Dataset Information

Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the dose-response relationship with three major antibodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in preventing severe COVID-19 illness and death is uncertain due to the rarity of data in individual trials. How well the antibody concentrations can predict the efficacy is also uncertain. We aimed to assess the efficacy of these vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections of different severities and the dose-response relationship between the antibody concentrations and efficacy.

Methods

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, WHO, bioRxiv, and medRxiv for papers published between Jan 1, 2020 and Sep 12, 2022. RCTs on the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. A frequentist, random-effects model was used to combine efficacy for common outcomes (ie, symptomatic and asymptomatic infections) and a Bayesian random-effects model was used for rare outcomes (ie, hospital admission, severe infection, and death). Potential sources of heterogeneity were investigated. The dose-response relationships of neutralising, spike-specific IgG and receptor binding domain-specific IgG antibody titres with efficacy in preventing SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic and severe infections were examined by meta-regression. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021287238.

Findings

28 RCTs (n=286 915 in vaccination groups and n=233 236 in placebo groups; median follow-up 1-6 months after last vaccination) across 32 publications were included in this review. The combined efficacy of full vaccination was 44·5% (95% CI 27·8-57·4) for preventing asymptomatic infections, 76·5% (69·8-81·7) for preventing symptomatic infections, 95·4% (95% credible interval 88·0-98·7) for preventing hospitalisation, 90·8% (85·5-95·1) for preventing severe infection, and 85·8% (68·7-94·6) for preventing death. There was heterogeneity in the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against asymptomatic and symptomatic infections but insufficient evidence to suggest whether the efficacy could differ according to the type of vaccine, age of the vaccinated individual, and between-dose interval (p>0·05 for all). Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection waned over time after full vaccination, with an average decrease of 13·6% (95% CI 5·5-22·3; p=0·0007) per month but can be enhanced by a booster. We found a significant non-linear relationship between each type of antibody and efficacy against symptomatic and severe infections (p<0·0001 for all), but there remained considerable heterogeneity in the efficacy, which cannot be explained by antibody concentrations. The risk of bias was low in most studies.

Interpretation

The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is higher for preventing severe infection and death than for preventing milder infection. Vaccine efficacy wanes over time but can be enhanced by a booster. Higher antibody titres are associated with higher estimates of efficacy but precise predictions are difficult due to large unexplained heterogeneity. These findings provide an important knowledge base for interpretation and application of future studies on these issues.

Funding

Shenzhen Science and Technology Programs.

SUBMITTER: Yang ZR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9974155 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the dose-response relationship with three major antibodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Yang Zhi-Rong ZR Jiang Yi-Wen YW Li Fu-Xiao FX Liu Di D Lin Teng-Fei TF Zhao Zi-Yi ZY Wei Chang C Jin Qian-Yi QY Li Xi-Miao XM Jia Yuan-Xi YX Zhu Feng-Cai FC Yang Zu-Yao ZY Sha Feng F Feng Zi-Jian ZJ Tang Jin-Ling JL

The Lancet. Microbe 20230228 4

<h4>Background</h4>The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in preventing severe COVID-19 illness and death is uncertain due to the rarity of data in individual trials. How well the antibody concentrations can predict the efficacy is also uncertain. We aimed to assess the efficacy of these vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections of different severities and the dose-response relationship between the antibody concentrations and efficacy.<h4>Methods</h4>We did a systematic review and meta-analysis ...[more]

