 27.34-52.32), 59.70% (95% CI, 44.08-75.32), and 72.23% (95% CI, 62.08-82.38), respectively. For those aged 50 years and older, BVs provided an additional 49.69% (95% CI, 41.44-57.94) effective protection compared with MVs. During the dominance period of the omicron XBB variant strain, BVs provided an additional 47.63% (95% CI, 27.45-67.82) effective protection compared with MVs.ConclusionOur findings show that the rVE of BVs in preventing COVID-19-associated infections, symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths is higher compared to MVs. Particularly for people over 50 years of age and during the Omicron variant XBB dominance phase, BVs provided superior protection. Therefore, BVs may have a broader application in the prevention and control of coronaviruses variant.
| S-EPMC10879625 | 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:Fifteen years following the approval of the first human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, cervical cancer continues to be a significant source of morbidity and mortality among women in low-resource settings. It is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women globally and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa. Vaccine delivery and programmatic costs may hinder the distribution of HPV vaccines in low-resource settings, and ultimately influence access to HPV vaccines. While reviews have been conducted on the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccines, little is known about the cost and effectiveness of vaccination strategies. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence on the cost and cost-effectiveness of vaccination strategies utilized to increase access to HPV vaccines. Search queries were created for CINAHL Plus, Embase, and PubMed. Our search strategy focused on articles that contained information on HPV vaccine uptake/reach, HPV vaccination costs, or the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination programs. We retrieved 773 articles from the databases, assessed 251 full-texts, and included 15 articles in our final synthesis. Countries without national HPV vaccination programs aimed to identify and adopt sustainable strategies to make HPV vaccines available to adolescents through demonstration programs. In contrast, countries with national vaccination programs focused on identifying cost-effective interventions to increase vaccination rates to meet nationally recommended standards. There is a dire need for HPV vaccination programs and intervention studies tailored to settings in low- and middle-income countries to increase access to HPV vaccines. Future studies should also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implemented strategies.
| S-EPMC8889236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2, and Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines were central to the global pandemic control measures.MethodsHere, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate their real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE). Our study focussed on those that reported the efficacy of these vaccines against COVID-19 hospitalization. Hospitalization was chosen as the primary outcome as it directly reflects the ability of the vaccine to prevent severe disease. A literature search was undertaken using Medline and Embase on 25 February 2024. From this, 50 studies out of 18,347 articles were included for further analysis.ResultsHigh VE against hospitalization was reported for both the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines when used either as a primary vaccination series (2-dose) or following an additional booster dose (3-dose). Meta-analysis indicated that the pooled VE estimates for each of these vaccination protocols ranged from 84% to 86%, suggesting strong protectiveness. Our data also imply that booster doses can restore waning effectiveness, with no significant differences observed in VE between the 2-dose and 3-dose protocols. However, subgroup analysis revealed an association between the presence of the Omicron variant and a drop in VE, indicating that future emerging SARS-CoV-2 virus variants could similarly affect VE.ConclusionsOur review underscores the importance of ongoing research to ensure vaccine strategies remain effective against evolving variants. Our study also identified the need for expanding data collection to include underrepresented populations.
| S-EPMC11655844 | 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:BackgroundThere are limited data regarding COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of COVID-19 vaccination received during pregnancy on SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, COVID-19-related intensive care unit (ICU) admission and maternal-fetal complications.Search strategyMEDLINE, CINHAL, Embase, Scopus and CENTRAL databases, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov, reference lists, related articles and grey literature sources.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies of interventions, pregnant women, COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.Data collection and analysisStudy selection, risk-of-bias assessment, data extraction and assessment of the certainty of evidence using the GRADE method were performed independently by two authors. Meta-analyses were performed using Cochrane RevMan 5.4. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022308849.Main resultsWe included 14 observational studies (362 353 women). The administration of a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy resulted in a statistically significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.76) and COVID-19-related hospitalisation (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.51). The effect appeared to be greater in fully vaccinated women, for both infection (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.16-0.59) and hospitalisation (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.10-0.21). However, the certainty of evidence was very low. The difference in COVID-19-related ICU admission between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.13-2.58). Finally, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the maternal-fetal complications considered in the included studies.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination administered during pregnancy seems to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation, with no significant effects on maternal-fetal complications.
| S-EPMC9878107 | 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:BackgroundTo date, multiple cases of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines have been reported worldwide. Alopecia areata (AA) is an uncommon type of adverse reaction reported in some articles and has a significant social and psychological impact on patients. Our study aimed to review the AA and COVID-19 vaccine literature.MethodsThis systematic review was conducted by searching for articles on AA following COVID-19 vaccines in international databases such as Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Ovid from December 2019 to December 30, 2023. We included studies that provided data for AA patients following COVID-19 vaccination with at least one dose. Data on sex, age, country/region of origin, vaccine type, days between vaccination and symptom presentation, manifestations of AA, trichoscopy and histopathological findings, treatment, and outcomes were included.ResultsIn total, 579 explored studies were identified and assessed, and 25 articles with a total of 51 patients were included in the review. Twenty-seven (52.9%) patients developed new-onset AA following receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and AA recurrence or exacerbation occurred after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in 24 (47.1%) patients with preexisting disease. Five vaccines were reported to cause AA in all cases. The Pfizer vaccine (45.1%) was the most frequently reported, followed by the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (27.5%), Moderna mRNA-1273 (19.6%), Sinopharm (3.9%) and SinoVac (3.9%). AA occurred most frequently within one month after the 1st dose, and then, the incidence decreased gradually with time. Topical or systemic corticosteroids were used in 38 patients. Eleven patients were treated with a Janus Kinase inhibitor (jakinib) inhibitor, eight with tofacitinib, and three with an unspecified jakinib. However, 3 of the 11 patients experienced exacerbations after treatment.ConclusionAA after COVID-19 vaccination is rare, and physicians should be aware of this phenomenon to improve early diagnosis and appropriate treatment.
| S-EPMC11225413 | biostudies-literature