Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Characteristics of and risk factors for COVID-19 breakthrough infections in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: results from the COVAD study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to explore the prevalence, characteristics and risk factors of COVID-19 breakthrough infections (BIs) in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) using data from the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study.

METHODS

A validated patient self-reporting e-survey was circulated by the COVAD study group to collect data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination in 2022. BIs were defined as COVID-19 occurring ≥14 days after two vaccine doses. We compared BI characteristics and severity among patients with IIMs, patients with other autoimmune rheumatic and non-rheumatic diseases (AIRD, nrAID), and healthy controls (HCs). Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the risk factors for BI, severe BI ,and hospitalizations among patients with IIMs.

RESULTS

Among the 9449 included responses, BIs occurred in 1447 respondents (15.3%). The median age was 44 years [interquartile range (IQR) 21], 77.4% were female, and 182 BIs (12.9%) occurred among the 1406 patients with IIMs. Multivariable Cox regression among the data for patients with IIMs showed increasing age to be a protective factor for BIs [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97-0.99], and HCQ and SSZ use were risk factors (HR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.24-2.64, and HR = 3.79, 95% CI = 1.69-8.42, respectively). Glucocorticoid use was a risk factor for a severe BI (HR = 3.61, 95% CI = 1.09-11.8). Non-white ethnicity (HR = 2.61, 95% CI = 1.03-6.59) was a risk factor for hospitalization. Compared with other groups, patients with IIMs required more supplemental oxygen therapy (IIMs = 6.0% vs AIRDs = 1.8%, nrAIDs = 2.2% and HCs = 0.9%), intensive care unit admission (IIMs = 2.2% vs AIRDs = 0.6%, nrAIDs and HCs = 0%), advanced treatment with antiviral or monoclonal antibodies (IIMs = 34.1% vs AIRDs = 25.8%, nrAIDs = 14.6% and HCs = 12.8%) and had more hospitalization (IIMs = 7.7% vs AIRDs = 4.6%, nrAIDs = 1.1% and HCs = 1.5%).

CONCLUSION

Patients with IIMs are susceptible to severe COVID-19 BIs. Age and immunosuppressive treatments were related to the risk of BIs.

The Second Round of a Population-Based Seroprevalence Study of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies and COVID-19 Vaccination Assessment in the Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to assess the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina, after five waves of COVID-19 and 1 year after introduction of vaccination to better understand the true extent of the COVID-19 pandemic in the population of the Republika Srpska and role of vaccination in achieving herd immunity.

METHODS

The population-based study was conducted from December 2021 to February 2022 in a group of 4463 individuals in the Republika Srpska. Total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were determined in serum specimens using the Wantai total antibody ELISA assay. Quantitative analysis, using Kantaro IgG assays, was performed in subsamples (1273 specimens) to asses and compare levels of IgG among vaccinated, recovered and participants with hybrid immunity. To adjust for age and gender distribution in sample, poststratification method is applied.

RESULTS

The overall cumulative seroprevalence was 94.6% (95% CI = 93.9-95.3). Significantly higher seroprevalence rates were observed among vaccinated 97.8% (95% CI = 97.3-98.4) comparing to unvaccinated participants (89.5%, 95% CI = 88.0-91.0). Seroprevalence increases with the number of received doses. Among various professions, the highest seroprevalence was found in the service industry (98.1%), education (98.0%) and healthcare (96.9%). We found that 2.2% of vaccinated and 3.6% of participants with SARS-CoV-2 positivity during 2021 had no detectable IgG antibodies. Both seroprevalence (98.6%) and antibody titres (1094.4 AU/mL) were significantly higher among people with hybrid immunity.

CONCLUSION

Our findings reveal a 2.3-fold increase in seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies due to infection and vaccination, comparing to the first study performed 1 year earlier. This study provides better understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 transmission and highlights the important role of the vaccination in achieving the population immunity. Periodically conducted population-based seroprevalence studies are important to understand temporal trends and assess surveillance system performance and public compliance with vaccination policies.

Parental experience with childhood COVID-19 vaccines and factors associated with parental hesitancy despite being vaccinated: findings of a cross-sectional analysis from Pakistan and implications for the future

OBJECTIVES

This study examined parental experiences with COVID-19 vaccination and factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (CVH) among them to help guide future policy initiatives.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Lahore, the second largest metropolis in Pakistan.

PARTICIPANTS

This study was conducted among parents residing in Lahore from March to April 2023. Participants were recruited via convenience sampling.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Data were collected using a prevalidated questionnaire that consisted of four sections: (1) informed consent, (2) demographic details, (3) COVID-19 vaccine uptake in children aged 5-17 years, parents' experience with childhood COVID-19 vaccination and their intention to vaccinate their unvaccinated children and (4) a modified 5C scale tailored to determine parents' confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation and collective responsibility with regard to COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

This study included 414 parents (median age=37 years; mothers=62%). COVID-19 vaccination rates for children in the age groups 12-17 years and 5-11 years were 72.5% and 30.1%, respectively. Transient adverse events following immunisation were reported by 32.7% of parents. Of parents with unvaccinated children aged 12-17 years, only 35% intended to vaccinate them. The majority of parents were not willing to vaccinate their children below 11 years of age. Parents with a self-reported positive history of COVID-19 disease (OR=2.531, p=0.016), and confident in the vaccine's safety and efficacy (OR=1.968, p=0.010), were more inclined to vaccinate their 5-11 years. In terms of vaccination of children below 5 years, confidence in the vaccine (OR=2.942, p=0.003) and a sense of collective responsibility were positive predictors (OR=2.260, p=0.035), while calculation was identified as a negative predictor of parents' intention to vaccinate their under 5 years (OR=0.421, p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

CVH was significantly higher among parents of children aged 5-11 years and children younger than 5 years old. Priority should be given by health authorities to address parental concerns about vaccines and ensure that parents understand the significance of vaccination in protecting their children, to increase vaccination rates. This is because hesitancy towards one specific vaccine can negatively impact hesitancy rates in general.

Cilgavimab and tixagevimab as pre-exposure prophylaxis in vaccine non-responder kidney transplant recipients during a period of prevalent SARS-CoV-2 BA.2 and BA.4/5 variants-a prospective cohort study (RESCUE-TX)

BACKGROUND

The response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination is severely impaired in patients on maintenance immunosuppression after kidney transplantation.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of 194 kidney transplant recipients (KTR) who exhibited no response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (i.e., SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies ≤264 U/mL) and had no prior documented infection. Patients received 300 mg of cilgavimab/tixagevimab as SARS-CoV-2 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) between March 4, 2022, and May 3, 2022 and were contrasted to a matched cohort of 186 KTRs also without immunization again defined as SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies ≤264 U/mL and no documented prior infection. The primary outcome was the serum kinetics of cilgavimab/tixagevimab, the secondary endpoints were time to SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection, severity of disease and variant specific live viral in vitro neutralization tests of patient sera.

FINDINGS

Longitudinal serum level monitoring showed a half-life of 91 days for both antibodies (95% CI 86-95 days for cilgavimab and 85-96 days for tixagevimab) in KTRs. In vitro neutralization tests showed effectiveness against the BA.2 omicron subvariant but not BA.5. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections until May 15, 2022, (BA.2 dominance) was 15/194 vs 36/186 in the PrEP and control group respectively (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.66) but was not different thereafter (BA.4/5 dominance). The number of severe infections during the BA.2 period was lower in the prophylaxis than in the control group (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.17-0.79).

INTERPRETATION

This study showed that SARS-CoV-2 PrEP with cilgavimab/tixagevimab demonstrated clinical effectiveness against variants that are neutralised (BA.2) but not against BA.4/5.

FUNDING

This study was funded by the Medical University of Vienna and an unrestricted grant from AstraZeneca (ESR-21-21585).

Safety and Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines During Pregnancy: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pregnant persons are susceptible to significant complications following COVID-19, even death. However, worldwide COVID-19 vaccination coverage during pregnancy remains suboptimal.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines administered to pregnant persons and shared this evidence via an interactive online website.

METHODS

We followed Cochrane methods to conduct this living systematic review. We included studies assessing the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons. We conducted searches every other week for studies until October 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status, in ten databases, guidelines, preprint servers, and COVID-19 websites. The reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched to identify additional relevant studies. Pairs of review authors independently selected eligible studies using the web-based software COVIDENCE. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by pairs of authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of adjusted relative effects for relevant confounders of comparative studies and proportional meta-analyses to summarize frequencies from one-sample studies using R statistical software. We present the GRADE certainty of evidence from comparative studies. Findings are available on an interactive living systematic review webpage, including an updated evidence map and real-time meta-analyses customizable by subgroups and filters.

RESULTS

We included 177 studies involving 638,791 participants from 41 countries. Among the 11 types of COVID-19 vaccines identified, the most frequently used platforms were mRNA (154 studies), viral vector (51), and inactivated virus vaccines (17). Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination may result in minimal to no important differences compared to no vaccination in all assessed maternal and infant safety outcomes from 26 fewer to 17 more events per 1000 pregnant persons, and 13 fewer to 9 more events per 1000 neonates, respectively. We found statistically significant reductions in emergency cesarean deliveries (9%) with mRNA vaccines, and in stillbirth (75-83%) with mRNA/viral vector vaccines. Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination during pregnancy with mRNA vaccines may reduce severe cases or hospitalizations in pregnant persons with COVID-19 (72%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 42-86), symptomatic COVID-19 (78%; 95% CI 21-94), and virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (82%; 95% CI 39-95). Reductions were lower with other vaccine types and during Omicron variant dominance than Alpha and Delta dominance. Infants also presented with fewer severe cases or hospitalizations due to COVID-19 and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (64%; 95% CI 37-80 and 66%; 95% CI 37-81, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a large body of evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. While the certainty of evidence is not high, it stands as the most reliable option available, given the current absence of pregnant individuals in clinical trials. Results are shared in near real time in an accessible and interactive format for scientists, decision makers, clinicians, and the general public. This living systematic review highlights the relevance of continuous vaccine safety and effectiveness monitoring, particularly in at-risk populations for COVID-19 impact such as pregnant persons, during the introduction of new vaccines.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42021281290.

Major mistakes or errors in the use of trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews or meta-analyses - the METSA systematic review

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews and data synthesis of randomised clinical trials play a crucial role in clinical practice, research, and health policy. Trial sequential analysis can be used in systematic reviews to control type I and type II errors, but methodological errors including lack of protocols and transparency are cause for concern. We assessed the reporting of trial sequential analysis.

METHODS

We searched Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports that include a trial sequential analysis. Only studies with at least two randomised clinical trials analysed in a forest plot and a trial sequential analysis were included. Two independent investigators assessed the studies. We evaluated protocolisation, reporting, and interpretation of the analyses, including their effect on any GRADE evaluation of imprecision.

RESULTS

We included 270 systematic reviews and 274 meta-analysis reports and extracted data from 624 trial sequential analyses. Only 134/270 (50%) systematic reviews planned the trial sequential analysis in the protocol. For analyses on dichotomous outcomes, the proportion of events in the control group was missing in 181/439 (41%), relative risk reduction in 105/439 (24%), alpha in 30/439 (7%), beta in 128/439 (29%), and heterogeneity in 232/439 (53%). For analyses on continuous outcomes, the minimally relevant difference was missing in 125/185 (68%), variance (or standard deviation) in 144/185 (78%), alpha in 23/185 (12%), beta in 63/185 (34%), and heterogeneity in 105/185 (57%). Graphical illustration of the trial sequential analysis was present in 93% of the analyses, however, the Z-curve was wrongly displayed in 135/624 (22%) and 227/624 (36%) did not include futility boundaries. The overall transparency of all 624 analyses was very poor in 236 (38%) and poor in 173 (28%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of trial sequential analyses are not transparent when preparing or presenting the required parameters, partly due to missing or poorly conducted protocols. This hampers interpretation, reproducibility, and validity.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021273811.

IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in mother-child dyads after COVID-19 vaccination

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess IgG antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (anti-SARS-CoV-2 S IgG) in vaccinated mothers and their infants at delivery and 2-3 months of age.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study on mothers who received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BNT162b2, Moderna mRNA-1273, or Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S) during pregnancy and on their infants. The baseline was at the time of delivery (n = 93), and the end of follow-up was 2 to 3 months post-partum (n = 53). Serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 S IgG titers and ACE2 binding inhibition levels were quantified by immunoassays.

RESULTS

Mothers and infants had high anti-SARS-CoV-2 S IgG titers against the B.1 lineage at birth. However, while antibody titers were maintained at 2-3 months post-partum in mothers, they decreased significantly in infants (p < 0.001). Positive and significant correlations were found between anti-SARS-CoV-2 S IgG titers and ACE2-binding inhibition levels in mothers and infants at birth and 2-3 months post-partum (r > 0.8, p < 0.001). Anti-S antibodies were also quantified for the Omicron variant at 2-3 months post-partum. The antibody titers against Omicron were significantly lower in mothers and infants than those against B.1 (p < 0.001). Again, a positive correlation was observed for Omicron between IgG titers and ACE2-binding inhibition both in mothers (r = 0.818, p < 0.001) and infants (r = 0.386, p < 0.005). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination near delivery positively impacted anti-SARS-CoV-2 S IgG levels.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines induce high anti-SARS-CoV-2 S titers in pregnant women, which can inhibit the binding of ACE2 to protein S and are efficiently transferred to the fetus. However, there was a rapid decrease in antibody levels at 2 to 3 months post-partum, particularly in infants.

Comparative Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccines Among Older Adults: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis Using the GRADE Framework

INTRODUCTION

The mRNA vaccines mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 demonstrated high efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in phase 3 clinical trials, including among older adults. To inform coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine selection, this systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis assessed the comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 in older adults.

