Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness of treatment options against SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Thoguluva Chandrasekar V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7404948 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness of treatment options against SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Thoguluva Chandrasekar Viveksandeep V Venkatesalu Bhanuprasad B Patel Harsh K HK Spadaccini Marco M Manteuffel Jacob J Ramesh Mayur M
Journal of medical virology 20200722 2
Treatment options for severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are limited with no clarity on efficacy and safety profiles. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on patients ≥18 years reporting data on therapeutic interventions in SARS-CoV-2. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes were rates of mechanical ventilation, viral clearance, adverse events, discharge, and progression to severe disease. Pooled rates and odds rat ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe protective effectiveness provided by naturally acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection remain controversial.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the protective effect of natural immunity against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection with different variants.MethodsWe searched for related studies published in seven databases before March 5, 2023. Eligible studies included in the analysis reported the risk of subsequent infection for groups with or without a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was the overall pooled incidence rate ratio (IRR) of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection/infection between the two groups. We also focused on the protective effectiveness of natural immunity against reinfection/infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants. We used a random-effects model to pool the data, and obtained the bias-adjusted results using the trim-and-fill method. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding included studies one by one to evaluate the stability of the results.ResultsWe identified 40 eligible articles including more than 20 million individuals without the history of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The bias-adjusted efficacy of naturally acquired antibodies against reinfection was estimated at 65% (pooled IRR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.26-0.47), with higher efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 cases (pooled IRR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.08-0.26) than asymptomatic infection (pooled IRR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.29-0.54). Meta-regression revealed that SARS-CoV-2 variant was a statistically significant effect modifier, which explaining 46.40% of the variation in IRRs. For different SARS-CoV-2 variant, the pooled IRRs for the Alpha (pooled IRR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.06-0.19), Delta (pooled IRR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.15-0.24) and Omicron (pooled IRR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.42-0.87) variant were higher and higher. In other subgroup analyses, the pooled IRRs of SARS-CoV-2 infection were statistically various in different countries, publication year and the inclusion end time of population, with a significant difference (p = 0.02, p < 0.010 and p < 0.010), respectively. The risk of subsequent infection in the seropositive population appeared to increase slowly over time. Despite the heterogeneity in included studies, sensitivity analyses showed stable results.ConclusionPrevious SARS-CoV-2 infection provides protection against pre-omicron reinfection, but less against omicron. Ongoing viral mutation requires attention and prevention strategies, such as vaccine catch-up, in conjunction with multiple factors.
| S-EPMC11222391 | biostudies-literature
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:As of June 2020, the number of people infected with severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to skyrocket, with more than 6.7 million cases worldwide. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations (UN) has highlighted the need for better control of SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, developing novel virus-specific vaccines, monoclonal antibodies and antiviral drugs against SARS-CoV-2 can be time-consuming and costly. Convalescent sera and safe-in-man broad-spectrum antivirals (BSAAs) are readily available treatment options. Here, we developed a neutralization assay using SARS-CoV-2 strain and Vero-E6 cells. We identified the most potent sera from recovered patients for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. We also screened 136 safe-in-man broad-spectrum antivirals against the SARS-CoV-2 infection in Vero-E6 cells and identified nelfinavir, salinomycin, amodiaquine, obatoclax, emetine and homoharringtonine. We found that a combination of orally available virus-directed nelfinavir and host-directed amodiaquine exhibited the highest synergy. Finally, we developed a website to disseminate the knowledge on available and emerging treatments of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7354438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in terms of prevention of disease and transmission in the pre-Delta era. The evaluation was narrowed to two mRNA vaccines and two modified adenovirus-vectored vaccines. (2) Methods: The overall risk of any SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by positive real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test was estimated in partially and fully vaccinated individuals. The evidence synthesis was pursued through a random-effects meta-analysis. The effect size was expressed as relative risk (RR) and RRR (RR reduction) of SARS-CoV-2 infection following vaccination. Heterogeneity was investigated through a between-study heterogeneity analysis and a subgroup meta-analysis. (3) Results: The systematic review identified 27 studies eligible for the quantitative synthesis. Partially vaccinated individuals presented a RRR = 73% (95%CI = 59-83%) for positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR (RR = 0.27) and a RRR=79% (95%CI = 30-93%) for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR (RR = 0.21). Fully vaccinated individuals showed a RRR = 94% (95%CI = 88-98%) for SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR (RR = 0.06) compared to unvaccinated individuals. The full BNT162b2 vaccination protocol achieved a RRR = 84-94% against any SARS-CoV-2-positive PCR and a RRR = 68-84% against symptomatic positive PCR. (4) Conclusions: The meta-analysis results suggest that full vaccination might block transmission. In particular, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection appeared higher for non-B.1.1.7 variants and individuals aged ≥69 years. Considering the high level of heterogeneity, these findings must be taken with caution. Further research on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants is encouraged.
