Short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
We aimed to assess the short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among immunocompromised patients to prevent laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection.Methods
Systematic 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.Results
Twenty 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).Conclusions
We 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.
SUBMITTER: Marra AR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8720049 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of COVID-19 due to high levels of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Thus, effective vaccines are needed. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on COVID-19 short-term vaccine effectiveness among HCWs.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to June 11, 2021, for studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs. To meta-analyze the extracted data, we calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 - DOR). We also performed a stratified analysis for vaccine effectiveness by vaccination status: 1 dose and 2 doses of the vaccine.ResultsWe included 13 studies, including 173,742 HCWs evaluated for vaccine effectiveness in the meta-analysis. The vast majority (99.9%) of HCWs were vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 among vaccinated HCWs was 0.072 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.028-0.184) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 92.8% (95% CI, 81.6%-97.2%). In stratified analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs who had received 1 dose of vaccine was 82.1% (95% CI, 46.1%-94.1%) and the vaccine effectiveness among HCWs who had received 2 doses was 93.5% (95% CI, 82.5%-97.6%).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly effective against symptomatic COVID-19, even with 1 dose. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of other COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough after vaccination, and vaccine efficacy against new variants.
| S-EPMC9495770 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8889026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) against concerned outcomes in real-world settings.MethodsStudies 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.ResultsA 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%.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 vaccines are highly protective against SARS-CoV-2-related diseases in real-world settings.
| S-EPMC8595975 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8840778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since the beginning of vaccination programs against COVID-19 in different countries, several populations such as patients with specific immunological conditions have been considered as the priorities for immunization. In this regard, patients with autoimmune diseases or those receiving immunosuppressive agents and anti-cancer therapies, need special attention. However, no confirmed data is presently available regarding COVID-19 vaccines in these populations due to exclusion from the conducted clinical trials. Given the probable suppression or over-activation of the immune system in such patients, reaching a consensus for their vaccination is critical, besides gathering data and conducting trials, which could probably clarify this matter in the future. In this review, besides a brief on the available COVID-19 vaccines, considerations and available knowledge about administering similar vaccines in patients with cancer, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, solid organ transplantation, multiple sclerosis (MS), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and rheumatologic and dermatologic autoimmune disorders are summarized to help in decision making. As discussed, live-attenuated viruses, which should be avoided in these groups, are not employed in the present COVID-19 vaccines. Thus, the main concern regarding efficacy could be met using a potent COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, the vaccination timing for maximum efficacy could be decided according to the patient's condition, indicated medications, and the guides provided here. Post-vaccination monitoring is also advised to ensure an adequate immune response. Further studies in this area are urgently warranted.
| S-EPMC8316069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAvailable data show that COVID-19 vaccines may be less effective in immunocompromised populations, who are at increased risk of severe COVID-19.ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic review of literature to assess immunogenicity, efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.Data sourcesWe searched Medline and Embase databases.Study eligibility criteria, patients, interventionsWe 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.MethodsRisk 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThis 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.
| S-EPMC8595936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted immunocompromised patients. This diverse group is at increased risk for impaired vaccine responses, progression to severe disease, prolonged hospitalizations and deaths. At particular risk are people with deficiencies in lymphocyte number or function such as transplant recipients and those with hematologic malignancies. Such patients' immune responses to vaccination and infection are frequently impaired leaving them more vulnerable to prolonged high viral loads and severe complications of COVID-19. Those in turn, have implications for disease progression and persistence, development of immune escape variants and transmission of infection. Data to guide vaccination and treatment approaches in immunocompromised people are generally lacking and extrapolated from other populations. The large clinical trials leading to authorisation and approval of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapeutics included very few immunocompromised participants. While experience is accumulating, studies focused on the special circumstances of immunocompromised patients are needed to inform prevention and treatment approaches.
| S-EPMC10091856 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8889880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The long-term impact of COVID-19 is still unknown. This study aimed to explore post COVID-19 effects on patients chest computed tomography (CT), lung function, respiratory symptoms, fatigue, functional capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and the ability to return to work beyond 3 months post infection. A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE on 22 May 2021, to identify studies that reported persistent effects of COVID-19 beyond 3 months follow-up. Data on the proportion of patients who had the outcome were collected and analyzed using a one-group meta-analysis. Data were extracted from 24 articles that presented information on a total of 5323 adults, post-infection, between 3 to 6 months after symptom onset or hospital discharge. The pooled prevalence of CT abnormalities was 59% (95% CI 44-73, I2 = 96%), abnormal lung function was 39% (95% CI 24-55, I2 = 94%), fatigue was 38% (95% CI 27-49, I2 = 98%), dyspnea was 32% (95% CI 24-40, I2 = 98%), chest paint/tightness was 16% (95% CI 12-21, I2 = 94%), and cough was 13%, (95% CI 9-17, I2 = 94%). Decreased functional capacity and HRQoL were found in 36% (95% CI 22-49, I2 = 97%) and 52% (95% CI 33-71, I2 = 94%), respectively. On average, 8 out of 10 of the patients had returned to work or reported no work impairment. Post-COVID-19 patients may experience persistent respiratory symptoms, fatigue, decreased functional capacity and decreased quality of life up to 6 months after infection. Further studies are needed to establish the extent to which post-COVID-19 effects continue beyond 6 months, how they interact with each other, and to clarify their causes and their effective management.
| S-EPMC8389585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccination can be viewed as comprising the most important defensive barriers to protect susceptible groups from infection. However, vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19 is widespread worldwide.ObjectiveWe aimed to systematically review studies eliciting the COVID-19 vaccine preference using discrete choice experiments.MethodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL Plus platforms in April 2023. Search terms included discrete choice experiments, COVID-19, and vaccines and related synonyms. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the study characteristics. Subgroup analyses were performed by factors such as high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries and study period (before, during, and after the pandemic wave). Quality appraisal was performed using the 5-item Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance checklist.ResultsThe search yield a total of 623 records, and 47 studies with 53 data points were finally included. Attributes were grouped into 4 categories: outcome, process, cost, and others. The vaccine effectiveness (21/53, 40%) and safety (7/53, 13%) were the most frequently reported and important attributes. Subgroup analyses showed that vaccine effectiveness was the most important attribute, although the preference varied by subgroups. Compared to high-income countries (3/29, 10%), a higher proportion of low- and middle-income countries (4/24, 17%) prioritized safety. As the pandemic progressed, the duration of protection (2/24, 8%) during the pandemic wave and COVID-19 mortality risk (5/25, 20%) after the pandemic wave emerged as 2 of the most important attributes.ConclusionsOur review revealed the critical role of vaccine effectiveness and safety in COVID-19 vaccine preference. However, it should be noticed that preference heterogeneity was observed across subpopulations and may change over time.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023422720; https://tinyurl.com/2etf7ny7.
| S-EPMC11319885 | biostudies-literature