METHODS

We systematically searched for relevant studies reporting COVID-19 outcomes with mRNA vaccines in older adults aged ≥ 50 years by first cross-checking relevant published SLRs. Based on the cutoff date from a previous similar SLR, we then searched the WHO COVID-19 Research Database for relevant articles published between April 9, 2022, and June 2, 2023. Outcomes of interest were SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and COVID-19-related death following ≥ 2 vaccine doses. Random effects meta-analysis models were used to pool risk ratios (RRs) across studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated using chi-square testing. Evidence certainty was assessed per GRADE framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-four non-randomized real-world studies reporting clinical outcomes with mRNA vaccines in individuals aged ≥ 50 years were included in the meta-analysis. Vaccination with mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64‒0.80]), symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.62‒0.83]), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.67 [95% CI 0.57‒0.78]), and COVID-19-related hospitalization (RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.53‒0.79]) but not COVID-19-related death (RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.64‒1.00]) compared with BNT162b2. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies for all outcomes (I2 > 75%) except death (I2 = 0%). Multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses excluding specific studies generally demonstrated consistent results. Certainty of evidence across outcomes was rated as low (type 3) or very low (type 4), reflecting the lack of randomized controlled trial data.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of 24 observational studies demonstrated significantly lower risk of asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infections and hospitalizations with the mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 vaccine in older adults aged ≥ 50 years.

Vaccination status and outcomes in critical COVID-19 patients

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure on the basis of their vaccination status at the time of ICU admission.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study using a prospective database of patients admitted to the ICU of a university hospital in the city of Murcia, in Spain, between January 1, 2021 and September 1, 2022. Clinical, analytical, and sociodemographic data were collected and analyzed on the basis of patient vaccination status. We adjusted for confounding variables using propensity score matching and calculated adjusted ORs and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients were included in the study. Of those, 8.3% were fully vaccinated, 12% were partially vaccinated, and 79.7% were unvaccinated. Although fully vaccinated patients had more comorbidities, partially vaccinated patients had higher disease severity. The proportion of patients with severe acute respiratory failure was higher in the unvaccinated group, followed by the partially vaccinated group. No significant differences were found among the different groups regarding complications, duration of ventilatory support, or length of ICU/hospital stay. In the sample selected by propensity score matching, the number of patients with severe complications and the in-hospital mortality rate were higher in unvaccinated patients, but the differences were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

This study failed to show a significant improvement in outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. However, the CIs were wide and the mortality point estimates favored patients who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine.

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

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.

Does COVID-19 Vaccination Protect Contact Persons? A Systematic Review

The protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination for contact persons is controversial. Therefore, the aim of this review was to determine whether COVID-19 vaccination provides significant protection for them. A PubMed search was carried out using the terms “unvaccinated vaccinated covid” in combination with “viral load” and “transmission”. Studies were included if they reported original comparative data on the SARS-CoV-2 viral load, duration of SARS-CoV-2 detection, or SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates. A total of 332 articles were identified, of which 68 were included and analyzed. The differences in the viral load were equivocal in 57% of the 35 studies, significantly lower in the vaccinated in 11 studies and in the unvaccinated in 3 studies. The infectious virus levels were significantly lower in the vaccinated in two out of six studies. Virus clearance was significantly faster in vaccinated subjects in two of eight studies (detection of viral RNA) and two of four studies (detection of infectious virus). The secondary attack rates were significantly lower in vaccinated index cases in 6 of 15 studies. The vaccination status of contacts was described in two of the six studies and was 31.8% and 39.9% lower in households with an unvaccinated index case. The inconsistent and variable differences in the viral load, viral clearance and secondary attack rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, especially during the omicron predominance, suggests that COVID-19 vaccination is unlikely to prevent a relevant proportion of transmissions to contact persons, taking into account the relevance of the immunological status of the contact population (vaccination rates and previous infection).

Influence of Seasonality and Public-Health Interventions on the COVID-19 Pandemic in Northern Europe

BACKGROUND

Most government efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic revolved around non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and vaccination. However, many respiratory diseases show distinctive seasonal trends. In this manuscript, we examined the contribution of these three factors to the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Pearson correlation coefficients and time-lagged analysis were used to examine the relationship between NPIs, vaccinations and seasonality (using the average incidence of endemic human beta-coronaviruses in Sweden over a 10-year period as a proxy) and the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic as tracked by deaths; cases; hospitalisations; intensive care unit occupancy and testing positivity rates in six Northern European countries (population 99.12 million) using a population-based, observational, ecological study method.

FINDINGS

The waves of the pandemic correlated well with the seasonality of human beta-coronaviruses (HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1). In contrast, we could not find clear or consistent evidence that the stringency of NPIs or vaccination reduced the progression of the pandemic. However, these results are correlations and not causations.

IMPLICATIONS

We hypothesise that the apparent influence of NPIs and vaccines might instead be an effect of coronavirus seasonality. We suggest that policymakers consider these results when assessing policy options for future pandemics.

LIMITATIONS

The study is limited to six temperate Northern European countries with spatial and temporal variations in metrics used to track the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic. Caution should be exercised when extrapolating these findings.

Does the COVID-19 Vaccination Reduce the Risk to Transmit SARS-CoV-2 to Others?

It has been assumed that the COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of transmission to others. Results during the delta predominance show that the viral load in the vaccinated population is not consistently lower compared to the unvaccinated, and during the omicron predominance, the viral load was even somewhat higher. Levels of infectious SARS-CoV-2 were partly lower in the vaccinated population. Viral loads were mostly lower in re-infections compared to breakthrough infections. Viral clearance including the detection of infectious virus has mostly been described to be faster in the vaccinated population suggesting a shorter duration as a possible source for transmission. The epidemiological relevance of this finding remains uncertain. Approximately half of the transmission studies found lower secondary attack rates from the fully vaccinated population, but the results are probably best explained by the vaccination status of the contact population. Public health data from the UK show that the number of COVID-19 cases is higher among the fully vaccinated and boosted population who might be possible sources, in contrast to lower case numbers within the first three months among the vaccinated obtained in phase 3 trials on symptomatic cases. Overall, there is no convincing evidence that the COVID-19 vaccination significantly reduces the risk to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others.

Comparing the Efficacy and Adverse Events of Available COVID-19 Vaccines Through Randomized Controlled Trials: Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different vaccines have so far been developed and approved to cope with COVID-19 in the world. The aim of this updated network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare and rank all available vaccines in terms of efficacy and complications simultaneously. Study Design: A systematic review.

METHODS

Three major international databases, including Web of Science, Medline via PubMed, and Scopus, were searched through September 2023. The transitivity assumption was evaluated qualitatively in terms of epidemiologic effect modifiers. The exposure of interest in this study was receiving any available COVID-19 vaccine, and the primary outcome of interest was the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19. In this NMA, the relative risk of symptomatic COVID-19 was used to summarize the efficacy of vaccines in preventing COVID-19. The data were analyzed using the frequentist-based approach, and the results were reported using a random-effects model. Finally, the vaccines were ranked using a P-score.

RESULTS

In total, 34 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review and NMA out of 3682 retrieved references. Based on the results of the NMA, mRNA-1273 was the most effective vaccine in preventing COVID-19 and demonstrated the highest P-score (0.93). The relative risk (RR) for mRNA-1273 versus placebo was 0.07 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03, 0.17). The second and third-ranked vaccines were BNT-162b2 (RR=0.08; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.15; P-score=0.93) and Gam-COVID-Vac (0.09; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.25; 0.88).

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this NMA, it seems that all available vaccines were effective in COVID-19 prevention. However, the top three ranked vaccines were mRNA-1273, BNT-162b2, and Gam-COVID-Vac, respectively.

Modeling immunity in microphysiological systems

There is a need for better predictive models of the human immune system to evaluate safety and efficacy of immunomodulatory drugs and biologics for successful product development and regulatory approvals. Current in vitro models, which are often tested in two-dimensional (2D) tissue culture polystyrene, and preclinical animal models fail to fully recapitulate the function and physiology of the human immune system. Microphysiological systems (MPSs) that can model key microenvironment cues of the human immune system, as well as of specific organs and tissues, may be able to recapitulate specific features of the in vivo inflammatory response. This minireview provides an overview of MPS for modeling lymphatic tissues, immunity at tissue interfaces, inflammatory diseases, and the inflammatory tumor microenvironment in vitro and ex vivo. Broadly, these systems have utility in modeling how certain immunotherapies function in vivo, how dysfunctional immune responses can propagate diseases, and how our immune system can combat pathogens.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake and associated factors among adolescents and youths: Findings and implications for future vaccination programmes

Adolescents and youths are a key part of the population that needs to be protected against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is because they are more likely to spread the virus to vulnerable individuals. In view of these concerns, this study investigated the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and associated factors among adolescents and youths attending secondary schools in Zambia. This cross-sectional study was conducted among 1500 school-going adolescents in Lusaka from September 2022 to November 2022. Overall, 1409 participants took part giving a response rate of 94%. Only 29.2% (n = 411) of the participants were vaccinated against COVID-19 at the time of the study. Compared to their unvaccinated counterparts, vaccinated adolescents and youths scored higher for knowledge (66.2% vs 57.8%) and attitudes (76.7% vs 39.4%) regarding COVID-19 vaccines. Healthcare workers, family/friends and social media were key sources of information regarding the vaccine. Factors associated with increased vaccine uptake were positive attitudes (AOR = 33.62, 95% CI: 19.92-56.73), indicating it was stressful to follow COVID-19 preventive measures (AOR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.09-1.99), participants in Grade 12 (AOR = 3.39, 95% CI: 1.94-5.91), Grade 11 (AOR = 2.59, 95% CI: 1.94-5.91), Grade 10 (AOR = 3.48, 95% CI: 1.98-6.11) and Grade 9 (AOR = 3.04, 95% CI: 1.74-5.32) compared to Grade 8. This study found a relatively low uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among adolescents and youths in Zambia. There is a need to provide adequate strategies to address knowledge and attitude gaps regarding COVID-19 vaccines to improve uptake and reduce future morbidity and mortality.

How to update a living systematic review and keep it alive during a pandemic: a practical guide

BACKGROUND

The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of living systematic reviews. The speed of evidence generated during the covid-19 pandemic accentuated the challenges of managing high volumes of research literature.

METHODS

In this article, we summarise the characteristics of ongoing living systematic reviews on covid-19, and we follow a life cycle approach to describe key steps in a living systematic review.

RESULTS

We identified 97 living systematic reviews on covid-19, published up to 7th November 2022, which focused mostly on the effects of pharmacological interventions (n = 46, 47%) or the prevalence of associated conditions or risk factors (n = 30, 31%). The scopes of several reviews overlapped considerably. Most living systematic reviews included both observational and randomised study designs (n = 45, 46%). Only one-third of the reviews has been updated at least once (n = 34, 35%). We address practical aspects of living systematic reviews including how to judge whether to start a living systematic review, methods for study identification and selection, data extraction and evaluation, and give recommendations at each step, drawing from our own experience. We also discuss when it is time to stop and how to publish updates.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods to improve the efficiency of searching, study selection, and data extraction using machine learning technologies are being developed, their performance and applicability, particularly for reviews based on observational study designs should improve, and ways of publishing living systematic reviews and their updates will continue to evolve. Finally, knowing when to end a living systematic review is as important as knowing when to start.

Awareness and Practices towards Vaccinating Their Children against COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study among Pakistani Parents

There are typically lower COVID-19 vaccination rates among developing versus higher-income countries, which is exacerbated by greater vaccine hesitancy. However, despite the increasing evidence of safety, parents are still reluctant to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. This is a concern in countries experiencing successive waves, such as Pakistan. Consequently, the objective of this study was to gain better understanding and practice regarding parents vaccinating their children against COVID-19 in Pakistan. A cross-sectional study was conducted to measure parents' attitudes towards vaccinating their children. In total, 451 parents participated in the study, giving a response rate of 70.4%; 67.4% were female, 43.2% belonged to the 40-49 years age group, and 47.7% had three children, with 73% of parents fully immunized against COVID-19. We found that 84.7% of parents did not consider COVID-19 to be a very serious issue, and 53.9% considered that their children were not at high risk of COVID-19. Overall, only a quarter of the study participants had currently vaccinated their children and 11.8% were willing to vaccinate their children in the near future. Parents who had a better knowledge of COVID-19, secondary or higher education, children who had chronic illness, and those parents whose children had been infected with COVID-19 were more likely to have their children vaccinated. The most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy were "my child is not at high risk of COVID-19" (61%) and "I am afraid to put/inject a foreign object inside my child's body" (52.2%). Overall, vaccine acceptance was low among the parents of the children. Those parents with higher education, chronic illnesses, greater knowledge of COVID-19 and its vaccines, and those whose children had been infected with COVID-19 were significantly (p < 0.001) inclined towards vaccinating their children. Effective campaigns as well as awareness sessions are needed to address misinformation and reduce vaccine hesitancy.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers in Lusaka, Zambia; Findings and Implications for the Future

The uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is critical to address the severe consequences of the disease. Previous studies have suggested that many healthcare workers (HCWs) are hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, further enhancing hesitancy rates within countries. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy levels are currently unknown among HCWs in Zambia, which is a concern given the burden of infectious diseases in the country. Consequently, this study assessed COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among HCWs in Lusaka, Zambia. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 240 HCWs between August and September 2022, using a semi-structured questionnaire. Multivariable analysis was used to determine the key factors associated with vaccine hesitancy among HCWs. Of the 240 HCWs who participated, 54.2% were females. A total of 72.1% of the HCWs would accept being vaccinated, while 27.9% were hesitant. Moreover, 93.3% of HCWs had positive attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines, with medical doctors having the highest mean attitude score (82%). Encouragingly, HCWs with positive attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines had reduced odds of being hesitant (AOR = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.01-0.11, p < 0.001). Overall, acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine among HCWs in Lusaka, Zambia, was high, especially by those with positive attitudes. However, the current hesitancy among some HCWs is a concern. Consequently, there is a need to address this and encourage HCWs to fully promote vaccination programs going forward.

