COVID-19 vaccines for the older population: safety and efficacy go hand in hand.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zheng H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9252530 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
COVID-19 vaccines for the older population: safety and efficacy go hand in hand.
The lancet. Healthy longevity 20220704 7
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9726273 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Older adults are more susceptible to severe health outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Universal vaccination has become a trend, but there are still doubts and research gaps regarding the COVID-19 vaccination in the elderly. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older people aged ≥ 55 years and their influencing factors. Methods Randomized controlled trials from inception to April 9, 2022, were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We estimated summary relative risk (RR), rates, or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects meta-analysis. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314456). Results Of the 32 eligible studies, 9, 21, and 25 were analyzed for efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively. In older adults, vaccination was efficacious against COVID-19 (79.49%, 95% CI: 60.55−89.34), with excellent seroconversion rate (92.64%, 95% CI: 86.77−96.91) and geometric mean titer (GMT) (SMD 3.56, 95% CI: 2.80−4.31) of neutralizing antibodies, and provided a significant protection rate against severe disease (87.01%, 50.80−96.57). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses consistently found vaccine types and the number of doses to be primary influencing factors for efficacy and immunogenicity. Specifically, mRNA vaccines showed the best efficacy (90.72%, 95% CI: 86.82−93.46), consistent with its highest seroconversion rate (98.52%, 95% CI: 93.45−99.98) and GMT (SMD 6.20, 95% CI: 2.02−10.39). Compared to the control groups, vaccination significantly increased the incidence of total adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.59, 95% CI: 1.38−1.83), including most local and systemic AEs, such as pain, fever, chill, etc. For inactivated and DNA vaccines, the incidence of any AEs was similar between vaccination and control groups (p > 0.1), while mRNA vaccines had the highest risk of most AEs (RR range from 1.74 to 7.22). Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines showed acceptable efficacy, immunogenicity and safety in older people, especially providing a high protection rate against severe disease. The mRNA vaccine was the most efficacious, but it is worth surveillance for some AEs it caused. Increased booster coverage in older adults is warranted, and additional studies are urgently required for longer follow-up periods and variant strains.
| S-EPMC9513208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with cancer have a higher risk of severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. Owing to this increased risk, patients with cancer have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination globally, for both primary and booster vaccinations. However, given that these patients were not included in the pivotal clinical trials, considerable uncertainty remains regarding vaccine efficacy, and the extent of humoral and cellular immune responses in these patients, as well as the risks of vaccine-related adverse events. In this Review, we summarize the current knowledge generated in studies conducted since COVID-19 vaccines first became available. We also highlight critical points that might affect vaccine efficacy in patients with cancer in the future.
| S-EPMC8916486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study is aimed to identify the adverse effects associated with three types of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines. Approximately 1736 individuals agreed to participate in this study. The participants involved in the study were individuals who had received the first dose or full course (two doses) of the vaccine at least 30 days before the survey. A direct and interactive web-based system interview with a paper and electronic version of the questionnaire was used for all participants. A total of 1736 randomized individuals were identified. The reactogenicity of the vaccines including pain, redness, urticaria, and swelling at the site of the injection was reported in 34.56% of the participants. Local site reaction was reported in more individuals who had Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines than those who received the Sinopharm vaccine. The systemic events were more common with AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines, symptoms reported were fatigue, body pain, headache, muscle pain, fever, and gastrointestinal side effects. There were no correlations between age or gender, and the duration of the adverse effects for the three vaccines. Swelling and severe allergic reaction of the eyelids, severe hypotension, generalized body aches, shortness of breath, weakness and numbness on the injected arm, acute hyperglycemia, severe chest pain, and fever more than 39°C were among the unusual signs and symptoms reported by the participants. Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sinopharm vaccines were found to be safe and Sinopharm vaccine showed a lower prevalence of adverse effects compared with the other vaccines. The duration and severity of adverse effects were not affected by age or gender. Unusual side effects should be closely monitored to establish determine they are linked to the immunization.
| S-EPMC8426829 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The numbers of cases and deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are continuously increasing. Many people are concerned about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. We performed a comprehensive analysis of the published trials of COVID-19 vaccines and the real-world data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Globally, our research found that the efficacy of all vaccines exceeded 70%, and RNA-based vaccines had the highest efficacy of 94.29%; moreover, Black or African American people, young people, and males may experience greater vaccine efficacy. The spectrum of vaccine-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is extremely broad, and the most frequent ADRs are pain, fatigue, and headache. Most ADRs are tolerable and are mainly grade 1 or 2 in severity. Some severe ADRs have been identified (thromboembolic events, 21-75 cases per million doses; myocarditis/pericarditis, 2-3 cases per million doses). In summary, vaccines are a powerful tool that can be used to control the COVID-19 pandemic, with high efficacy and tolerable ADRs. In addition, the spectrum of ADRs associated with the vaccines is broad, and most of the reactions appear within a week, although some may be delayed. Therefore, ADRs after vaccination need to be identified and addressed in a timely manner.