| S-EPMC8879968 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Understanding the level and characteristics of protection from past SARS-CoV-2 infection against subsequent re-infection, symptomatic COVID-19 disease, and severe disease is essential for predicting future potential disease burden, for designing policies that restrict travel or access to venues where there is a high risk of transmission, and for informing choices about when to receive vaccine doses. We aimed to systematically synthesise studies to estimate protection from past infection by variant, and where data allow, by time since infection. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified, reviewed, and extracted from the scientific literature retrospective and prospective cohort studies and test-negative case-control studies published from inception up to Sept 31, 2022, that estimated the reduction in risk of COVID-19 among individuals with a past SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to those without a previous infection. We meta-analysed the effectiveness of past infection by outcome (infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease), variant, and time since infection. We ran a Bayesian meta-regression to estimate the pooled estimates of protection. Risk-of-bias assessment was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health quality-assessment tools. The systematic review was PRISMA compliant and was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42022303850). Findings We identified a total of 65 studies from 19 different countries. Our meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant. Pooled effectiveness against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant was 45·3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 17·3–76·1) and 44·0% (26·5–65·0) against omicron BA.1 symptomatic disease. Mean pooled effectiveness was greater than 78% against severe disease (hospitalisation and death) for all variants, including omicron BA.1. Protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants declined over time but remained at 78·6% (49·8–93·6) at 40 weeks. Protection against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant declined more rapidly and was estimated at 36·1% (24·4–51·3) at 40 weeks. On the other hand, protection against severe disease remained high for all variants, with 90·2% (69·7–97·5) for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants, and 88·9% (84·7–90·9) for omicron BA.1 at 40 weeks. Interpretation Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe disease was high for all variants. The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, and J and E Nordstrom.
| S-EPMC9998097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundKnowing whether COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness wanes is crucial for informing vaccine policy, such as the need for and timing of booster doses. We aimed to systematically review the evidence for the duration of protection of COVID-19 vaccines against various clinical outcomes, and to assess changes in the rates of breakthrough infection caused by the delta variant with increasing time since vaccination.MethodsThis study was designed as a systematic review and meta-regression. We did a systematic review of preprint and peer-reviewed published article databases from June 17, 2021, to Dec 2, 2021. Randomised controlled trials of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and observational studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness were eligible. Studies with vaccine efficacy or effectiveness estimates at discrete time intervals of people who had received full vaccination and that met predefined screening criteria underwent full-text review. We used random-effects meta-regression to estimate the average change in vaccine efficacy or effectiveness 1-6 months after full vaccination.FindingsOf 13 744 studies screened, 310 underwent full-text review, and 18 studies were included (all studies were carried out before the omicron variant began to circulate widely). Risk of bias, established using the risk of bias 2 tool for randomised controlled trials or the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions tool was low for three studies, moderate for eight studies, and serious for seven studies. We included 78 vaccine-specific vaccine efficacy or effectiveness evaluations (Pfizer-BioNTech-Comirnaty, n=38; Moderna-mRNA-1273, n=23; Janssen-Ad26.COV2.S, n=9; and AstraZeneca-Vaxzevria, n=8). On average, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased from 1 month to 6 months after full vaccination by 21·0 percentage points (95% CI 13·9-29·8) among people of all ages and 20·7 percentage points (10·2-36·6) among older people (as defined by each study, who were at least 50 years old). For symptomatic COVID-19 disease, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness decreased by 24·9 percentage points (95% CI 13·4-41·6) in people of all ages and 32·0 percentage points (11·0-69·0) in older people. For severe COVID-19 disease, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness decreased by 10·0 percentage points (95% CI 6·1-15·4) in people of all ages and 9·5 percentage points (5·7-14·6) in older people. Most (81%) vaccine efficacy or effectiveness estimates against severe disease remained greater than 70% over time.InterpretationCOVID-19 vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against severe disease remained high, although it did decrease somewhat by 6 months after full vaccination. By contrast, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against infection and symptomatic disease decreased approximately 20-30 percentage points by 6 months. The decrease in vaccine efficacy or effectiveness is likely caused by, at least in part, waning immunity, although an effect of bias cannot be ruled out. Evaluating vaccine efficacy or effectiveness beyond 6 months will be crucial for updating COVID-19 vaccine policy.FundingCoalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.
| S-EPMC8863502 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA rapidly growing body was observed of literature evaluating the vaccine effectiveness (VE) against Omicron in test-negative design studies.MethodsWe systematically searched papers that evaluated VE of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, Scopus, bioRxiv, and medRxiv published from November 26th, 2021, to June 27th, 2022 (full doses and the first booster), and to January 8th, 2023 (the second booster). The pooled VE against Omicron-associated infection and severe events were estimated.ResultsFrom 2,552 citations identified, 42 articles were included. The first booster provided stronger protection against Omicron than full doses alone, shown by VE estimates of 53.1% (95% CI: 48.0-57.8) vs. 28.6% (95% CI: 18.5-37.4) against infection and 82.5% (95% CI: 77.8-86.2) vs. 57.3% (95% CI: 48.5-64.7) against severe events. The second booster offered strong protection among adults within 60 days of vaccination against infection (VE=53.1%, 95% CI: 48.0-57.8) and severe events (VE=87.3% (95% CI: 75.5-93.4), comparable to the first booster with corresponding VE estimates of 59.9% against infection and 84.8% against severe events. The VE estimates of booster doses against severe events among adults sustained beyond 60 days, 77.6% (95% CI: 69.4-83.6) for first and 85.9% (95% CI: 80.3-89.9) for the second booster. The VE estimates against infection were less sustainable regardless of dose type. Pure mRNA vaccines provided comparable protection to partial mRNA vaccines, but both provided higher protection than non-mRNA vaccines.ConclusionsOne or two SARS-CoV-2 booster doses provide considerable protection against Omicron infection and substantial and sustainable protection against Omicron-induced severe clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC10289159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt was urgent and necessary to synthesize the evidence for vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness profile of COVID-19 vaccines against VOC.MethodsPublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies that evaluated the VE against VOC (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Omicron) were searched until 4 March 2022. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. VE was defined as (1-estimate).ResultsEleven RCTs (161,388 participants), 20 cohort studies (52,782,321 participants), and 26 case-control studies (2,584,732 cases) were included. Eleven COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, Ad26.COV2.S, NVX-CoV2373, BBV152, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, SCB-2019, CVnCoV, and HB02) were included in this analysis. Full vaccination was effective against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants, with VE of 88.0% (95% CI, 83.0-91.5), 73.0% (95% CI, 64.3-79.5), 63.0% (95% CI, 47.9-73.7), 77.8% (95% CI, 72.7-82.0), and 55.9% (95% CI, 40.9-67.0), respectively. Booster vaccination was more effective against Delta and Omicron variants, with VE of 95.5% (95% CI, 94.2-96.5) and 80.8% (95% CI, 58.6-91.1), respectively. mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273/BNT162b2) seemed to have higher VE against VOC over others; significant interactions (pinteraction < 0.10) were observed between VE and vaccine type (mRNA vaccines vs. not mRNA vaccines).ConclusionsFull vaccination of COVID-19 vaccines is highly effective against Alpha variant, and moderate effective against Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants. Booster vaccination is more effective against Delta and Omicron variants. mRNA vaccines seem to have higher VE against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants over others.
