80
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy of covid-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To compare the efficacy of covid-19 vaccines between immunocompromised and immunocompetent people.

          Design

          Systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Data sources

          PubMed, 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WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched in November 2021 to identify registered but as yet unpublished or ongoing studies.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 selection

          Prospective observational studies comparing the efficacy of covid-19 vaccination in immunocompromised and immunocompetent participants.

          Methods

          A 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.

          Results

          82 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, I 2=80%; absolute risk 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.40, I 2=89%), immune mediated inflammatory disorders (0.53, 0.39 to 0.71, I 2=89%; 0.29, 0.11 to 0.58, I 2=97%), and solid cancers (0.55, 0.46 to 0.65, I 2=78%; 0.44, 0.36 to 0.53, I 2=84%) compared with immunocompetent controls, whereas organ transplant recipients were 16 times less likely to seroconvert (0.06, 0.04 to 0.09, I 2=0%; 0.06, 0.04 to 0.08, I 2=0%). After a second dose, seroconversion remained least likely in transplant recipients (0.39, 0.32 to 0.46, I 2=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, I 2=88%; 0.62, 0.54 to 0.70, I 2=90%), immune mediated inflammatory disorders (0.75, 0.69 to 0.82, I 2=92%; 0.77, 0.66 to 0.85, I 2=93%), and solid cancers (0.90, 0.88 to 0.93, I 2=51%; 0.89, 0.86 to 0.91, I 2=49%). Seroconversion was similar between people with HIV and immunocompetent controls (1.00, 0.98 to 1.01, I 2=0%; 0.97, 0.83 to 1.00, I 2=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.

          Conclusion

          Seroconversion 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 registration

          PROSPERO CRD42021272088.

          Related collections

          Most cited references143

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

              Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: medical student
                Role: medical student
                Role: senior consultant and associate professor
                Role: senior consultant and professor
                Role: associate consultant
                Role: consultant and assistant professor
                Role: senior consultant and assistant professor
                Role: medical student
                Role: medical student
                Role: statistician
                Role: consultant and assistant professor
                Role: consultant and assistant professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2022
                02 March 2022
                02 March 2022
                : 376
                : e068632
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
                [2 ]Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore
                [3 ]Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
                [4 ]Synthetic Biology for Clinical and Technological Innovation, National University of Singapore, Singapore
                [5 ]National University Cancer Institute, Singapore
                [6 ]Department of Haematology-Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, National University Hospital, 119228, Singapore
                [7 ]Cancer Science Institute of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore
                [8 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, National University Health System, Singapore
                [9 ]National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, Singapore
                [10 ]Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore
                [11 ]Biostatistics Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
                [12 ]Cancer and Stem Cell Biology Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
                [13 ]The N.1 Institute for Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore
                [14 ]Singapore Gastric Cancer Consortium, Singapore.
                [15 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, Singapore
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: R Sundar mdcragh@ 123456nus.edu.sg (or @sundar__raghav on Twitter)
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9423-1368
                Article
                bmj-2021-068632.R2 ryaa068632
                10.1136/bmj-2021-068632
                8889026
                35236664
                0058055d-bc01-47e0-b6ef-395bbcd742ef
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 24 January 2022
                Categories
                Research
                2474

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content172

                Cited by209

                Most referenced authors13,206