PMID: 36868258

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe duration of protection offered by rotavirus vaccines varies across the world, and this variation is important to understanding and predicting the effects of the vaccines. There is now a large body of evidence on the efficacy of live oral rotavirus vaccines in different settings, but these data have never been synthesised to obtain robust estimates of efficacy by duration of follow-up. Our aim is to estimate the efficacy of live oral rotavirus vaccines at each point during follow-up and by mortality stratum.MethodsIn our meta-regression study, we identified all randomised controlled trials of rotavirus vaccines published until April 4, 2018, using the results of a Cochrane systematic review, and cross checked these studies against those identified by another systematic review. We excluded trials that were based on special populations, trials without an infant schedule, and trials without clear reporting of numbers of enrolled infants and events in different periods of follow-up. For all reported periods of follow-up, we extracted the mean duration of follow-up (time since administration of the final dose of rotavirus vaccination), the number of enrolled infants, and case counts for rotavirus-positive severe gastroenteritis in both non-vaccinated and vaccinated groups. We used a Bayesian hierarchical Poisson meta-regression model to estimate the pooled cumulative vaccine efficacy (VE) and its waning with time for three mortality strata. We then converted these VE estimates into instantaneous VE (iVE).FindingsIn settings with low mortality (15 observations), iVE pooled for infant schedules of Rotarix and RotaTeq was 98% (95% credibility interval 93-100) 2 weeks following the final dose of vaccination and 94% (87-98) after 12 months. In medium-mortality settings (11 observations), equivalent estimates were 82% (74-92) after 2 weeks and 77% (67-84) after 12 months. In settings with high mortality (24 observations), there were five different vaccines with observation points for infant schedules. The pooled iVE was 66% (48-81) after 2 weeks of follow-up and 44% (27-59) after 12 months.InterpretationRotavirus vaccine efficacy is lower and wanes more rapidly in high-mortality settings than in low-mortality settings, but the earlier peak age of disease in high-mortality settings means that live oral rotavirus vaccines are still likely to provide substantial benefit.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:Skin and mucosal herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) shedding predominantly occurs in short subclinical episodes. We assessed whether standard-dose or high-dose antiviral therapy reduces the frequency of such shedding.HSV-2-seropositive, HIV-seronegative people were enrolled at the University of Washington Virology Research Clinic (WA, USA). We did three separate but complementary open-label cross-over studies comparing no medication with aciclovir 400 mg twice daily (standard-dose aciclovir), valaciclovir 500 mg daily (standard-dose valaciclovir) with aciclovir 800 mg three times daily (high-dose aciclovir), and standard-dose valaciclovir with valaciclovir 1 g three times daily (high-dose valaciclovir). The allocation sequence was generated by a random number generator. Study drugs were supplied in identical, numbered, sealed boxes. Study periods lasted 4-7 weeks, separated by 1 week wash-out. Participants collected genital swabs four times daily for quantitative HSV DNA PCR. Clinical data were masked from laboratory personnel. The primary endpoint was within-person comparison of shedding rate in each study group. Analysis was per protocol. The trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00362297, NCT00723229, NCT01346475).Of 113 participants randomised, 90 were eligible for analysis of the primary endpoint. Participants collected 23?605 swabs; 1272 (5·4%) were HSV-positive. The frequency of HSV shedding was significantly higher in the no medication group (n=384, 18·1% of swabs) than in the standard-dose aciclovir group (25, 1·2%; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·05, 95% CI 0·03-0·08). High-dose aciclovir was associated with less shedding than standard-dose valaciclovir (198 [4·2%] vs 209 [4·5%]; IRR 0·79, 95% CI 0·63-1·00). Shedding was less frequent in the high-dose valaciclovir group than in the standard-dose valaciclovir group (164 [3·3%] vs 292 [5·8%]; 0·54, 0·44-0·66). The number of episodes per person-year did not differ significantly for standard-dose valaciclovir (22·6) versus high-dose aciclovir (20·2; p=0·54), and standard-dose valaciclovir (14·9) versus high-dose valaciclovir (16·5; p=0·34), but did for no medication (28·7) and standard-dose aciclovir (10·0; p=0·001). Median episode duration was longer for no medication than for standard-dose aciclovir (13 h vs 7 h; p=0·01) and for standard-dose valaciclovir than for high-dose valaciclovir (10 h vs 7 h; p=0·03), but did not differ significantly between standard-dose valaciclovir and high-dose aciclovir (8 h vs 8 h; p=0·23). Likewise, maximum log(10) copies of HSV detected per mL was higher for no medication than for standard dose aciclovir (3·3 vs 2·9; p=0·02), and for standard-dose valaciclovir than for high-dose valaciclovir (2·5 vs 3·0; p=0·001), but no significant difference was recorded for standard-dose valaciclovir versus high-dose aciclovir (2·7 vs 2·8; p=0·66). 80% of episodes were subclinical in all study groups. Except for a higher frequency of headaches with high-dose valaciclovir (n=13, 30%) than with other regimens, all regimens were well tolerated.Short bursts of subclinical genital HSV reactivation are frequent, even during high-dose antiherpes therapy, and probably account for continued transmission of HSV during suppressive antiviral therapy. More potent antiviral therapy is needed to eliminate HSV transmission.NIH. Valaciclovir was provided for trial 3 for free by GlaxoSmithKline.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the dose-response relationship with three major antibodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the dose-response relationship with three major antibodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets