The Assessment of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Different Vaccine Platforms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trial Studies.

IF 9 2区 医学 Q1 VIROLOGY
Mohammad Mirzakhani, Maryam Bayat, Mohammadreza Dashti, Safa Tahmasebi, Maryam Rostamtabar, Hadi Esmaeili Gouvarchin Ghaleh, Jafar Amani
{"title":"The Assessment of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Different Vaccine Platforms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trial Studies.","authors":"Mohammad Mirzakhani, Maryam Bayat, Mohammadreza Dashti, Safa Tahmasebi, Maryam Rostamtabar, Hadi Esmaeili Gouvarchin Ghaleh, Jafar Amani","doi":"10.1002/rmv.2579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic spread rapidly throughout the world and caused millions of deaths globally. Several vaccines have been developed to control the COVID-19 pandemic and reduce the burden it placed on public health. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of different vaccine platforms in inducing potent antibody responses. Moreover, the seroconversion rate and common side effects of vaccine platforms were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This meta-analysis included clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines that met the eligibility criteria. Electronic databases (including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) and Google Scholar search engine were searched for eligible studies. Regarding the methodological heterogeneity between the included studies, we selected a random-effects model. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) was chosen as the effect size for this meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1838 records identified through screening and after removing duplicate records, the full texts of 1076 records were assessed for eligibility. After the full-text assessment, 56 records were eligible and included in the study. Overall, vaccinated participants had a 150.8-fold increased rate of anti-spike IgG titres compared with the placebo group (GMR = 150.8; 95% CI, 95.9-237.1; I<sup>2</sup> = 100%). Moreover, vaccinated participants had a 37.3-fold increased rate of neutralising antibody titres compared with the placebo group (GMR = 37.3; 95% CI, 28.5-48.7; I<sup>2</sup> = 99%). The mRNA platform showed a higher rate of anti-spike IgG (GMR = 1263.5; 95% CI, 431.1-3702.8; I<sup>2</sup> = 99%), while neutralising antibody titres were higher in the subunit platform (GMR = 53.4; 95% CI, 32.8-87.1; I<sup>2</sup> = 99%) than in other platforms. Different vaccine platforms showed different rates of both anti-spike IgG and neutralising antibody titres with interesting results. The seroconversion rate of anti-spike IgG and neutralising antibody titres was more than 98% in the vaccinated participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Inactivated and subunit vaccines produced a high percentage of neutralising antibodies and had a low common adverse reaction rate compared to other platforms. In this regard, subunit and inactivated vaccines can still be used as the main vaccine platforms for effectively controlling infections with high transmission rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":21180,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Medical Virology","volume":"34 6","pages":"e2579"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews in Medical Virology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rmv.2579","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VIROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: The COVID-19 pandemic spread rapidly throughout the world and caused millions of deaths globally. Several vaccines have been developed to control the COVID-19 pandemic and reduce the burden it placed on public health. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of different vaccine platforms in inducing potent antibody responses. Moreover, the seroconversion rate and common side effects of vaccine platforms were evaluated.

Methods: This meta-analysis included clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines that met the eligibility criteria. Electronic databases (including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) and Google Scholar search engine were searched for eligible studies. Regarding the methodological heterogeneity between the included studies, we selected a random-effects model. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) was chosen as the effect size for this meta-analysis.

Results: Of the 1838 records identified through screening and after removing duplicate records, the full texts of 1076 records were assessed for eligibility. After the full-text assessment, 56 records were eligible and included in the study. Overall, vaccinated participants had a 150.8-fold increased rate of anti-spike IgG titres compared with the placebo group (GMR = 150.8; 95% CI, 95.9-237.1; I2 = 100%). Moreover, vaccinated participants had a 37.3-fold increased rate of neutralising antibody titres compared with the placebo group (GMR = 37.3; 95% CI, 28.5-48.7; I2 = 99%). The mRNA platform showed a higher rate of anti-spike IgG (GMR = 1263.5; 95% CI, 431.1-3702.8; I2 = 99%), while neutralising antibody titres were higher in the subunit platform (GMR = 53.4; 95% CI, 32.8-87.1; I2 = 99%) than in other platforms. Different vaccine platforms showed different rates of both anti-spike IgG and neutralising antibody titres with interesting results. The seroconversion rate of anti-spike IgG and neutralising antibody titres was more than 98% in the vaccinated participants.

Conclusion: Inactivated and subunit vaccines produced a high percentage of neutralising antibodies and had a low common adverse reaction rate compared to other platforms. In this regard, subunit and inactivated vaccines can still be used as the main vaccine platforms for effectively controlling infections with high transmission rates.

不同疫苗平台中抗 SARS-CoV-2 抗体的评估:COVID-19疫苗临床试验研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景和目的:COVID-19 大流行迅速蔓延全球,造成全球数百万人死亡。为控制 COVID-19 大流行并减轻其对公共卫生造成的负担,已开发出多种疫苗。本研究旨在评估不同疫苗平台在诱导强效抗体反应方面的功效。此外,还评估了疫苗平台的血清转换率和常见副作用:这项荟萃分析包括符合资格标准的 COVID-19 疫苗临床试验。我们在电子数据库(包括PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science)和谷歌学术搜索引擎中搜索了符合条件的研究。考虑到纳入研究在方法上的异质性,我们选择了随机效应模型。几何平均比(GMR)被选为本次荟萃分析的效应大小:在通过筛选确定的 1838 条记录中,去除重复记录后,对 1076 条记录的全文进行了资格评估。经过全文评估,56 条记录符合条件并被纳入研究。总体而言,与安慰剂组相比,接种疫苗者的抗尖峰蛋白 IgG 滴度增加了 150.8 倍(GMR = 150.8;95% CI,95.9-237.1;I2 = 100%)。此外,与安慰剂组相比,接种者的中和抗体滴度增加了 37.3 倍(GMR = 37.3;95% CI,28.5-48.7;I2 = 99%)。mRNA 平台显示出更高的抗尖峰蛋白 IgG 比率(GMR = 1263.5;95% CI,431.1-3702.8;I2 = 99%),而亚基平台的中和抗体滴度(GMR = 53.4;95% CI,32.8-87.1;I2 = 99%)高于其他平台。不同的疫苗平台显示出不同的抗尖峰蛋白 IgG 和中和抗体滴度,结果令人感兴趣。在接种疫苗的参与者中,抗穗IgG和中和抗体滴度的血清转换率超过98%:结论:与其他平台相比,灭活疫苗和亚单位疫苗产生的中和抗体比例高,常见不良反应率低。因此,亚单位疫苗和灭活疫苗仍可作为有效控制高传播率感染的主要疫苗平台。
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
Reviews in Medical Virology
Reviews in Medical Virology 医学-病毒学
CiteScore
21.40
自引率
0.90%
发文量
88
期刊介绍: Reviews in Medical Virology aims to provide articles reviewing conceptual or technological advances in diverse areas of virology. The journal covers topics such as molecular biology, cell biology, replication, pathogenesis, immunology, immunization, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment of viruses of medical importance, and COVID-19 research. The journal has an Impact Factor of 6.989 for the year 2020. The readership of the journal includes clinicians, virologists, medical microbiologists, molecular biologists, infectious disease specialists, and immunologists. Reviews in Medical Virology is indexed and abstracted in databases such as CABI, Abstracts in Anthropology, ProQuest, Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed, ProQuest Central K-494, SCOPUS, and Web of Science et,al.
×
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