| S-EPMC9126103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe global surge in the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant has resulted in many individuals with hybrid immunity (immunity developed through a combination of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination). We aimed to systematically review the magnitude and duration of the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against infection and severe disease caused by the omicron variant.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-regression, we searched for cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO COVID-19 database, and Europe PubMed Central from Jan 1, 2020, to June 1, 2022, using keywords related to SARS-CoV-2, reinfection, protective effectiveness, previous infection, presence of antibodies, and hybrid immunity. The main outcomes were the protective effectiveness against reinfection and against hospital admission or severe disease of hybrid immunity, hybrid immunity relative to previous infection alone, hybrid immunity relative to previous vaccination alone, and hybrid immunity relative to hybrid immunity with fewer vaccine doses. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions Tool. We used log-odds random-effects meta-regression to estimate the magnitude of protection at 1-month intervals. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022318605).Findings11 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 15 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of hybrid immunity were included. For previous infection, there were 97 estimates (27 with a moderate risk of bias and 70 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of previous infection against hospital admission or severe disease was 74·6% (95% CI 63·1-83·5) at 12 months. The effectiveness of previous infection against reinfection waned to 24·7% (95% CI 16·4-35·5) at 12 months. For hybrid immunity, there were 153 estimates (78 with a moderate risk of bias and 75 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of hybrid immunity against hospital admission or severe disease was 97·4% (95% CI 91·4-99·2) at 12 months with primary series vaccination and 95·3% (81·9-98·9) at 6 months with the first booster vaccination after the most recent infection or vaccination. Against reinfection, the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following primary series vaccination waned to 41·8% (95% CI 31·5-52·8) at 12 months, while the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following first booster vaccination waned to 46·5% (36·0-57·3) at 6 months.InterpretationAll estimates of protection waned within months against reinfection but remained high and sustained for hospital admission or severe disease. Individuals with hybrid immunity had the highest magnitude and durability of protection, and as a result might be able to extend the period before booster vaccinations are needed compared to individuals who have never been infected.FundingWHO COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.
| S-EPMC10014083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHydroxychloroquine (HCQ)/Chloroquine (CQ) has been evaluated for treatment and prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection in various studies with conflicting results. We performed a systematic review to synthesize the currently available evidence over the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ therapy alone against SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies published until October 15, 2020 and assessing the efficacy of HCQ alone against SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included studies evaluating HCQ/CQ alone as intervention and placebo/standard care as a control group. Retrospective studies and studies using other drugs (namely azithromycin, corticosteroids, immunomodulators, etc.) we excluded. Thirteen RCTs and three prospective cohort studies were included in this review. We pooled data using a random-effect model.ResultsPooled data from 12 studies (9917 participants) showed that HCQs increase mortality as compared to placebo/standard of care (RR 1.10; 95% CI:1.00-1.20). Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the need for hospitalization in out-patients (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.31-1.02). HCQ group has a significantly higher rate of any adverse event (RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.55-4.64), as compared to the control group. Also, using HCQ for prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection did not reduce the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.58-1.88).ConclusionsHCQ therapy for COVID-19 is associated with an increase in mortality and other adverse events. The negative effects are more pronounced in hospitalized patients. Therefore, with the available evidence, HCQ should not be used in prophylaxis or treatment of patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7899036 | biostudies-literature