How well do different COVID-19 vaccines protect against different viral variants? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Thi Ngoc Anh Hoang, Aisling Byrne, Ha-Linh Quach, Melanie Bannister-Tyrrell, Florian Vogt
{"title":"How well do different COVID-19 vaccines protect against different viral variants? A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Thi Ngoc Anh Hoang, Aisling Byrne, Ha-Linh Quach, Melanie Bannister-Tyrrell, Florian Vogt","doi":"10.1093/trstmh/trae082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While the efficacy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has been evaluated in numerous trials, comprehensive evidence on how protection by different vaccines has varied over time remains limited. We aimed to compare protective effects of different vaccines against different viral variants. To achieve this, we searched Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Forest plots using Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects models were generated showing risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs by vaccines and variants. We included 36 studies with 90 variant-specific primary outcomes. We found a RR of 0.26 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.31) against all variants overall, with the highest protective effects against the wild-type (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18), followed by Alpha (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.36), Gamma (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55), Delta (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.56) and Beta (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62) variants. Nucleic acid vaccines showed the highest protection levels against all variants (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15), followed by protein subunit, inactivated virus and viral vector. In conclusion, we found high but heterogenous levels of protection for most COVID-19 vaccines, with decreasing protective effects for vaccines based on traditional technologies as SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged over time. Novel nucleic acid-based vaccines offered substantially higher and more consistent protection.</p>","PeriodicalId":23218,"journal":{"name":"Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/trae082","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While the efficacy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has been evaluated in numerous trials, comprehensive evidence on how protection by different vaccines has varied over time remains limited. We aimed to compare protective effects of different vaccines against different viral variants. To achieve this, we searched Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Forest plots using Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects models were generated showing risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs by vaccines and variants. We included 36 studies with 90 variant-specific primary outcomes. We found a RR of 0.26 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.31) against all variants overall, with the highest protective effects against the wild-type (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18), followed by Alpha (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.36), Gamma (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55), Delta (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.56) and Beta (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62) variants. Nucleic acid vaccines showed the highest protection levels against all variants (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15), followed by protein subunit, inactivated virus and viral vector. In conclusion, we found high but heterogenous levels of protection for most COVID-19 vaccines, with decreasing protective effects for vaccines based on traditional technologies as SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged over time. Novel nucleic acid-based vaccines offered substantially higher and more consistent protection.

不同的 COVID-19 疫苗对不同病毒变种的保护效果如何?系统回顾和荟萃分析。
虽然冠状病毒病 2019(COVID-19)疫苗的功效已在许多试验中得到评估,但关于不同疫苗的保护效果随时间变化的全面证据仍然有限。我们旨在比较不同疫苗对不同病毒变种的保护效果。为此,我们在 Medline、Cochrane 图书馆和 Embase 中检索了评估 COVID-19 疫苗疗效的随机对照试验。使用曼特尔-海恩泽尔模型和随机效应模型生成森林图,显示疫苗和变种的风险比 (RR) 和 95% CI。我们纳入了 36 项研究和 90 个变异株的主要结果。我们发现,针对所有变异体的总体 RR 为 0.26(95% CI 0.21 至 0.31),针对野生型变异体的保护效果最高(RR 0.13;95% CI 0.10 至 0.18),其次是 Alpha 变异体(RR 0.26;95% CI 0.18 至 0.36)、Gamma 变异体(RR 0.34;95% CI 0.21 至 0.55)、Delta 变异体(RR 0.39;95% CI 0.28 至 0.56)和 Beta 变异体(RR 0.49;95% CI 0.40 至 0.62)。核酸疫苗对所有变异株的保护水平最高(RR 0.11;95% CI 0.08 至 0.15),其次是蛋白亚单位、灭活病毒和病毒载体。总之,我们发现大多数 COVID-19 疫苗的保护水平较高,但并不均衡,随着时间的推移,SARS-CoV-2 变种的出现,基于传统技术的疫苗的保护效果也在下降。基于核酸的新型疫苗提供了更高更稳定的保护效果。
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
Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
115
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene publishes authoritative and impactful original, peer-reviewed articles and reviews on all aspects of tropical medicine.
×
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