A phase I COVID-19 vaccine trial among SARS-CoV-2 seronegative and seropositive individuals in Uganda utilizing a self-amplifying RNA vaccine platform: Screening and enrollment experiences

We report the screening and enrollment process for a phase I vaccine trial in Masaka, Uganda that investigated the safety and immunogenicity of a self-amplifying SARS-CoV-2 RNA vaccine amongst individuals with and without antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participant screening and enrollment were conducted between December 2021 and April 2022. Individuals were eligible if they were aged between 18 and 45 years, healthy, and never vaccinated against COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 antibody status was determined using two point-of-care rapid tests, i.e. Multi G (MGFT3) and Standard Q (Standard Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Plus). Data were entered and managed in OpenClinica. Analyses were performed and presented descriptively. A total of 212 individuals were screened and 43(20.3%) enrolled. The most common reasons for exclusion were ≥ grade 1 laboratory abnormalities (39, 18.4%), followed by discordant SARS-CoV-2 antibody results (23, 10.9%). While the first 38 participants were quickly enrolled over a period of 9 weeks, it took another 9 weeks to enroll the remaining five, as antibody negative participants became scarce during the surge of the Omicron variant. The SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity rate was determined to be 60.8% and 84.4% in each half of the 18 months of screening respectively. The mean age (±Standard Deviation, SD) of screened and enrolled participants was 27.7 (±8.1) and 30.2 (±8.3) years respectively. We demonstrated that it is feasible to successfully screen and enroll participants for COVID-19 vaccine trials in Uganda in the time of a pandemic. Our experiences may be useful for investigators planning to undertake similar work in Africa.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Impact of vaccination against COVID-19 on patients with cancer in ACHOC-C19 study: Real world evidence from one Latin American country

Introduction: During the pandemic, it has been recommended that vaccination against COVID-19 be a priority for patients with cancer; however, these patients were not included in the initial studies evaluating the available vaccines. Objective: To define the impact of vaccination against COVID-19 in preventing the risk of complications associated with the infection in a cohort of patients with cancer in Colombia. Methods: An analytical observational cohort study, based on national registry of patients with cancer and COVID 19 infection ACHOC-C19, was done. The data was collected from June 2021, until October 2021. Inclusion criteria were: Patients older than 18 years with cancer diagnosis and confirmed COVID-19 infection. Data from the unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts were compared. Outcomes evaluated included all-cause mortality within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization, and need for mechanical ventilation. The estimation of the effect was made through the relative risk (RR), the absolute risk reduction (ARR) and the number needed to treat (NNT). Multivariate analysis was performed using generalized linear models. Results: 896 patients were included, of whom 470 were older than 60 years (52.4%) and 59% were women (n=530). 172 patients were recruited in the vaccinated cohort and 724 in the non-vaccinated cohort (ratio: 1 to 4.2). The cumulative incidence of clinical outcomes among the unvaccinated vs vaccinated patients were: for hospitalization 42% (95% CI: 38.7%-46.1%) vs 29%; (95% CI: 22.4%-36.5%); for invasive mechanical ventilation requirement 8.4% (n=61) vs 4.6% (n=8) and for mortality from all causes 17% (n=123) vs 4.65% (n=8). Conclusion: In our population, unvaccinated patients with cancer have an increased risk of complications for COVID -19 infection, as hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and mortality. It is highly recommended to actively promote the vaccination among this population.

Overlapping research efforts in a global pandemic: a rapid systematic review of COVID-19-related individual participant data meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs), which involve harmonising and analysing participant-level data from related studies, provide several advantages over aggregate data meta-analyses, which pool study-level findings. IPD-MAs are especially important for building and evaluating diagnostic and prognostic models, making them an important tool for informing the research and public health responses to COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid systematic review of protocols and publications from planned, ongoing, or completed COVID-19-related IPD-MAs to identify areas of overlap and maximise data request and harmonisation efforts. We searched four databases using a combination of text and MeSH terms. Two independent reviewers determined eligibility at the title-abstract and full-text stages. Data were extracted by one reviewer into a pretested data extraction form and subsequently reviewed by a second reviewer. Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach. A formal risk of bias assessment was not conducted.

RESULTS

We identified 31 COVID-19-related IPD-MAs, including five living IPD-MAs and ten IPD-MAs that limited their inference to published data (e.g., case reports). We found overlap in study designs, populations, exposures, and outcomes of interest. For example, 26 IPD-MAs included RCTs; 17 IPD-MAs were limited to hospitalised patients. Sixteen IPD-MAs focused on evaluating medical treatments, including six IPD-MAs for antivirals, four on antibodies, and two that evaluated convalescent plasma.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaboration across related IPD-MAs can leverage limited resources and expertise by expediting the creation of cross-study participant-level data datasets, which can, in turn, fast-track evidence synthesis for the improved diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

10.17605/OSF.IO/93GF2.

Perceptions of and Practical Experience with the National Surveillance Centre in Managing Medicines Availability Amongst Users within Public Healthcare Facilities in South Africa: Findings and Implications

The introduction of the National Surveillance Centre (NSC) has improved the efficiency and effectiveness of managing medicines availability within the public healthcare system in South Africa. However, at present, there is limited data regarding the perceptions among users of the NSC and challenges that need addressing. A descriptive quantitative study was performed among all registered active NSC users between August and November 2022. Overall, 114/169 users responded to a custom-developed, self-administered questionnaire (67.5% response rate). Most respondents used the Stock Visibility System (SVS) National Department of Health (NDoH) (66.7% for medicines and 51.8% for personal protective equipment (PPE) or SVS COVID-19 (64.9% for COVID-19 vaccines) or RxSolution (57.0% manual report or 42.1% application programming interface (API)) for reporting medicines, PPE, and COVID-19 vaccines to the NSC and were confident in the accuracy of the reported data. Most respondents focused on both medicines availability and reporting compliance when accessing the NSC, with the integrated medicines availability dashboard and the COVID-19 vaccine dashboard being the most popular. The respondents believed the NSC allowed ease of access to data and improved data quality to better monitor medicines availability and use. Identified areas for improvement included improving internet connectivity, retraining some users, standardising the dashboards, adding more data points and reports, and expanding user adoption by increasing licence limits. Overall, this study found that the NSC in South Africa provides an effective solution for monitoring and improving medicines availability.

Drug interventions for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions authorised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients.

