Efficacy and limitations of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines - A systematic review

IF 5.2 2区医学 Q1 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL

Life sciences Pub Date : 2025-04-04 DOI:10.1016/j.lfs.2025.123610

Muhammad Azeem , Patrizia Cancemi , Farwa Mukhtar , Sefora Marino , Emanuela Peri , Giulia Di Prima , Viviana De Caro

{"title":"Efficacy and limitations of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines - A systematic review","authors":"Muhammad Azeem , Patrizia Cancemi , Farwa Mukhtar , Sefora Marino , Emanuela Peri , Giulia Di Prima , Viviana De Caro","doi":"10.1016/j.lfs.2025.123610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus worldwide led to the call for the development of effective and safe vaccines to contain the spread and effects of COVID-19. Using information from 40 publications, including clinical trials and observational studies from 2019 to 2024, this review assesses the effectiveness, safety, and limitations of four major vaccines: Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV), Moderna (mRNA-1273), Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), and CoronaVac. Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna's mRNA vaccines proved to be more effective than others; Moderna's vaccines showed an efficacy of 94.1 % against symptomatic infection, while Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccines showed an efficacy of up to 95 %, against severe diseases and hospitalization. These vaccinations, which included protection against Omicron and Delta variants, offered notable protection against serious illness, hospitalization, and mortality. Severe adverse events were rare while most adverse events were mild to moderate, such as headaches, fatigue, and localized reactions.</div><div>In contrast, inactivated virus vaccines such as Sinopharm and CoronaVac with efficacies ranging from 50 to 79 % against symptomatic infection showed lower levels of effectiveness. In Phase 3 trial, Sinopharm showed 72.8 % efficacy, whereas CoronaVac demonstrated roughly 67 % efficacy in population against hospitalization and severe disease. Booster doses were required for adequate immunological response, especially against novel strains, as these vaccinations proved to be less effective in older populations. They showed considerable safety profiles, with mild side effects, but their low immunogenicity is concerning. This review emphasizes the importance of continuously evaluating vaccines in response to the evolving virus, essential for improving international immunization programs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":18122,"journal":{"name":"Life sciences","volume":"371 ","pages":"Article 123610"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320525002449","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus worldwide led to the call for the development of effective and safe vaccines to contain the spread and effects of COVID-19. Using information from 40 publications, including clinical trials and observational studies from 2019 to 2024, this review assesses the effectiveness, safety, and limitations of four major vaccines: Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV), Moderna (mRNA-1273), Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), and CoronaVac. Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna's mRNA vaccines proved to be more effective than others; Moderna's vaccines showed an efficacy of 94.1 % against symptomatic infection, while Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccines showed an efficacy of up to 95 %, against severe diseases and hospitalization. These vaccinations, which included protection against Omicron and Delta variants, offered notable protection against serious illness, hospitalization, and mortality. Severe adverse events were rare while most adverse events were mild to moderate, such as headaches, fatigue, and localized reactions.

In contrast, inactivated virus vaccines such as Sinopharm and CoronaVac with efficacies ranging from 50 to 79 % against symptomatic infection showed lower levels of effectiveness. In Phase 3 trial, Sinopharm showed 72.8 % efficacy, whereas CoronaVac demonstrated roughly 67 % efficacy in population against hospitalization and severe disease. Booster doses were required for adequate immunological response, especially against novel strains, as these vaccinations proved to be less effective in older populations. They showed considerable safety profiles, with mild side effects, but their low immunogenicity is concerning. This review emphasizes the importance of continuously evaluating vaccines in response to the evolving virus, essential for improving international immunization programs.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

SARS-CoV-2疫苗的有效性和局限性——系统综述

随着SARS-CoV-2病毒在全球范围内的出现，人们呼吁开发有效、安全的疫苗，以遏制COVID-19的传播和影响。本综述使用了40篇出版物的信息，包括2019年至2024年的临床试验和观察性研究，评估了四种主要疫苗的有效性、安全性和局限性：国药（BBIBP-CorV）、Moderna （mRNA-1273）、辉瑞- biontech （BNT162b2）和CoronaVac。辉瑞- biontech和Moderna的mRNA疫苗被证明比其他疫苗更有效；Moderna的疫苗对症状性感染的有效率为94.1%，而辉瑞- biontech的疫苗对严重疾病和住院治疗的有效率高达95%。这些疫苗，包括对欧米克隆和德尔塔变异的保护，提供了显著的预防严重疾病、住院和死亡的保护。严重的不良事件是罕见的，而大多数不良事件是轻度到中度的，如头痛，疲劳，和局部反应。相比之下，对有症状感染的有效性在50%至79%之间的灭活病毒疫苗，如国药控股（Sinopharm）和CoronaVac，显示出较低的有效性。在3期试验中，国药控股的疗效为72.8%，而冠状动脉治疗在治疗住院和重症人群中的疗效约为67%。需要加强剂量以获得充分的免疫反应，特别是针对新型毒株，因为这些疫苗在老年人群中被证明效果较差。它们显示出相当大的安全性，副作用轻微，但其低免疫原性令人担忧。本综述强调持续评估疫苗以应对不断演变的病毒的重要性，这对改善国际免疫规划至关重要。

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

Life sciences 医学-药学

CiteScore

12.20

自引率

1.60%

发文量

841

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： Life Sciences is an international journal publishing articles that emphasize the molecular, cellular, and functional basis of therapy. The journal emphasizes the understanding of mechanism that is relevant to all aspects of human disease and translation to patients. All articles are rigorously reviewed. The Journal favors publication of full-length papers where modern scientific technologies are used to explain molecular, cellular and physiological mechanisms. Articles that merely report observations are rarely accepted. Recommendations from the Declaration of Helsinki or NIH guidelines for care and use of laboratory animals must be adhered to. Articles should be written at a level accessible to readers who are non-specialists in the topic of the article themselves, but who are interested in the research. The Journal welcomes reviews on topics of wide interest to investigators in the life sciences. We particularly encourage submission of brief, focused reviews containing high-quality artwork and require the use of mechanistic summary diagrams.