主要COVID-19疫苗的比较疗效:一项网络荟萃分析

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q3 IMMUNOLOGY
Sanjay Rai, Shashank Tripathi
{"title":"主要COVID-19疫苗的比较疗效:一项网络荟萃分析","authors":"Sanjay Rai, Shashank Tripathi","doi":"10.25259/IJMR_750_2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the fight against the COVID-19 virus, various vaccines using different technologies such as mRNA, viral vectors, protein subunits, and inactivated whole viruses have become primary defence strategies. This study aims to compare their effectiveness in controlling the spread of the pandemic. Using the comprehensive resources from three major databases-PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library-we conducted an extensive literature review up to April 30, 2023. By employing a frequentist network meta-analysis, we analysed both direct and indirect estimates of vaccine efficacy, providing a clear comparison of the leading candidates in the global fight against COVID-19. Fifteen vaccines from 26 articles were used in our network meta-analysis. The statistically significant direct estimates were obtained by Spikevax [VE: 93.29 (91.31, 95.27); P<0.05], Pfizer BioNTech [VE: 92.07 (90.03, 94.12); P<0.05], Sputnik [VE: 91.60 (85.60, 97.60); P<0.05], Novavax [VE: 88.99 (83.55, 94.42); P<0.05], Sinovac [VE: 83.50 (65.40, 101.60); P<0.05], Covifenz [VE: 77.27 (68.48, 86.06); P<0.05], Zifivax [VE: 75.94 (70.86, 81.02); P<0.05], Covishield [VE: 72.34 (67.12, 77.56); P<0.05], S-Trimer [VE: 71.61 (56.23, 86.98); P<0.05], Covaxin [VE: 70.81 (65.33, 76.29); P<0.05], Soberna [VE: 69.70 (56.50, 82.90); P<0.05], Zydus Cadila [VE: 66.60 (47.60, 85.60); P<0.05], CVnCoV [VE: 63.70 (52.20, 75.20); P<0.05], Convidecia [VE: 57.50 (39.70, 75.30); P <0.05], and Jcovden [VE : 52.42 (47.28, 57.57); P<0.05]. Spikevax emerged triumphant with an unparalleled P score of 0.95, solidifying its status as a top ranking prevention tool against the COVID-19 in our investigation. Our analysis reveals a ranking of vaccine efficacy, with Spikevax emerging as the most effective, followed closely by Comirnaty, Sputnik, and others, collectively providing strong protection against the ongoing threat of COVID-19.</p>","PeriodicalId":13349,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Medical Research","volume":"161 1","pages":"9-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11878698/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative efficacy of leading COVID-19 vaccines: A network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Sanjay Rai, Shashank Tripathi\",\"doi\":\"10.25259/IJMR_750_2024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the fight against the COVID-19 virus, various vaccines using different technologies such as mRNA, viral vectors, protein subunits, and inactivated whole viruses have become primary defence strategies. This study aims to compare their effectiveness in controlling the spread of the pandemic. Using the comprehensive resources from three major databases-PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library-we conducted an extensive literature review up to April 30, 2023. By employing a frequentist network meta-analysis, we analysed both direct and indirect estimates of vaccine efficacy, providing a clear comparison of the leading candidates in the global fight against COVID-19. Fifteen vaccines from 26 articles were used in our network meta-analysis. The statistically significant direct estimates were obtained by Spikevax [VE: 93.29 (91.31, 95.27); P<0.05], Pfizer BioNTech [VE: 92.07 (90.03, 94.12); P<0.05], Sputnik [VE: 91.60 (85.60, 97.60); P<0.05], Novavax [VE: 88.99 (83.55, 94.42); P<0.05], Sinovac [VE: 83.50 (65.40, 101.60); P<0.05], Covifenz [VE: 77.27 (68.48, 86.06); P<0.05], Zifivax [VE: 75.94 (70.86, 81.02); P<0.05], Covishield [VE: 72.34 (67.12, 77.56); P<0.05], S-Trimer [VE: 71.61 (56.23, 86.98); P<0.05], Covaxin [VE: 70.81 (65.33, 76.29); P<0.05], Soberna [VE: 69.70 (56.50, 82.90); P<0.05], Zydus Cadila [VE: 66.60 (47.60, 85.60); P<0.05], CVnCoV [VE: 63.70 (52.20, 75.20); P<0.05], Convidecia [VE: 57.50 (39.70, 75.30); P <0.05], and Jcovden [VE : 52.42 (47.28, 57.57); P<0.05]. Spikevax emerged triumphant with an unparalleled P score of 0.95, solidifying its status as a top ranking prevention tool against the COVID-19 in our investigation. Our analysis reveals a ranking of vaccine efficacy, with Spikevax emerging as the most effective, followed closely by Comirnaty, Sputnik, and others, collectively providing strong protection against the ongoing threat of COVID-19.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Medical Research\",\"volume\":\"161 1\",\"pages\":\"9-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11878698/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25259/IJMR_750_2024\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/IJMR_750_2024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在与COVID-19病毒的斗争中,使用mRNA、病毒载体、蛋白质亚基和灭活全病毒等不同技术的各种疫苗已成为主要的防御策略。这项研究的目的是比较它们在控制大流行传播方面的有效性。利用三个主要数据库——pubmed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆的综合资源,我们进行了一项广泛的文献综述,截止到2023年4月30日。通过使用频率网络元分析,我们分析了疫苗功效的直接和间接估计,为全球抗击COVID-19的主要候选疫苗提供了清晰的比较。我们的网络荟萃分析使用了26篇文章中的15种疫苗。Spikevax的直接估计值具有统计学意义[VE: 93.29 (91.31, 95.27);P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative efficacy of leading COVID-19 vaccines: A network meta-analysis.

In the fight against the COVID-19 virus, various vaccines using different technologies such as mRNA, viral vectors, protein subunits, and inactivated whole viruses have become primary defence strategies. This study aims to compare their effectiveness in controlling the spread of the pandemic. Using the comprehensive resources from three major databases-PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library-we conducted an extensive literature review up to April 30, 2023. By employing a frequentist network meta-analysis, we analysed both direct and indirect estimates of vaccine efficacy, providing a clear comparison of the leading candidates in the global fight against COVID-19. Fifteen vaccines from 26 articles were used in our network meta-analysis. The statistically significant direct estimates were obtained by Spikevax [VE: 93.29 (91.31, 95.27); P<0.05], Pfizer BioNTech [VE: 92.07 (90.03, 94.12); P<0.05], Sputnik [VE: 91.60 (85.60, 97.60); P<0.05], Novavax [VE: 88.99 (83.55, 94.42); P<0.05], Sinovac [VE: 83.50 (65.40, 101.60); P<0.05], Covifenz [VE: 77.27 (68.48, 86.06); P<0.05], Zifivax [VE: 75.94 (70.86, 81.02); P<0.05], Covishield [VE: 72.34 (67.12, 77.56); P<0.05], S-Trimer [VE: 71.61 (56.23, 86.98); P<0.05], Covaxin [VE: 70.81 (65.33, 76.29); P<0.05], Soberna [VE: 69.70 (56.50, 82.90); P<0.05], Zydus Cadila [VE: 66.60 (47.60, 85.60); P<0.05], CVnCoV [VE: 63.70 (52.20, 75.20); P<0.05], Convidecia [VE: 57.50 (39.70, 75.30); P <0.05], and Jcovden [VE : 52.42 (47.28, 57.57); P<0.05]. Spikevax emerged triumphant with an unparalleled P score of 0.95, solidifying its status as a top ranking prevention tool against the COVID-19 in our investigation. Our analysis reveals a ranking of vaccine efficacy, with Spikevax emerging as the most effective, followed closely by Comirnaty, Sputnik, and others, collectively providing strong protection against the ongoing threat of COVID-19.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.40%
发文量
191
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR) [ISSN 0971-5916] is one of the oldest medical Journals not only in India, but probably in Asia, as it started in the year 1913. The Journal was started as a quarterly (4 issues/year) in 1913 and made bimonthly (6 issues/year) in 1958. It became monthly (12 issues/year) in the year 1964.
×
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