COVID-19 vaccination for the prevention and treatment of long COVID: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ceban F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10067136 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
COVID-19 vaccination for the prevention and treatment of long COVID: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ceban Felicia F Kulzhabayeva Dana D Rodrigues Nelson B NB Di Vincenzo Joshua D JD Gill Hartej H Subramaniapillai Mehala M Lui Leanna M W LMW Cao Bing B Mansur Rodrigo B RB Ho Roger C RC Burke Matthew J MJ Rhee Taeho Greg TG Rosenblat Joshua D JD McIntyre Roger S RS
Brain, behavior, and immunity 20230327
Empirical evidence addressing the association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and long COVID would guide public health priorities and inform personal health decisions. Herein, the co-primary objectives are to determine the differential risk of long COVID in vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients, and the trajectory of long COVID following vaccination. Of 2775 articles identified via systematic search, 17 were included, and 6 were meta-analyzed. Meta-analytic results determined that at least one ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe relationship between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and long COVID has not been firmly established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and long COVID.MethodsPubMed and EMBASE databases were searched on September 2022 without language restrictions (CRD42022360399) to identify prospective trials and observational studies comparing patients with and without vaccination before severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We also included studies reporting symptomatic changes of ongoing long COVID following vaccination among those with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Odds ratios (ORs) for each outcome were synthesized using a random-effects model. Symptomatic changes after vaccination were synthesized by a one-group meta-analysis.ResultsSix observational studies involving 536,291 unvaccinated and 84,603 vaccinated (before SARS-CoV-2 infection) patients (mean age, 41.2-66.6; female, 9.0-67.3%) and six observational studies involving 8,199 long COVID patients (mean age, 40.0 to 53.5; female, 22.2-85.9%) who received vaccination after SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Two-dose vaccination was associated with a lower risk of long COVID compared to no vaccination (OR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.92) and one-dose vaccination (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83). Two-dose vaccination compared to no vaccination was associated with a lower risk of persistent fatigue (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.93) and pulmonary disorder (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.47-0.52). Among those with ongoing long COVID symptoms, 54.4% (95% CI, 34.3-73.1%) did not report symptomatic changes following vaccination, while 20.3% (95% CI, 8.1-42.4%) experienced symptomatic improvement after two weeks to six months of COVID-19 vaccination.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccination before SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a lower risk of long COVID, while most of those with ongoing long COVID did not experience symptomatic changes following vaccination.
| S-EPMC9905096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMyopericarditis is a rare complication of vaccination. However, there have been increasing reports of myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination, especially among adolescents and young adults. We aimed to characterise the incidence of myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination, and compare this with non-COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching four international databases from Jan 1, 1947, to Dec 31, 2021, for studies in English reporting on the incidence of myopericarditis following vaccination (the primary outcome). We included studies reporting on people in the general population who had myopericarditis in temporal relation to receiving vaccines, and excluded studies on a specific subpopulation of patients, non-human studies, and studies in which the number of doses was not reported. Random-effects meta-analyses (DerSimonian and Laird) were conducted, and the intra-study risk of bias (Joanna Briggs Institute checklist) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach) were assessed. We analysed the difference in incidence of myopericarditis among subpopulations, stratifying by the type of vaccine (COVID-19 vs non-COVID-19) and age group (adult vs paediatric). Among COVID-19 vaccinations, we examined the effect of the type of vaccine (mRNA or non-mRNA), sex, age, and dose on the incidence of myopericarditis. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021275477).FindingsThe overall incidence of myopericarditis from 22 studies (405 272 721 vaccine doses) was 33·3 cases (95% CI 15·3-72·6) per million vaccine doses, and did not differ significantly between people who received COVID-19 vaccines (18·2 [10·9-30·3], 11 studies [395 361 933 doses], high certainty) and those who received non-COVID-19 vaccines (56·0 [10·7-293·7], 11 studies [9 910 788 doses], moderate certainty, p=0·20). Compared with COVID-19 vaccination, the incidence of myopericarditis was significantly higher following smallpox vaccinations (132·1 [81·3-214·6], p<0·0001) but was not significantly different after influenza vaccinations (1·3 [0·0-884·1], p=0·43) or in studies reporting on various other non-smallpox vaccinations (57·0 [1·1-3036·6], p=0·58). Among people who received COVID-19 vaccines, the incidence of myopericarditis was significantly higher in males (vs females), in people younger than 30 years (vs 30 years or older), after receiving an mRNA vaccine (vs non-mRNA vaccine), and after a second dose of vaccine (vs a first or third dose).InterpretationThe overall risk of myopericarditis after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is low. However, younger males have an increased incidence of myopericarditis, particularly after receiving mRNA vaccines. Nevertheless, the risks of such rare adverse events should be balanced against the risks of COVID-19 infection (including myopericarditis).FundingNone.
