Real-world evidence on the efficacy of bivalent booster doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in respect of monovalent boosters or primary cycle of vaccination: a narrative review.
IF 1.2 4区 医学Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
{"title":"Real-world evidence on the efficacy of bivalent booster doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in respect of monovalent boosters or primary cycle of vaccination: a narrative review.","authors":"Monica Sane Schepisi","doi":"10.19191/EP23.6.A626.081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>the objective of this review is to give an overall view of the knowledge on COVID-19 bivalent vaccines and to explore the available real-world evidence on their effectiveness in the Omicron era. Currently, bivalent vaccines are generally offered to all groups eligible for their next booster, as defined by the national vaccination campaigns, with varying policies between countries.The use of bivalent vaccines is supported by immunogenity studies, but these have produced contradictory conclusions and are not generally designed to measure clinical impact.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>in order to critically evaluate the available research on real-world efficacy, a systematic literature search was performed; three different web engines were used, including early-stage search platforms: PubMed, medRxiv and the Global research on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) database.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>no restrictions were imposed on language, setting or publication date. The research was last updated on 20 March 2023.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>the following outcomes were considered: infection, hospitalisation due to COVID-19 disease, admission to the emergency/urgency department, death. The following were considered as additional outcomes: variant-specific vaccine effectiveness; vaccine effectiveness waning over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>out of 876 references reviewed, 14 studies were finally included and extracted. The results of this review show modest to moderate additional protection from vaccination with bivalent BA.4-5 or BA.1 vaccines mRNA-booster against COVID-19-associated disease - Relative VE% ranging from 8 (95% CI 0-16) to 58.7 (95% 54.6-62.5)- and hospitalisation - Relative VE% ranging from 32.2 (2.5-60.1) to 80.5 (95% CI 69.5-91.5)-, when compared with a booster with a monovalent vaccine or with having completed only the primary course, during a period when BA.5 and other Omicron sublineage viruses predominated globally.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>the additional benefit of bivalent booster vaccines - compared to one or two monovalent booster vaccinations or compared to the primary course alone - in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection appears to be small, especially in persons with previous Omicron infection, whereas modest to moderate protection from vaccination with bivalent BA.4-5 or BA.1 mRNA-booster vaccines as a fourth dose against COVID-19-associated illness and hospitalisation has been reported.</p>","PeriodicalId":50511,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologia & Prevenzione","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologia & Prevenzione","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19191/EP23.6.A626.081","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: the objective of this review is to give an overall view of the knowledge on COVID-19 bivalent vaccines and to explore the available real-world evidence on their effectiveness in the Omicron era. Currently, bivalent vaccines are generally offered to all groups eligible for their next booster, as defined by the national vaccination campaigns, with varying policies between countries.The use of bivalent vaccines is supported by immunogenity studies, but these have produced contradictory conclusions and are not generally designed to measure clinical impact.
Design: in order to critically evaluate the available research on real-world efficacy, a systematic literature search was performed; three different web engines were used, including early-stage search platforms: PubMed, medRxiv and the Global research on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) database.
Setting: no restrictions were imposed on language, setting or publication date. The research was last updated on 20 March 2023.
Main outcome measures: the following outcomes were considered: infection, hospitalisation due to COVID-19 disease, admission to the emergency/urgency department, death. The following were considered as additional outcomes: variant-specific vaccine effectiveness; vaccine effectiveness waning over time.
Results: out of 876 references reviewed, 14 studies were finally included and extracted. The results of this review show modest to moderate additional protection from vaccination with bivalent BA.4-5 or BA.1 vaccines mRNA-booster against COVID-19-associated disease - Relative VE% ranging from 8 (95% CI 0-16) to 58.7 (95% 54.6-62.5)- and hospitalisation - Relative VE% ranging from 32.2 (2.5-60.1) to 80.5 (95% CI 69.5-91.5)-, when compared with a booster with a monovalent vaccine or with having completed only the primary course, during a period when BA.5 and other Omicron sublineage viruses predominated globally.
Conclusions: the additional benefit of bivalent booster vaccines - compared to one or two monovalent booster vaccinations or compared to the primary course alone - in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection appears to be small, especially in persons with previous Omicron infection, whereas modest to moderate protection from vaccination with bivalent BA.4-5 or BA.1 mRNA-booster vaccines as a fourth dose against COVID-19-associated illness and hospitalisation has been reported.
期刊介绍:
Epidemiologia & Prevenzione, oggi organo della Associazione italiana di epidemiologia, raccoglie buona parte delle migliori e originali esperienze italiane di ricerca epidemiologica e di studio degli interventi per la prevenzione e la sanità pubblica.
La rivista – indicizzata su Medline e dotata di Impact Factor – è un canale importante anche per la segnalazione al pubblico internazionale di contributi che altrimenti circolerebbero soltanto in Italia.
E&P in questi decenni ha svolto una funzione di riferimento per la sanità pubblica ma anche per i cittadini e le loro diverse forme di aggregazione. Il principio che l’ha ispirata era, e rimane, che l’epidemiologia ha senso se è funzionale alla prevenzione e alla sanità pubblica e che la prevenzione ha ben poche possibilità di realizzarsi se non si fonda su valide basi scientifiche e se non c’è la partecipazione di tutti i soggetti interessati.
Modalità di comunicazione aggiornate, metodologia statistica ed epidemiologica rigorosa, validità degli studi e solidità delle interpretazioni dei risultati sono la solida matrice su cui E&P è costruita. A questa si accompagna una forte responsabilità etica verso la salute pubblica, che oggi ha ampliato in forma irreversibile il suo orizzonte, e include in forma sempre più consapevole non solo gli esseri umani, ma l’intero pianeta e le modificazioni che l’uomo apporta all’universo in cui vive.
L’ambizione è che l’offerta di nuovi strumenti di comunicazione, informazione e formazione, soprattutto attraverso l''uso di internet, renda la rivista non solo un tradizionale veicolo di contenuti e analisi scientifiche, ma anche un potente strumento a disposizione di una comunità di interessi e di valori che ha a cuore la salute pubblica.