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
Monica Sane Schepisi
{"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.

关于 SARS-CoV-2 疫苗二价强化剂相对于单价强化剂或初级接种周期的效力的现实世界证据:叙述性综述。
目的:本综述旨在全面介绍有关 COVID-19 二价疫苗的知识,并探讨在欧姆龙时代二价疫苗有效性的现有实际证据。目前,根据国家疫苗接种运动的规定,二价疫苗通常提供给所有符合下一次加强接种条件的人群,但各国的政策各不相同。二价疫苗的使用得到了免疫原性研究的支持,但这些研究得出的结论相互矛盾,而且通常不是为了衡量临床影响而设计的:环境:对语言、环境或出版日期没有限制。研究的最后更新日期为 2023 年 3 月 20 日。主要结果测量:考虑以下结果:感染、因 COVID-19 疾病住院、入住急诊/急诊科、死亡。结果:在查阅的 876 篇参考文献中,最终纳入并摘录了 14 项研究。综述结果显示,接种二价 BA.4-5 或 BA.1 疫苗可提供适度至中度的额外保护。疫苗 mRNA 强化接种对 COVID-19 相关疾病 - 相对 VE% 从 8(95% CI 0-16)到 58.7(95% 54.6-62.5)不等 - 以及住院 - 相对 VE% 从 32.2(2.5-60.1)到 80.5(95% CI 69.5-91.5)不等 - 的保护作用。结论:在预防 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron 感染方面,与接种一次或两次单价疫苗或只接种初级疫苗相比,接种二价加强型疫苗的额外益处似乎很小,尤其是在以前感染过 Omicron 的人群中。或 BA.1 mRNA 强化疫苗作为第四剂接种,对预防 COVID-19 相关疾病和住院治疗有一定的保护作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epidemiologia & Prevenzione
Epidemiologia & Prevenzione 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
14.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信