8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Seroconversion rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article
      a , b , a , c , d
      Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
      Taylor & Francis
      COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, vaccine, solid cancer, immunogenicity, meta-analysis

      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

          Patients with solid cancer have an increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the currently available evidence about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with solid cancer. We included prospective studies comparing the immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines between patients with solid cancer and healthy individuals. Relative risks of seroconversion after the first and second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were separately pooled with the use of random effects meta-analysis. Thirty studies with 11,245 subjects met the inclusion criteria. After first vaccine dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy individuals was 0.54 (95% CI 0.38–0.78, I 2  = 94%). After a second dose, the pooled RR of seroconversion in patients with solid cancer vs healthy controls was 0.87 (0.86–0.88, I 2  = 87%). Our review suggests that, compared with healthy individuals, COVID-19 vaccines show favorable immunogenicity and efficacy in patients with solid cancer. A second dose is associated with significantly improved seroconversion, although it is slightly lower in patients with solid cancer compared with healthy individuals.

          Graphical abstract

          Related collections

          Most cited references102

          • 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

            RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

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

              Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

              The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Hum Vaccin Immunother
                Hum Vaccin Immunother
                Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
                Taylor & Francis
                2164-5515
                2164-554X
                26 September 2022
                2022
                26 September 2022
                : 18
                : 6
                : 2119763
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Pharmacy, Huaihe Hospital, Henan University; , Kaifeng, Henan, China
                [b ]Cardiology, Huaihe Hospital, Henan University; , Kaifeng, Henan, China
                [c ]Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, Jinan University; , Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
                [d ]Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Department of Medicine, Henan University; , Zhengzhou, Henan, China
                Author notes
                CONTACT Xingwang Zhang zhangxw@ 123456jnu.edu.cn Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, Jinan University; , Guangzhou, Guangdong 511443, China.
                Chaoyang Wang hyt0378@ 123456163.com Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Department of Medicine, Henan University; , Zhengzhou, Henan 450000, China.
                Article
                2119763
                10.1080/21645515.2022.2119763
                9746490
                36161976
                c26fc9b8-ad09-45b1-97dd-04ebe42b7d83
                © 2022 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 1, References: 102, Pages: 11
                Categories
                Research Article
                Coronavirus – Research Article

                Molecular medicine
                covid-19,sars-cov-2,vaccine,solid cancer,immunogenicity,meta-analysis
                Molecular medicine
                covid-19, sars-cov-2, vaccine, solid cancer, immunogenicity, meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article