| S-EPMC8342868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere have been concerns about COVID-19 vaccination safety among frail older individuals. We investigated the relationship between COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and mortality among individuals aged ≥ 70 years and whether mortality varies across four groups of health services used.MethodsIn this nationwide cohort study, we included 688,152 individuals aged ≥ 70 years at the start of the Norwegian vaccination campaign (December 27, 2020). We collected individual-level data from theNorwegian Emergency Preparedness Register for COVID-19. Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were matched (1:1 ratio) on the date of vaccination based on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. The main outcome was all-cause mortality during 21 days after first dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Kaplan-Meier survival functions were estimated for the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. We used Cox proportional-hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of death between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs), overall and by use of health services (none, home-based, short- and long-term nursing homes) and age group.ResultsBetween December 27, 2020, and March 31, 2021, 420,771 older individuals (61.1%) were vaccinated against COVID-19. The Kaplan-Meier estimates based on the matched study sample showed a small absolute risk difference in all-cause mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, with a lower mortality in the vaccinated group (overall HR 0.28 [95% CI: 0.24-0.31]). Similar results were obtained in analyses stratified by use of health services and age group.ConclusionWe found no evidence of increased short-term mortality among vaccinated individuals in the older population after matching on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics affecting vaccination and mortality.
| S-EPMC9637531 | biostudies-literature
Project description:>20 months has been passed since the detection of the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection named COVID-19 from Wuhan city of China. This novel coronavirus spread rapidly around the world and became a pandemic. Although different therapeutic options have been considered and approved for the management of COVID-19 infection in different stages of the disease, challenges in pharmacotherapy especially in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and with underlying diseases have still remained. Prevention of infection through public vaccination would be the only efficient strategy to control the morbidity and mortality caused by COVID-19. To date, several COVID-19 vaccines using different platforms including nucleic acid-based vaccines, adenovirus-based vaccines, protein-based vaccines, and inactivated vaccines have been introduced among which many have received approval for prevention against COVID-19. In this comprehensive review, available COVID-19 vaccines have been discussed. The mechanisms, safety, efficacy, dosage, dosing intervals, possible adverse reactions, storage, and coverage of these four different vaccine platforms against SARS-CoV-2 variants have been discussed in detail and summarized in tabular format for ease of comparison and conclusion. Although each COVID-19 vaccine has various advantages and disadvantages over the others, accessibility and affordability of approved vaccines by the official health organizations, especially in developing countries, would be essential to terminate this pandemic. The main limitation of this study was the lack of access to the clinical data on available COVID-19 vaccines developed in Eastern countries since the data on their efficacy, safety, and adverse reactions were limited.
| S-EPMC8445802 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8228087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Various strategies have been designed to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Among them, vaccine development is high on the agenda in spite of the unknown duration of the protection time. Various vaccines have been under clinical trials with promising results in different countries. The protective efficacy and the short-term and long-term side effects of the vaccines are of major concern. Therefore, comparing the protective efficacy and risks of vaccination is essential for the global control of COVID-19 through herd immunity. This study reviews the most recent data of 12 vaccines to evaluate their efficacy, safety profile and usage in various populations.
| S-EPMC8144958 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines according to vaccine platform and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection severity. Articles published between 24 January 2020 and 30 May 2021 were retrieved via a PubMed and EMBASE search. A total of 12 reports on phase-3 clinical trials and observational studies of COVID-19 vaccines were included in the review. In terms of vaccine safety, mRNA vaccines showed more relevance to serious adverse events than viral vector and inactivated vaccines, but no solid evidence indicated that COVID-19 vaccines directly caused serious adverse events. Serious metabolic, musculoskeletal, immune-system, and renal disorders were more common among inactivated vaccine recipients, and serious gastrointestinal complications and infections were more common among viral vector and inactivated vaccine recipients. The occurrence of serious vessel disorders was more frequent in mRNA vaccines. In terms of efficacy, two mRNA vaccine doses conferred a lesser risk of SARS-COV-2 infection (odds ratio: 0.05; 95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.13) than did vaccination with viral vector and inactivated vaccines. All vaccines protected more against symptomatic than asymptomatic cases (risk ratio, 0.11 vs. 0.34), but reduced the risk of severe SARS-COV-2 infection. The COVID-19 vaccines assessed in this study are sufficiently safe and effective. The results indicate that two mRNA vaccine doses prevent SARS-COV-2 infection most effectively, but further research is needed due to the high degree of heterogeneity among studies in this sample. Interventions should be implemented continuously to reduce the risks of infection after one vaccine dose and asymptomatic infection.
| S-EPMC8473448 | biostudies-literature