-
Journal of Clinical Virology : the... Aug 2022Children and adolescents form a large proportion of societies and play an important role in the transmission of COVID-19. On the other hand, their education, mental and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Immunologic response, Efficacy, and Safety of Vaccines against COVID-19 Infection in Healthy and immunosuppressed Children and Adolescents Aged 2 - 21 years old: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Children and adolescents form a large proportion of societies and play an important role in the transmission of COVID-19. On the other hand, their education, mental and physical wellness, and safety are compromised which makes vaccination a crucial step to return to normal life. In the current systematic review, the COVID-19 vaccination was evaluated in a total of 50,148 children and adolescents in 22 published studies and 5,279 participants in two ongoing clinical trials. The study was registered in the PROSPERO with the ID# CRD42022303615. Data were collected about multiple vaccines including BNT162b2 (Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), JNJ-78436735 (Johnson and Johnson), CoronaVac (Sinovac), BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm), adenovirus type-5-vectored vaccine, ZyCov-D, and BBV152 (COVAXIN). The immune response and efficacy of such vaccines were 96% - 100% in healthy children and adolescents and were also acceptable in those with underlying diseases and suppressed immune systems. The current systematic review revealed favorable safety profiles of employed vaccines in children and adolescents; however, adverse reactions such as myocarditis and myopericarditis were reported which were transient and resolved entirely. Consequently, vaccinating children and adolescents aged 2 - 21 years old is beneficial to abort the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the risk-benefit assessments revealed favorable results for vaccinating children and adolescents, especially those with underlying diseases and immunosuppressed conditions, alongside adults to prevent transmission, severe infection, negative outcomes, and new variants formation. Also, according to the meta-analysis, the efficacy and immune response of vaccines after the first and second doses were 91% and 92%, respectively. Meanwhile, overall immune response for all vaccines was 95% and 91% for Pfizer vaccine.
Topics: Ad26COVS1; Adolescent; BNT162 Vaccine; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Myocarditis; Pandemics; Young Adult
PubMed: 35716417
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2022.105196 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) May 2022To evaluate the effectiveness of heterologous and homologous covid-19 vaccine regimens with and without boosting in preventing covid-19 related infection, hospital... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of heterologous and homologous covid-19 vaccine regimens with and without boosting in preventing covid-19 related infection, hospital admission, and death.
DESIGN
Living systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
World Health Organization covid-19 databases, including 38 sources of published studies and preprints.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies.
METHODS
38 WHO covid-19 databases were searched on a weekly basis from 8 March 2022 to 31 July 2022. Studies that assessed the effectiveness of heterologous and homologous covid-19 vaccine regimens with or without a booster were identified. Studies were eligible when they reported the number of documented, symptomatic, severe covid-19 infections, covid-19 related hospital admissions, or covid-19 related deaths among populations that were vaccinated and unvaccinated. The primary measure was vaccine effectiveness calculated as 1−odds ratio. Secondary measures were surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores and the relative effects for pairwise comparisons. The risk of bias was evaluated by using the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for all cohort and case-control studies. The Cochrane risk of bias tool (version 2; ROB-2) was used to assess randomised controlled trials.
RESULTS
The second iteration of the analysis comprised 63 studies. 25 combinations of covid-19 vaccine regimens were identified, of which three doses of mRNA vaccine were found to be 93% (95% credible interval 70% to 98%) effective against asymptomatic or symptomatic covid-19 infections for non-delta or non-omicron related infections. Heterologous boosting using two dose adenovirus vector vaccines with one dose mRNA vaccine showed a vaccine effectiveness of 94% (72% to 99%) against non-delta or non-omicron related asymptomatic or symptomatic infections. Three doses of mRNA vaccine were found to be the most effective in reducing non-delta or non-omicron related hospital admission (96%, 82% to 99%). The vaccine effectiveness against death in people who received three doses of mRNA vaccine remains uncertain owing to confounders. The estimate for a four dose mRNA vaccine regimen was of low certainty, as only one study on the effectiveness of four doses could be included in this update. More evidence on four dose regimens will be needed to accurately assess the effectiveness of a fourth vaccine dose. For people with delta or omicron related infection, a two dose regimen of an adenovirus vector vaccine with one dose of mRNA booster was 77% (42% to 91%) effective against asymptomatic or symptomatic covid-19 infections, and a three dose regimen of a mRNA vaccine was 93% (76% to 98%) effective against covid-19 related hospital admission.
CONCLUSION
An mRNA booster is recommended to supplement any primary vaccine course. Heterologous and homologous three dose regimens work comparably well in preventing covid-19 infections, even against different variants. The effectiveness of three dose vaccine regimens against covid-19 related death remains uncertain.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This review was not registered. The protocol is included in the supplementary document.
READERS' NOTE
This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 1 of the original article published on 31 May 2022 (BMJ 2022;377:e069989), and previous versions can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj-2022-069989/related). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.
Topics: Aged; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; RNA, Messenger; SARS-CoV-2; Vaccines, Synthetic; mRNA Vaccines
PubMed: 35640925
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-069989 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2022As the epidemic progresses, universal vaccination against COVID-19 has been the trend, but there are still some doubts about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
As the epidemic progresses, universal vaccination against COVID-19 has been the trend, but there are still some doubts about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in adolescents, children, and even infants.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in the population aged 0-17 years.
METHOD
A comprehensive search for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 9, 2021. All data were pooled by RevMan 5.3 statistical software, with risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval as the effect measure. This study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021290205).
RESULTS
There was a total of six randomized controlled trials included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, enrolling participants in the age range of 3-17 years, and containing three types of COVID-19 vaccines. Compared with mRNA vaccines and adenovirus vector vaccines, inactivated vaccines have a more satisfactory safety profile, both after initial (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.90, = 0.03) and booster (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.20-2.81, = 0.005) vaccination. The risk of adverse reactions was significantly increased after the first and second doses, but there was no significant difference between the first two doses (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.99-1.02, = 0.60). Nevertheless, the two-dose regimen is obviously superior to the single-dose schedule for immunogenicity and efficacy. After booster vaccination, both neutralizing antibodies (RR 144.80, 95%CI 44.97-466.24, < 0.00001) and RBD-binding antibodies (RR 101.50, 95%CI 6.44-1,600.76, = 0.001) reach optimal levels, but the cellular immune response seemed not to be further enhanced. In addition, compared with younger children, older children and adolescents were at significantly increased risk of adverse reactions after vaccination, with either mRNA or inactivated vaccines, accompanied by a stronger immune response.
CONCLUSION
The available evidence suggests that the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines are acceptable in people aged 3-17 years. However, there is an urgent need for additional multicenter, large-sample studies, especially in younger children under 3 years of age and even in infants, with long-term follow-up data.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021290205, identifier: CRD42021290205.
Topics: Adolescent; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Vaccination; Vaccines
PubMed: 35493393
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.829176 -
Future Journal of Pharmaceutical... 2022Vaccination against Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an important means of controlling the pandemic, however they are expected to stimulate immune responses when... (Review)
Review
Immunogenicity and clinical features relating to BNT162b2 messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 adenoviral vector COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review of non-interventional studies.
BACKGROUND
Vaccination against Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an important means of controlling the pandemic, however they are expected to stimulate immune responses when administered to confer immunity. In this review, we evaluated the clinical and laboratory features associated with BNT162b2 messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 adenoviral vector COVID-19 vaccines, to determine their immunogenicity. Demographic distribution of pathogenic autoimmune response and time interval between vaccination and onset of symptoms were also assessed. This was to identify; persons at risk of developing auto-immune reactions and markers to enhanced occurrence of this event.