SETTING

Outpatient treatment.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and the associated SARS-CoV-2 virus irrespective of age, sex and comorbidities.

INTERVENTIONS

Drug interventions authorised by EMA or FDA.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 17 clinical trials randomising 16 257 participants to 8 different interventions authorised by EMA or FDA. 15/17 of the included trials (88.2%) were assessed at high risk of bias. Only molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir seemed to improve both our primary outcomes. Meta-analyses showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of death (relative risk (RR) 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.64; p=0.0145, 2 trials; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.84; p=0.0018, 5 trials; very low certainty of evidence). Fisher's exact test showed that ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir reduced the risk of death (p=0.0002, 1 trial; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (p<0.0001, 1 trial; very low certainty of evidence) in 1 trial including 2246 patients, while another trial including 1140 patients reported 0 deaths in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of the evidence was very low, but, from the results of this study, molnupiravir showed the most consistent benefit and ranked highest among the approved interventions for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients. The lack of certain evidence should be considered when treating patients with COVID-19 for prevention of disease progression.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020178787.

COVID-19 Vaccination Status as Well as Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy among Prisoners and the Implications

Prisoners form a population who are highly vulnerable to COVID-19 due to overcrowding, limited movement, and a poor living environment. Consequently, there is a need to ascertain the status of COVID-19 vaccination and factors associated with hesitancy among prisoners. A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was undertaken among prisoners at three district jails in Punjab Province, Pakistan. A total of 381 prisoners participated and none of the study participants had received an influenza vaccine this year. In total, 53% received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, with the majority having two doses. The top three reasons of vaccine acceptance were "fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection" (56.9%), "desire to return to a pre-pandemic routine as soon as possible" (56.4%), and "having no doubts on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines" (39.6%). There was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in any demographic variables between vaccinated and unvaccinated prisoners except for age, which was strongly association with COVID-19 vaccine uptake (χ²(3) = 76.645, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.457). Among the unvaccinated prisoners (N = 179), only 16 subsequently showed willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. The top three reasons for hesitancy were: COVID-19 is not a real problem/disease (60.1%), safety concerns (51.1%), and COVID-19 vaccine is a conspiracy (50.3%). Efforts are needed to address their concerns given this population's risks and high hesitancy rates, especially among younger prisoners.

Short-term adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines after the first, second, and booster doses: a cross-sectional survey from Punjab, Pakistan, and the implications

BACKGROUND

Safety and efficacy concerns regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are common among the public and have a negative impact on their uptake. We aimed to report the adverse effects currently associated with the vaccine in Pakistan to build confidence among the population for its adoption.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in five districts of the Punjab province of Pakistan between January and March 2022. The participants were recruited using convenience sampling. All data were analyzed using SPSS 22.

RESULTS

We recruited 1622 people with the majority aged between 25-45 years. Of these, 51% were female, including 27 pregnant women and 42 lactating mothers. Most participants had received the Sinopharm (62.6%) or Sinovac (17.8%) vaccines. The incidences of at least one side effect after the first (N = 1622), second (N = 1484), and booster doses (N = 219) of the COVID-19 vaccine were 16.5%, 20.1%, and 32%, respectively. Inflammation/erythema at the injection site, pain at the injection site, fever, and bone/muscle pain were common side effects of vaccination. No significant differences were observed in the adverse effect scores between all demographic variables except for pregnancy (P = 0.012) after the initial dose. No significant association was observed between any variable and the side effect scores of the second and booster doses of the vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed a 16-32% prevalence of self-reported side effects after the first, second, and booster COVID-19 vaccinations. Most adverse effects were mild and transient, indicating the safety of different COVID-19 vaccines.

Epidemiological situation of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Douala, the most populated and highly heterogeneous town of Cameroon: a post-vaccination update

This study aimed at providing an update of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology in Douala, the most populated and highly heterogeneous town of Cameroon. A hospital-based cross sectional study was conducted from January to September 2022. A questionnaire was used to collect sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical data. Retrotranscriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples. Of the 2354 individuals approached, 420 were included. The mean age of patients was 42.3 ± 14.4 years (range 21 - 82). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 8.1%. The risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 was increased more than seven times in patients aged ≥ 70 years old (aRR = 7.12, p = 0.001), more than six times in married (aRR = 6.60, p = 0.02), more than seven times in those having completed secondary studies (aRR = 7.85, p = 0.02), HIV-positive patients (aRR = 7.64, p < 0.0001) and asthmatic patients (aRR = 7.60, p = 0.003), and more than nine times in those seeking health care regularly (aRR = 9.24, p = 0.001). In contrast, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was reduced by 86% in patients attending Bonassama hospital (aRR = 0.14, p = 0.04), by 93% in patients of blood group B (aRR = 0.07, p = 0.04), and by 95% in COVID-19 vaccinated participants (aRR = 0.05, p = 0.005). There is need for ongoing surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in Cameroon, given the position and importance of Douala.

COVID-19 Vaccines Status, Acceptance and Hesitancy among Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study and the Implications for Pakistan and Beyond

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy continues to be a widespread problem in Pakistan due to various conspiracy beliefs, myths and misconceptions. Since the hemodialysis population is at a higher risk of contracting infections, we sought to investigate the current COVID-19 immunization status and reasons for any vaccine hesitancy among these patients in Pakistan. This cross-sectional study was conducted among maintenance hemodialysis patients at six hospitals in the Punjab Province of Pakistan. Data were collected anonymously using a questionnaire. A total of 399 hemodialysis patients took part in the survey, the majority of them were male (56%) and aged 45-64 years. A calculated 62.4% of the patients reported receiving at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Of those vaccinated (249), 73.5% had received two doses and 16.9% had received a booster dose. The most common reasons for vaccination were "being aware they were at high risk" (89.6%), "fear of getting infected" (89.2%) and "willingness to fight against COVID-19-pandemic" (83.9%). Of the 150 patients who had not yet been vaccinated, only 10 showed a willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine. The major reasons for refusal included "COVID-19 is not a real problem" (75%), the "corona vaccine is a conspiracy (72.1%)" and "I don't need the vaccine" (60.7%). Our study revealed that only 62% patients receiving hemodialysis were partially or completely vaccinated against COVID-19. Consequently, there is a need to initiate aggressive approaches to educate this high-risk population in order to address their concerns with vaccine safety and efficacy as well as correct current myths and misconceptions to improve the COVID-19 immunization status in this population.

Multi-dimensional potential factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine booster acceptance and hesitancy among university academic community in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional comparative study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Vaccination is the most powerful public health intervention proven to be safe and effective in the battle against the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Despite the potential therapeutic benefits of primer vaccine dosage regimens, public perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine booster dose (VBD) acceptance and hesitancy vary among various sub-group populations. This study investigates COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance and compares the multi-dimensional potential factors influencing VBD acceptance and hesitancy among university teachers and the student community in Bangladesh.