| S-EPMC9000914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionVaccination is an essential intervention to curb the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This review aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance worldwide.MethodsA systematic search of the MEDLINE (PubMed) database using "COVID-19," "vaccine" and "acceptance" to obtain original research articles published between 2020 and July 2021. Only studies with full text and that were published in English were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute meta-analysis was used to assess the data quality. The meta-analysis was performed using generic inverse variance with a random-effects model using the Review Manager software.ResultsA total of 172 studies across 50 countries worldwide were included. Subgroup analyses were performed with regard to vaccine acceptance, regions, population, gender, vaccine effectiveness, and survey time. The pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was 61% (95% CI: 59, 64). It was higher in Southeast Asia, among healthcare workers, in males, for vaccines with 95% effectiveness, and during the first survey.ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccine acceptance needs to be increased to achieve herd immunity to protect the population from the disease. It is crucial to enhance public awareness of COVID-19 vaccination and improve access to vaccines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2021, identifier CRD42021268645.
| S-EPMC8828741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 exposure during pregnancy is related to adverse effects for both the mother and the infant. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has lowered the risk of symptomatic disease substantially. Recently published studies have evaluated the outcomes of women who received the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy; systematic evidence regarding vaccination safety is crucial to ensure that COVID-19 vaccination is not associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.MethodsPubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from each database's inception through April 7, 2022. All interventional and observational studies comparing neonatal or pregnancy outcomes between pregnant women who received COVID-19 vaccines during their pregnancy and unvaccinated pregnant women were included. The random-effects model was used in the meta-analyses.ResultsA total of 11 studies comprising 756,098 pregnant mothers were included. The rate of neonates with 5-min Apgar score ≤ 7 (log RR -0.08 (95% CI: -0.15 to -0.00), (P = 0.03)) and pregnant mothers with preterm birth (log RR -0.11 (95% CI: -0.21 to -0.01), (P = 0.02)) was significantly lower among vaccinated group. No significant difference was observed in adverse neonatal outcomes (log RR -0.07 (95% CI: -0.17 to 0.03)), small for gestational age (log RR -0.06 (95% CI: -0.14 to 0.02)), caesarean delivery (log RR 0.05 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.15)), postpartum hemorrhage (log RR -0.05 (95% CI: -0.13 to 0.02)), stillbirth (log RR -0.05 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.45)).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, no evident differences were observed when comparing vaccinated pregnant mothers with those who had not received COVID-19 vaccines. Based on low certainty of evidence, vaccination during pregnancy was accompanied by a favorable Apgar score in neonates and fewer preterm births.