MAIN BODY
Using relevant keywords, search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google scholar from November 2020 to May 31, 2021. Additional article was also identified through hand-searching of reference lists, and the review was conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines 2009. Study outcome measures were presence of antibodies after vaccination and evidence of autoimmune reactions, therefore studies relating these measures were considered eligible for this review. Studies showed stimulation of immune response with administration of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, ChAdOx1 and Ad26.COV2-S adenovirus vector-based vaccines. Aside SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies, elevated D-dimers, presence of PF4 and low fibrinogen were most commonly seen laboratory features in persons with autoimmune reactions following vaccination. In addition, thrombotic thrombocytopenia was the commonest clinical features observed with ChAdOx1 and Ad26.COV2-S adenovirus vector-based vaccines. Findings from this study also suggest higher susceptibility of women of 22-60 years to the pathogenic immunogenicity that may particular result from exposure to ChAdOx1 and Ad26.COV2-S adenovirus vector-based vaccines. Time interval of 4-37 days was mostly observed between vaccination and occurrence of a symptom.
CONCLUSION
Immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia and other PF4 dependent syndrome are likely associated with ChAdOx1 and Ad26.COV2.S adenovirus vector vaccines, mostly occurring in women usually within 4-37 days of first dose of vaccine. Enhanced knowledge about vaccine adverse effects and its distribution is crucial for effective vaccination strategies.
PubMed: 35368622
DOI: 10.1186/s43094-022-00409-5 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2021Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in paediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) is associated with a variety of infectious complications...
Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in paediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) is associated with a variety of infectious complications which result in significant morbidity and mortality. These patients are profoundly immunocompromised, and immune reconstitution after HSCT generally occurs in astrictly defined order. During the early phase after HSCT until engraftment, patients are at risk of infections due to presence of neutropenia and mucosal damage, with Gramme-positive and Gramme-negative bacteria and fungi being the predominant pathogens. After neutrophil recovery, the profound impairment of cell-mediated immunity and use of glucocorticosteroids for control of graft-vs.-host disease (GvHD) increases the risk of invasive mould infection and infection or reactivation of various viruses, such as cytomegalovirus, varicella zoster virus, Epstein-Barr virus and human adenovirus. In the late phase, characterised by impaired cellular and humoral immunity, particularly in conjunction with chronic GvHD, invasive infections with encapsulated bacterial infections are observed in addition to fungal and viral infections. HSCT also causes a loss of pretransplant naturally acquired and vaccine-acquired immunity; therefore, complete reimmunization is necessary to maintain long-term health in these patients. During the last two decades, major advances have been made in our understanding of and in the control of infectious complications associated with HSCT. In this article, we review current recommendations for the diagnosis, prophylaxis and treatment of infectious complications following HSCT for ALL in childhood.
PubMed: 35223707
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.782530 -
Vaccines Jan 2022(1) Background: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in terms of prevention of disease and transmission in the pre-Delta... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in terms of prevention of disease and transmission in the pre-Delta era. The evaluation was narrowed to two mRNA vaccines and two modified adenovirus-vectored vaccines. (2) Methods: The overall risk of any SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by positive real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test was estimated in partially and fully vaccinated individuals. The evidence synthesis was pursued through a random-effects meta-analysis. The effect size was expressed as relative risk (RR) and RRR (RR reduction) of SARS-CoV-2 infection following vaccination. Heterogeneity was investigated through a between-study heterogeneity analysis and a subgroup meta-analysis. (3) Results: The systematic review identified 27 studies eligible for the quantitative synthesis. Partially vaccinated individuals presented a RRR = 73% (95%CI = 59-83%) for positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR (RR = 0.27) and a RRR=79% (95%CI = 30-93%) for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR (RR = 0.21). Fully vaccinated individuals showed a RRR = 94% (95%CI = 88-98%) for SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR (RR = 0.06) compared to unvaccinated individuals. The full BNT162b2 vaccination protocol achieved a RRR = 84-94% against any SARS-CoV-2-positive PCR and a RRR = 68-84% against symptomatic positive PCR. (4) Conclusions: The meta-analysis results suggest that full vaccination might block transmission. In particular, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection appeared higher for non-B.1.1.7 variants and individuals aged ≥69 years. Considering the high level of heterogeneity, these findings must be taken with caution. Further research on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants is encouraged.
PubMed: 35214615
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10020157 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Sep 2022Rare cases of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome [TTS]) have been associated with 2 coronavirus disease 2019 adenovirus vector... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rare cases of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome [TTS]) have been associated with 2 coronavirus disease 2019 adenovirus vector vaccines: the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaxzevria vaccine (Oxford/AstraZeneca) and the JNJ-7836735 Johnson & Johnson vaccine (Janssen). It is unknown if TTS is a class-mediated effect of adenovirus-based vaccines or if it could worsen known hypercoagulable states. Since most cases of TTS happen in women of childbearing age, pregnancy is a crucial risk factor to assess. Understanding these risks is important for advising vaccine recipients and future adenovirus vector vaccine development.
METHODS
To explore the potential associations of adenovirus-based vaccine components with symptoms of TTS in the general clinical trial population and in pregnant women in clinical trials, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of adenovirus-based vector vaccines to document cases of thrombocytopenia, coagulopathy, and or pregnancy from 1 January 1966 to 9 August 2021.
RESULTS
We found 167 articles from 159 studies of adenovirus vector-based vaccines, 123 of which targeted infectious diseases. In the general population, 20 studies reported an event of thrombocytopenia and 20 studies indicated some coagulopathy. Among pregnant women, of the 28 studies that reported a total of 1731 pregnant women, thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy were not reported.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, there was no class-wide effect of adenovirus vector vaccines toward thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy events in the general population or in pregnant women.
Topics: Adenoviridae; Adenovirus Vaccines; COVID-19; ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Thrombocytopenia; Thrombosis; Vaccines
PubMed: 35134164
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac080 -
Blood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis : An... Mar 2022AstraZeneca coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations have recently been implicated in thromboembolism formations. Our aim was to investigate the outcomes of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AstraZeneca coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations have recently been implicated in thromboembolism formations. Our aim was to investigate the outcomes of patients with thromboembolic events following the AstraZeneca vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AZD1222). A literature search was performed from December 2019 to September 2021. Eligible studies must report participants older than 18 years vaccinated with AstraZeneca and outcomes of thromboembolic events. Pooled mean or proportion were analyzed using a random-effects model. A total of 45 unique studies (number of patients = 144, 64.6% women, mean age 21-68 years) were included. The most common presenting adverse events were headache (12.1%), intracerebral hemorrhage (7.5%), and hemiparesis (7%). The most common thromboembolic adverse events were cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (38.5%) and deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (21.1%). The most common radiologic finding were intracerebral hemorrhage and cerebral venous thrombosis. Laboratory findings included thrombocytopenia (75%) and hypofibrinogenemia (41%). On admission, 64 patients tested positive for PF4-Heparin ELISA assay (80%). Seventy-four patients were hospitalized with 22 being admitted to the ICU. A total of 78 patients recovered while 39 patients died. This meta-analysis presents evidence to suggest vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) following AstraZeneca vaccine. Clinical practice must, therefore, account for the possibility of VITT and subsequent embolic events in certain individuals' postvaccination with adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines. Serum anti-PF4 suggests diagnostic value for VITT and could subsequently inform treatment choices in such instances.
Topics: Adult; Aged; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; SARS-CoV-2; Thromboembolism; Vaccination; Young Adult
PubMed: 34980833
DOI: 10.1097/MBC.0000000000001113 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021The World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on March 11, 2020. Two vaccine types were developed using two different...
INTRODUCTION
The World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on March 11, 2020. Two vaccine types were developed using two different technologies: viral vectors and mRNA. Thrombosis is one of the most severe and atypical adverse effects of vaccines. This study aimed to analyze published cases of thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccinations to identify patients' features, potential pathophysiological mechanisms, timing of appearance of the adverse events, and other critical issues.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic electronic search of scientific articles regarding COVID-19 vaccine-related thrombosis and its complications on the PubMed (MEDLINE) database and through manual searches. We selected 10 out of 50 articles from February 1 to May 5, 2021 and performed a descriptive analysis of the adverse events caused by the mRNA-based Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and the adenovirus-based AstraZeneca vaccine.
