Comparative efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in phase III trials: a network meta-analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Over a dozen vaccines are in or have completed phase III trials at an unprecedented speed since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic. In this review, we aimed to compare and rank these vaccines indirectly in terms of efficacy and safety using a network meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to September 30, 2023. Two investigators independently selected articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes included efficacy in preventing symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) according to vaccine type and individual vaccines in adults and elderly individuals. The risk ratio and mean differences were calculated with 95% confidence intervals using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 25 RCTs involving 22 vaccines were included in the study. None of vaccines had a higher incidence of SAEs than the placebo. Inactivated virus vaccines might be the safest, with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of 0.16. BIV1-CovIran showed the highest safety index (SUCRA value: 0.13), followed by BBV152, Soberana, Gam-COVID-Vac, and ZF2001. There were no significant differences among the various types of vaccines regarding the efficacy in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, although there was a trend toward higher efficacy of the mRNA vaccines (SUCRA value: 0.09). BNT162b2 showed the highest efficacy (SUCRA value: 0.02) among the individual vaccines, followed by mRNA-1273, Abdala, Gam-COVID-Vac, and NVX-CoV2373. BNT162b2 had the highest efficacy (SUCRA value: 0.08) in the elderly population, whereas CVnCoV, CoVLP + AS03, and CoronaVac were not significantly different from the placebo.

Conclusions

None of the different types of vaccines were significantly superior in terms of efficacy, while mRNA vaccines were significantly inferior in safety to other types. BNT162b2 had the highest efficacy in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults and the elderly, whereas BIV1-CovIran had the lowest incidence of SAEs in adults.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-023-08754-3.

Related collections

Most cited references 51

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

Fernando P Polack, Stephen J. Thomas, Nicholas R.E. Kitchin … (2023)

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)

0 comments Cited 7036 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

Brian Hutton, Georgia Salanti, Deborah M Caldwell … (2016)

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.

0 comments Cited 1887 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Clinical, laboratory and imaging features of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Alfonso J. Rodríguez-Morales, Jaime A. Cardona-Ospina, Estefanía Gutiérrez-Ocampo … (2020)

Introduction An epidemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) began in December 2019 in China leading to a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Clinical, laboratory, and imaging features have been partially characterized in some observational studies. No systematic reviews on COVID-19 have been published to date. Methods We performed a systematic literature review with meta-analysis, using three databases to assess clinical, laboratory, imaging features, and outcomes of COVID-19 confirmed cases. Observational studies and also case reports, were included, and analyzed separately. We performed a random-effects model meta-analysis to calculate pooled prevalences and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results 660 articles were retrieved for the time frame (1/1/2020-2/23/2020). After screening, 27 articles were selected for full-text assessment, 19 being finally included for qualitative and quantitative analyses. Additionally, 39 case report articles were included and analyzed separately. For 656 patients, fever (88.7%, 95%CI 84.5–92.9%), cough (57.6%, 95%CI 40.8–74.4%) and dyspnea (45.6%, 95%CI 10.9–80.4%) were the most prevalent manifestations. Among the patients, 20.3% (95%CI 10.0–30.6%) required intensive care unit (ICU), 32.8% presented with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (95%CI 13.7–51.8), 6.2% (95%CI 3.1–9.3) with shock. Some 13.9% (95%CI 6.2–21.5%) of hospitalized patients had fatal outcomes (case fatality rate, CFR). Conclusion COVID-19 brings a huge burden to healthcare facilities, especially in patients with comorbidities. ICU was required for approximately 20% of polymorbid, COVID-19 infected patients and hospitalization was associated with a CFR of >13%. As this virus spreads globally, countries need to urgently prepare human resources, infrastructure and facilities to treat severe COVID-19.

0 comments Cited 1064 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Yong Song: yong.song@nju.edu.cn

Tangfeng Lv: bairoushui@163.com

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Infect Dis

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Infect Dis

Title: BMC Infectious Diseases

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1471-2334

Publication date (Electronic): 21 February 2024

Publication date PMC-release: 21 February 2024

Publication date Collection: 2024

Volume: 24

Electronic Location Identifier: 234

Affiliations

[1 ]Medical School of Nanjing University, ( https://ror.org/01rxvg760) Nanjing, 210000 China

[2 ]GRID grid.41156.37, ISNI 0000 0001 2314 964X, Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Jinling Hospital, , Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University, ; Nanjing, 210000 China

Article

Publisher ID: 8754

DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08754-3

PMC ID: 10880292

PubMed ID: 38383356

SO-VID: 5990e2d7-905a-4ced-92cb-3a5f0a4b1ce4

License:

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

History

Date received : 24 March 2023

Date accepted : 25 October 2023

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Infectious disease & Microbiology

Keywords: sars-cov-2,covid-19,vaccine,efficacy,network meta-analysis

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Infectious disease & Microbiology

Keywords: sars-cov-2, covid-19, vaccine, efficacy, network meta-analysis

Comparative efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in phase III trials: a network meta-analysis

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Supplementary Information

Related collections

Novel Coronavirus Disease COVID-19

Most cited references 51

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

Clinical, laboratory and imaging features of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 199

Most referenced authors 2,354