METHODS

This web-based cross-sectional study employed an anonymous, validated, and self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire items were adopted from a theoretical analysis of the recent relevant literature. The questionnaire was deployed in an on-line-enabled format (Google form) and conveniently distributed to 685 teachers and 990 students between 15th June, 2022 and 15th August, 2022 which resulted in the participation of 1250 (505 teachers vs.745 students) total respondents (response rate 73.72% vs. 75.25%) from various universities in Bangladesh. A non-parametric analytical tool (binary logistic regression) was applied to rationalize the study objectives and a Chi-squared test was performed to estimate the booster- hesitant risky group.

RESULTS

The pooled COVID-19 vaccine booster dose acceptance rates were 84.6% (95% CI 81.5─87.7) and 67.2% (95% CI 63.8─70.6) for teachers and students in the university academic community, respectively. In employing a binary logistic regression, this study revealed that out of twelve (12)multi-dimensional key predictors, "equal safety", "risk-benefit ratio", and "variant control" had a significant positive association with VBD acceptance in both sets (p = 0.000, p = 0.000, and p = 0.005, respectively). Varied effects were found for several predictors; post-vaccination "side effects" had a significant negative association (p = 0.020) and "community protection" had significant positive association (p = 0.034) with vaccine booster dose acceptance in the teachers community while these variables were insignificant in the students cohort. "Trust" had a highly significant positive association (p = 0.000);"communication" and "academic attainment" had significant positive associations (p = 0.033 and 0.024, respectively) with VBD acceptance in the students cohort, while these predictors were insignificant in the teachers community. Women were more likely to receive a third dose of the vaccine (OR = 1.4 vs. 0.9 between teacher and student model); however, no significant association between gender and booster vaccine acceptance was found in a comparative Chi-squared model. Therefore, statistically, the booster vaccine-hesitant risky group was not found to implicate the massive booster vaccine drive among the university academic community.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 booster vaccine acceptability among the student cohort was slightly lower than pre-roll-out intent. The teacher community was more inclined to get booster vaccinated. Moreover, differences were found between the multi-dimensional potential factors associated with VBD acceptance among teachers and students in university settings. This study explicitly confirmed positive attitudes toward the safety, health benefits, and variants control of the COVID-19 VBD under any circumstances. Post-vaccination side effect concern was found to be a barrier to administering booster shots and a reason for booster skepticism. Tailored communication and health education interventions need to be adopted to improve the public awareness of booster vaccine consequences, and limit booster skepticism.

Co-morbidity associated with development of severe COVID-19 before vaccine availability: a retrospective cohort study in the first pandemic year among the middle-aged and elderly in Jönköping county, Sweden

BACKGROUND

In preparation of future pandemics, it is important to recognise population-level determinants associated with development of severe illness before efficient vaccines and evidence-based therapeutic measures are available. The aim of this study was to identify pre-pandemic diagnoses recorded in a middle-aged and elderly population that were associated with development of severe COVID-19 during the first pandemic year.

METHODS

A cohort study design was used. Severe COVID-19 was defined as a course of illness that resulted in hospital admission or death. A retrospective analysis was performed that comprised all individuals aged 39 years and older (N = 189,951) living in Jönköping County, Sweden. All diagnosed morbidity recorded in contacts with health care during the pre-pandemic year 2019 was used to identify which diagnoses that were associated with development of severe COVID-19 in the first pandemic year 2020. The analyses were performed separately for each diagnosis using binary logistic regression with adjustment for sex and age.

RESULTS

Severe COVID-19 was suffered by 0.67% (N = 1,280) of the middle-aged and elderly population in the first pandemic year. Individuals previously diagnosed with dementia, cerebral palsy, kidney failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obesity were at higher risk of developing severe COVID-19. For patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus, the odds ratio (OR) was 2.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.92-2.48). Type 1 diabetes mellitus was not associated with increased risk.

CONCLUSION

Diagnoses suggesting service provision at long-term healthcare facilities and co-morbidity with components of the metabolic syndrome were associated with an increased risk of developing severe COVID-19 in a middle-aged and elderly population before vaccines were available.

A survey of mechanisms underlying current and potential COVID-19 vaccines

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 caught the world off guard resulting in a global health crisis. Even though COVID-19 have caused the death of millions of people and many countries are still battling waves of infections, the odds of the pandemic ending soon have turned significantly in our favor. The key has been the development and distribution of a broad range of vaccines in record time. In this survey, we summarize the immunology required to understand the mechanisms underlying current and potential COVID-19 vaccines. Furthermore, we provide an up to date (according to data from WHO May 27, 2022) overview of the vaccine landscape consisting of 11 approved vaccines in phase 4, and a pipeline consisting of 161 vaccine candidates in clinical development and 198 in preclinical development (World Health Organization, Draft landscape and tracker of COVID-19 candidate vaccines [Internet], WHO, 2022). Our focus is to provide an understanding of the underlying biological mode of action of different vaccine platform designs, their advantages and disadvantages, rather than a deep dive into safety and efficacy data. We further present arguments concerning why a broad range of vaccines are needed and discuss future challenges.

COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) can cause off-target inflammatory and immune-related adverse events (irAE). Conceivably, COVID-19 vaccination could trigger an inflammatory and immune response that could induce or aggravate irAE.

METHODS

The objective of this systematic review is to appraise the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer treated with ICI. The literature search was performed in PubMed and Embase in English from December 2019 to February 2022. The review included clinical trials, observational cohort studies, case series, and case reports reporting on the clinical efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines on patients with cancer treated with ICI. Outcomes of interest included seroconversion, SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, severe COVID-19, COVID-19 mortality rate. Incidence of ICI irAEs was also ascertained as well as vaccine adverse events. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the pooled effect sizes of the outcomes when possible, using random effects models.

RESULTS

Overall, 19 studies were included for the analysis (n=10 865 with 2477 receiving ICI). We analyzed 15 cohort studies, 1 cross-sectional study, and 3 case reports. There were no statistically significant differences in seroconversion rates after the second dose of the vaccine when comparing patients with cancer receiving ICI with patients without cancer (risk ratio, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.03) or with patients with cancer without active treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04). There was a higher probability of seroconversion in patients with cancer treated with ICI compared with patients with cancer treated with chemotherapy (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.18). In a single study in patients receiving ICI, no differences were observed in risk of irAE between those receiving inactivated vaccine and those unvaccinated (pneumonitis RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.3; rash RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.62; arthralgia RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.75). There were no studies for other types of vaccines comparing vaccinated vs not vaccinated in patients treated with ICI. The most common vaccine-related adverse events were local pain or fatigue. Overall, the quality of evidence was rated as very low.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccination appears to be effective and safe in patients with cancer receiving ICI.

Transplantation Amid a Pandemic: The Fall and Rise of Kidney Transplantation in the United States

Following the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States, the number of kidney waitlist additions and living-donor and deceased-donor kidney transplants (LDKT/DDKT) decreased substantially but began recovering within a few months. Since then, there have been several additional waves of infection, most notably, the Delta and Omicron surges beginning in August and December 2021, respectively.

