Systematic Review of Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients With Kidney Disease.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Glenn DA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7870446 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Systematic Review of Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients With Kidney Disease.
Glenn Dorey A DA Hegde Anisha A Kotzen Elizabeth E Walter Emmanuel B EB Kshirsagar Abhijit V AV Falk Ronald R Mottl Amy A
Kidney international reports 20210209 5
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and aimsPatients on maintenance dialysis are a high-risk, immune-compromised population with 15%-25% coronavirus disease (COVID-19) mortality rate that has been underrepresented in COVID-19 vaccination clinical trials. The aim of study was to review of those studies to determine the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccination in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis systematically.MethodsThe effectiveness was assessed by looking at the humoral and cellular responses. The humoral response is defined as de novo IgG- or IgA-anti-SpikeS1 antibody positivity. The establishment of de novo T-cell immunity after immunization was used to measure cellular response. Adverse results were also reported of the included studies to analyze the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Eight previous works were included in our study.ResultsTwo doses of COVID-19 vaccines were shown to be effective with seroconversion rate of humoral response ranging from 81% to 97% among eight studies. The T-cell response was shown 67% and 100% in two studies. COVID-19 vaccines did not have notable adverse events and hence can be considered safe.ConclusionAlthough a single dosage has not shown to improve humoral immune response in most hemodialysis trials, a double dose has been reported to improve seroconversion rate and humoral immune response. Further research are required to observe if hemodialysis patients generate effective T-cell responses.
| S-EPMC9203992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic has posed a huge threat to global health because of its rapid spread and various mutant variants. Critical illness occurs in the elderly and vulnerable individuals, such as those with chronic kidney disease. The severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with the severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD)and even kidney transplantation (KT) because of the chronic use of immunosuppressive agents. To develop adaptive immunity against SARS-CoV-2, vaccination against the spike protein is important. Current phase III trials of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have not focused on a specific group of individuals, such as patients with CKD or those undergoing dialysis or kidney transplantation. Chronic use of immunosuppressive agents might disturb the immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. On the basis of limited evidence, the immune compromised status of CKD patients might decrease neutralizing antibody development after a single dose of a specific vaccine. Boosting dosage more than the protocol might increase the titer of the neutralizing antibody in CKD patients. Further evidence is needed to understand the factors disturbing the immunogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and CKD patients should receive the recommended dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine due to their relatively immune compromised status.
| S-EPMC8402591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeroconversion and longevity of vaccine-induced immune response is blunted in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) patients owing to immunosuppressive regimens. COVID-19 booster vaccines after a primary series have been proposed with inconclusive evidence on efficacy to date.MethodsThis PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CRD42022302534) was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CORD-19, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv were searched up to 28 February 2022 for eligible studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools.ResultsFrom 6647 records, 17 prospective studies were included for systematic review and 12 in meta-analysis of primary series non-responders. The risk of bias was low. Pooling 340 non-responders, a booster dose proved effective with 0.47 seroconverting (95% CI: 0.32-0.63, I2 = 82%). Rituximab therapy was associated with significant impairment, with risks of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.17-0.36, I2 = 50.7%) versus 0.81 (95% CI: 0.72-0.87, I2 = 0.0%) for those without rituximab therapy. A systematic review of antibody levels against COVID-19 showed several-fold increases across studies. Incidence of local and systemic adverse events, including disease flares, were either comparable or slightly increased after the booster dose compared to primary series. No major events such as myocarditis or death were reported.ConclusionOur results show that booster doses are effective in eliciting seroconversion in non-responders, bolstering immunity to COVID-19. It has also not been associated with major adverse events.
| S-EPMC9144569 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To identify the safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in children and adolescents. We conducted a systematic review of published studies and ongoing clinical studies related to the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine in children or adolescents (aged < 18 years). Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched on 23 July 2021. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched to identify ongoing studies. Eight published studies with a total of 2852 children and adolescents and 28 ongoing clinical studies were included. Of the eight published studies, two were RCTs, two case series, and four case reports. The investigated COVID-19 vaccines had good safety profiles in children and adolescents. Injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and chest pain were the most common adverse events. A limited number of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported. The RCTs showed that the immune response to BNT162b2 in adolescents aged 12-15 years was non-inferior to that in young people aged 16-25 years, while with 3 μg CoronaVac injection the immune response was stronger than with 1.5 μg. The efficacy of BNT162b2 was 100% (95% CI: 75.3 to 100), based on one RCT. Of the 28 ongoing clinical studies, twenty-three were interventional studies. The interventional studies were being conducted in fifteen countries, among them, China (10, 43.5%) and United States(9, 39.1%) had the highest number of ongoing trials. BNT162b2 was the most commonly studied vaccine in the ongoing trials. Two COVID-19 vaccines have potential protective effects in children and adolescents, but awareness is needed to monitor possible adverse effects after injection. Clinical studies of the COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents with longer follow-up time, larger sample size, and a greater variety of vaccines are still urgently needed.