| S-EPMC9853484 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although numerous modalities are currently in use for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19, probiotics are a cost-effective alternative that could be used in diverse clinical settings. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the role of probiotics in preventing and treating COVID-19 infection. We searched several databases from inception to 30 May 2023 for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies that evaluated probiotics (irrespective of the regimen) for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. We conducted our meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) as the effect measures. A total of 18 studies (11 RCTs and 7 observational studies) were included in our review. Probiotics reduced the risk of mortality (RR 0.40; 95% CI: 0.25-0.65, I2 = 0%). Probiotics also decreased the length of hospital stay, rate of no recovery, and time to recovery. However, probiotics had no effect on the rates of ICU admission. When used prophylactically, probiotics did not decrease the incidence of COVID-19 cases (RR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.37-1.12; I2 = 66%). The results for all outcomes were consistent across the subgroups of RCTs and observational studies (P for interaction >0.05). The results of this meta-analysis support the use of probiotics as an adjunct treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, probiotics are not useful as a prophylactic measure against COVID-19. Large-scale RCTs are still warranted for determining the most efficacious and safe probiotic strains. PROSPERO (CRD42023390275: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=390275).
| S-EPMC10641770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe reactivation of herpesviruses (HHV) in COVID-19 patients is evident in the literature. Several reports have been published regarding the reactivation of these viruses (HSV, VZV, EBV, and CMV) among those who got COVID-19 vaccines. In this study, we aimed to review the current evidence to assess whether HHVs reactivation has any association with the prior administration of COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsA systematic search was conducted on 25 September 2022 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE. We included all observational studies, case reports, and case series which reported the reactivation of human herpesviruses following administration of COVID-19 vaccines.ResultsOur systematic search showed 80 articles that meet the eligibility criteria. Among the evaluated COVID-19 vaccines, most of the vaccines were mRNA based. Evidence from observational studies showed the possible relation between COVID-19 vaccine administration and VZV and HSV reactivation. The results of our proportion meta-analysis showed that the rate of VZV reactivation among those who received the COVID-19 vaccine was 14 persons per 1000 vaccinations (95% CI 2.97-32.80). Moreover, our meta-analysis for HSV reactivation showed the rate of 16 persons per 1000 vaccinations (95% CI 1.06-46.4). Furthermore, the evidence from case reports/series showed 149 cases of HHV reactivation. There were several vaccines that caused reactivation including BNT162b2 mRNA or Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 76), Oxford-AstraZeneca (n = 22), mRNA-1273 or Moderna (n = 17), Sinovac (n = 4), BBIBP-CorV or Sinopharm (n = 3), Covaxin (n = 3), Covishield (n = 3), and Johnson and Johnson (n = 1). Reactivated HHVs included varicella-zoster virus (VZV) (n = 114), cytomegalovirus (CMV) (n = 15), herpes simplex virus (HSV) (n = 14), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) (n = 6), and HHV-6 (n = 2). Most cases reported their disease after the first dose of the vaccine. Many patients reported having comorbidities, of which hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, chicken pox, and atrial fibrillation were common.ConclusionIn conclusion, our study showed the possible association between COVID-19 vaccination and herpesvirus reactivation. The evidence for VZV and HSV was supported by observational studies. However, regarding other herpesviruses (EBV and CMV), further research especially from observational studies and clinical trials is required to elucidate the interaction between COVID-19 vaccination and their reactivation.
| S-EPMC10413536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Countries across the globe are currently experiencing a third or fourth wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections; therefore, the need for effective vaccination campaigns is higher than ever. However, effectiveness of these campaigns in disease reduction is highly dependent on vaccination uptake and coverage in susceptible populations. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the vaccination intention and identified determinants of willingness and hesitancy. This study updates the existing body of literature on vaccination willingness, and was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed was searched for publications, selecting only studies published between 20 October 2020 and 1 March 2021, in English, with participants aged >16 years of age. The search identified 411 articles, of which 63 surveys were included that accounted for more than 30 countries worldwide. The global COVID-19 vaccination willingness was estimated at 66.01% [95% CI: 60.76-70.89% I2 = 99.4% [99.3%; 99.4%]; τ2 = 0.83]. The vaccination willingness varied within as well as between countries. Age, gender, education, attitudes and perceptions about vaccines were most frequently observed to be significantly associated with vaccine acceptance or refusal.