RESULTS
In the articles on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the sample consisted of three male patients with age heterogeneity. The time from vaccination to admission was ≤3 days in all cases; all patients presented signs of petechiae/purpura at admission, with a low platelet count. In the studies on the AstraZeneca vaccine, the sample consisted of 58 individuals with a high age heterogeneity and a high female prevalence. Symptoms appeared around the ninth day, and headache was the most common symptom. The platelet count was below the lower limit of the normal range. All patients except one were positive for PF4 antibodies. The cerebral venous sinus was the most affected site. Death was the most prevalent outcome in all studies, except for one study in which most of the patients remained alive.
DISCUSSION
Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is an unknown nosological phenomenon secondary to inoculation with the COVID-19 vaccine. Several hypotheses have been formulated regarding its physiopathological mechanism. Recent studies have assumed a mechanism that is assimilable to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, with protagonist antibodies against the PF4-polyanion complex. Viral DNA has a negative charge and can bind to PF4, causing VITT. New experimental studies have assumed that thrombosis is related to a soluble adenoviral protein spike variant, originating from splicing events, which cause important endothelial inflammatory events, and binding to endothelial cells expressing ACE2.
CONCLUSION
Further studies are needed to better identify VITT's pathophysiological mechanisms and genetic, demographic, or clinical predisposition of high-risk patients, to investigate the correlation of VITT with the different vaccine types, and to test the significance of the findings.
Topics: 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273; Antigen-Antibody Complex; BNT162 Vaccine; COVID-19; Cerebral Veins; ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; Female; Headache; Humans; Mass Vaccination; Platelet Factor 4; SARS-CoV-2; Sex Factors; Survival Analysis; Thrombosis
PubMed: 34912330
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.729251 -
The Lancet Regional Health. Europe Jan 2022For safety assessment in clinical trials, adverse events (AEs) are reported for the drug under evaluation and compared with AEs in the placebo group. Little is known...
BACKGROUND
For safety assessment in clinical trials, adverse events (AEs) are reported for the drug under evaluation and compared with AEs in the placebo group. Little is known about the nature of the AEs associated with clinical trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the extent to which these can be traced to nocebo effects, where negative treatment-related expectations favor their occurrence.
METHODS
In our systematic review, we compared the rates of solicited AEs in the active and placebo groups of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved by the Western pharmaceutical regulatory agencies.We implemented a search strategy to identify trial-III studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines through the PubMed database. We adopted the PRISMA Statement to perform the study selection and the data collection and identified three trial: two mRNA-based (38403 participants) and one adenovirus type (6736 participants).
FINDINGS
Relative risks showed that the occurrence of AEs reported in the vaccine groups was higher compared with the placebo groups. The most frequently AEs in both groups were fatigue, headache, local pain, as injection site reactions, and myalgia. In particular, for first doses in placebo recipients, fatigue was reported in 29% and 27% in BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively, and in 21% of Ad26.COV2.S participants. Headache was reported in 27% in both mRNA groups and in 24% of Ad26.COV2.S recipients. Myalgia was reported in 10% and 14% in mRNA groups (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively) and in 13% of Ad26.COV2.S participants. Local pain was reported in 12% and 17% in mRNA groups (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively), and in 17% of Ad26.COV2.S recipients. These AEs are more common in the younger population and in the first dose of placebo recipients of the mRNA vaccines.
INTERPRETATION
Our results are in agreement with the expectancy theory of nocebo effects and suggest that the AEs associated with COVID-19 vaccines may be related to the nocebo effect.
FUNDING
Fondazione CRT - Cassa di Risparmio di Torino, IT (grant number 66346, "GAIA-MENTE" 2019).
PubMed: 34729549
DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100253