| S-EPMC8539812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with autoimmune diseases are among the susceptible groups to COVID-19 infection because of the complexity of their conditions and the side effects of the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat them. They might show impaired immunogenicity to COVID-19 vaccines and have a higher risk of developing COVID-19. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis, this research sought to summarize the evidence on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety in patients with autoimmune diseases following predefined eligibility criteria. Research articles were obtained from an initial search up to 26 September 2022 from PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, MedRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, EuroPMC, and the Cochrane Center of Randomized Controlled Trials (CCRCT). Of 76 eligible studies obtained, 29, 54, and 38 studies were included in systematic reviews of efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively, and 6, 18, and 4 studies were included in meta-analyses for efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively. From the meta-analyses, patients with autoimmune diseases showed more frequent breakthrough COVID-19 infections and lower total antibody (TAb) titers, IgG seroconversion, and neutralizing antibodies after inactivated COVID-19 vaccination compared with healthy controls. They also had more local and systemic adverse events after the first dose of inactivated vaccination compared with healthy controls. After COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, patients with autoimmune diseases had lower TAb titers and IgG seroconversion compared with healthy controls.
| S-EPMC10535431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) are at a potentially higher risk for COVID-19 infection complications. Given their inherent altered immune system and the use of immunomodulatory medications, vaccine immunogenicity could be unpredictable with a suboptimal or even an exaggerated immunological response. The aim of this study is to provide real-time data on the emerging evidence of COVID-19 vaccines' efficacy and safety in patients with ARDs.MethodsWe performed a literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and OVID databases up to 11-13 April 2022 on the efficacy and safety of both types of the mRNA-vaccines and the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines in patients with ARD. The risk of bias in the retrieved studies was evaluated using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. Also, current clinical practice guidelines from multiple international professional societies were reviewed.ResultsWe identified 60 prognostic studies, 69 case reports and case series, and eight international clinical practice guidelines. Our results demonstrated that most patients with ARDs were able to mount humoral and/or cellular responses after two doses of COVID-19 vaccine although this response was suboptimal in patients receiving certain disease-modifying medications including rituximab, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, daily glucocorticoids >10 mg, abatacept, as well as in older individuals, and those with comorbid interstitial lung diseases. Safety reports on COVID-19 vaccines in patients with ARDs were largely reassuring with mostly self-limiting adverse events and very minimal post-vaccination disease flares.ConclusionBoth types of the mRNA-vaccines and the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective and safe in patients with ARD. However, due to their suboptimal response in some patients, alternative mitigation strategies such as booster vaccines and shielding practices should also be followed. Management of immunomodulatory treatment regimens during the peri vaccination period should be individualized through shared decision making with patients and their attending rheumatologists.
| S-EPMC10201317 | 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: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
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9726273 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMolnupiravir is an oral antiviral drug that received Emergency Use Authorization in three countries for the treatment of mild COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review was to find out the safety and efficacy of Molnupiravir in SARS-COV-2 infections.MethodsThe electronic databases such as PubMed, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, FDA, ClinicalTrials.Gov, ctri.nic.in and Google Scholar were searched for articles from January 2021 to March 2022 using the keywords such as "Molnupiravir", "COVID-19", "Oral antiviral pill", "MK-4482", "EIDD-280", "Efficacy" and "Safety". Details of published, unpublished with interim reports and ongoing studies of Molnupiravir in COVID-19 were retrieved, and a systematic review was performed.ResultsA total of 6 articles and 18 ongoing trials data were collected. Out of these, data from 4 published and 2 unpublished with interim reports were extracted. After review of these studies, it was observed that the daily dose of 1600 mg Molnupiravir for 5 days was safe and tolerable with nausea, diarrhea and headache as the common adverse effects. The results also showed significant decrease in time to viral clearance with 800 mg twice daily in mild patients and reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.ConclusionEvidence from clinical studies showed that Molnupiravir caused significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization or death in high-risk mild COVID-19 patients. Molnupiravir was also found to be well tolerated and safe without any major adverse events on short-term use. For confirmative use of this drug in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 disease, further studies are required in vaccinated COVID-19 patients and against emerging variants.
| S-EPMC9463664 | biostudies-literature