| S-EPMC8540052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCase-reports/series and cohorts of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 vaccination have been reported.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies of GBS after COVID-19 vaccination was carried out. Incidence and incidence rate ratio for a number of vaccine doses and risk of GBS, also considering the specific vaccine technology, were calculated in a random-effects model.ResultsOf 554 citations retrieved, 518 were discarded as irrelevant. We finally included 15 studies. The random effect model yielded, regardless of the vaccine technology, 1.25 (95%CI 0.21; 2.83) GBS cases per million of COVID-19 vaccine doses, 3.93 (2.54; 5.54) cases per million doses for adenovirus-vectored vaccines and 0.69 (0.38; 1.06) cases per million doses for mRNA vaccines. The GBS risk was 2.6 times increased with the first dose. Regardless of the vaccine technology, the GBS risk was not increased but disaggregating the data it was 2.37 (1.67; 3.36) times increased for adenovirus-vectored vaccines and 0.32 (0.23; 0.47) for mRNA vaccines. Mortality for GBS after vaccination was 0.10 per million doses and 4.6 per GBS cases.ConclusionsAdenovirus-vectored vaccines showed a 2.4 times increased risk of GBS that was about seven times higher compared with mRNA-based vaccines. The decreased GBS risk associated with mRNA vaccines was possibly due to an elicited reduction of infections, including SARS-CoV-2, associated with GBS during the vaccination period. How adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines may trigger GBS is unclear and further studies should investigate the relationship between vaccine technologies and GBS risk.
| S-EPMC10896967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccines can lead to diverse local and systemic side effects, but there is limited evidence concerning their association with menstrual cycle changes. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of menstrual cycle alterations after COVID-19 vaccination among adult women.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, Web of Science and Science Direct databases for observational studies that included adult women and investigated the range of menstrual alterations. The quality of the studies was evaluated via the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. All the data were analyzed via Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software Version 4.0. Forest plots were created to calculate the individual and pooled prevalence rates of different types of menstrual changes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) via fixed-effects and random-effects models, as appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed with Q statistics and the I2 test.ResultsEleven studies, encompassing 26,283 adult women, met our eligibility criteria. Among the selected studies, five were cohort studies, five were cross-sectional studies, and one employed a case‒control design. The menstrual changes included abnormal cycle duration, dysmenorrhea, irregular cycles, and abnormal cycle flow (heavy and light flow), with pooled percentages of 27.3% (CI: 7.2-64.6%), 22% (CI: 5.2-59.4%), 16% (CI: 5.8-37.2%), 11.7% (CI: 5.8-22%), and 5.5% (CI: 2.3-12.5%), respectively.ConclusionsThis review highlights the prevalence of menstrual changes after COVID-19 vaccination and emphasizes the importance of considering menstrual health as an integral part of postvaccination monitoring and health care interventions. However, longitudinal studies are essential for establishing a definitive causal relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and menstrual alterations.
| S-EPMC11412023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccine mandates are considered a controversial public health policy both in public debate and among healthcare workers (HCWs). Thus, the objective of this systematic review is to give a deep insight into HCWs' views and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination mandates amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA systematic literature search of five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) was conducted between July 2022 and November 2022. Original quantitative studies that addressed the attitudes of HCWs regarding COVID-19 vaccine mandates were considered eligible for this systematic review. All the included studies (n = 57) were critically appraised and assessed for risk of systematic bias. Meta-analyses were performed, providing a pooled estimate of HCWs' acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccine mandates for: 1. HCWs and 2. the general population.ResultsIn total, 64% (95% CI: 55%, 72%) of HCWs favored COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs, while 50% (95% CI: 38%, 61%) supported mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the general population.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 is a highly controversial issue among HCWs. The present study provides stakeholders and policy makers with useful evidence related to the compulsory or non-compulsory nature of COVID-19 vaccinations for HCWs and the general population. Other: The protocol used in this review is registered on PROSPERO with the ID number: CRD42022350275.
| S-EPMC10142794 | biostudies-literature