Methods

Using SRTR data, we compared observed waitlist registrations, waitlist mortality, waitlist removal due to deteriorating condition, LDKT, and DDKT over 5 distinct pandemic periods to expected events based on calculations from preepidemic data while accounting for seasonality and secular trends.

Results

Although the number of daily waitlist additions has been increasing since May 2020, the size of the active waitlist has consistently declined, reaching a minimum of 52 556 on February 27, 2022. The recent Omicron surge knocked LDKT from 25% below baseline (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.690.750.81) during the Delta wave to 38% below baseline (IRR = 0.580.620.67). DDKT, however, was less affected by the Omicron wave (IRR = 0.850.890.93 and 0.880.920.96 during the Delta and Omicron waves, respectively). Waitlist death decreased from 56% above baseline (IRR = 1.431.561.70) during Delta to 41% above baseline during Omicron, whereas waitlist removal due to deteriorating condition remained at baseline/expected levels during the Delta wave (IRR = 0.931.021.12) and the Omicron wave (IRR = 0.991.071.16).

Conclusions

Despite exceptionally high COVID-19 incidence during the Omicron wave, the transplant system responded similarly to prior waves that imposed a lesser disease burden, demonstrating the transplant system's growing adaptations and resilience to this now endemic disease.

Safety and efficacy of the two doses conjugated protein-based SOBERANA-02 COVID-19 vaccine and of a heterologous three-dose combination with SOBERANA-Plus: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trial

Background

SOBERANA-02 is a COVID-19 conjugate vaccine (recombinant RBD conjugated to tetanus toxoid). Phases 1/2 clinical trials demonstrated high immunogenicity, promoting neutralising IgG and specific T-cell response. A third heterologous dose of SOBERANA-Plus (RBD-dimer) further increased neutralising antibodies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of two immunisation regimes: two doses of SOBERANA-02 and a heterologous three-dose combination with SOBERANA-Plus added to it.

Methods

From March 8th to June 24th, 2021 we conducted in Havana, Cuba a multicentre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase-3 trial evaluating a two doses SOBERANA-02 scheme and a heterologous scheme with one dose SOBERANA-Plus added to it (RPCEC00000354). Participants 19-80 years were randomly assigned to receiving 28 days apart either the two or three dose scheme or placebo. The main endpoint was vaccine efficacy in preventing the occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 at least 14 days after the second or third dose in the per-protocol population. We also assessed efficacy against severe disease and, in all participants receiving at least one vaccine/placebo dose, safety for 28 days after each dose.

Findings

We included 44,031 participants (52.0% female, 48.0% male; median age 50 years, range 19-80 years; 7.0% black, 24.0% mixed-race, 59.0% white) in a context of initial Beta VOC predominance, with this variant being partially replaced by Delta near the trial's end. Vaccine efficacy in the heterologous combination was 92.0% (95%CI 80.4-96.7) against symptomatic disease. There were no severe COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group against 6 in the placebo group. Two doses of SOBERANA-02 was 69.7% (95%CI 56.5-78.9) and 74.9% (95%CI 33.7-90.5) efficacious against symptomatic and severe COVID-19, respectively. The occurrence of serious and severe adverse events (AE) was very rare and equally distributed between placebo and vaccine groups. Solicited AEs were slightly more frequent in the vaccine group but predominantly local and mostly mild and transient.

Interpretation

Our results indicate that the straightforward to manufacture SOBERANA vaccines are efficacious in a context of Beta and Delta VOC circulation, have a favourable safety profile, and may represent an attractive option for use in COVID-19 vaccination programmes.

Funding

This study received funds from the National Fund for Science and Technology (FONCI-CITMA-Cuba, contract 2020-20) of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment of Cuba.

Ongoing Efforts to Improve Antimicrobial Utilization in Hospitals among African Countries and Implications for the Future

There are serious concerns with rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) across countries increasing morbidity, mortality and costs. These concerns have resulted in a plethora of initiatives globally and nationally including national action plans (NAPs) to reduce AMR. Africa is no exception, especially with the highest rates of AMR globally. Key activities in NAPs include gaining a greater understanding of current antimicrobial utilization patterns through point prevalence surveys (PPS) and subsequently instigating antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Consequently, there is a need to comprehensively document current utilization patterns among hospitals across Africa coupled with ASP studies. In total, 33 PPS studies ranging from single up to 18 hospitals were documented from a narrative review with typically over 50% of in-patients prescribed antimicrobials, up to 97.6% in Nigeria. The penicillins, ceftriaxone and metronidazole, were the most prescribed antibiotics. Appreciable extended prescribing of antibiotics up to 6 days or more post-operatively was seen across Africa to prevent surgical site infections. At least 19 ASPs have been instigated across Africa in recent years to improve future prescribing utilizing a range of prescribing indicators. The various findings resulted in a range of suggested activities that key stakeholders, including governments and healthcare professionals, should undertake in the short, medium and long term to improve future antimicrobial prescribing and reduce AMR across Africa.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccines among Secondary School Pupils in Zambia: Implications for Future Educational and Sensitisation Programmes

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in the closure of schools to slow the spread of the virus across populations, and the administration of vaccines to protect people from severe disease, including school children and adolescents. In Zambia, there is currently little information on the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines among school-going children and adolescents despite their inclusion in the vaccination programme. This study assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines among secondary school pupils in Lusaka, Zambia. A cross-sectional study was conducted from August 2022 to October 2022. Of the 998 participants, 646 (64.7%) were female, and 127 (12.7%) would accept to be vaccinated. Those who were willing to be vaccinated had better knowledge (68.5% vs. 56.3%) and a positive attitude (79.1% vs. 33.7%) compared to those who were hesitant. Overall, the odds of vaccine acceptance were higher among pupils who had higher knowledge scores (AOR = 11.75, 95% CI: 6.51-21.2), positive attitude scores (AOR = 9.85, 95% CI: 4.35-22.2), and those who knew a friend or relative who had died from COVID-19 (AOR = 3.27, 95% CI: 2.14-5.09). The low vaccine acceptance among pupils is of public health concern, emphasising the need for heightened sensitisation programmes that promote vaccine acceptance among pupils in Zambia.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines

BACKGROUND

Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Factors influencing estimated effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in non-randomised studies

Non-randomised studies assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness need to consider multiple factors that may generate spurious estimates due to bias or genuinely modify effectiveness. These include pre-existing immunity, vaccination misclassification, exposure differences, testing, disease risk factor confounding, hospital admission decision, treatment use differences, and death attribution. It is useful to separate whether the impact of each factor admission decision, treatment use differences, and death attribution. Steps and measures to consider for improving vaccine effectiveness estimation include registration of studies and of analysis plans; sharing of raw data and code; background collection of reliable information; blinded assessment of outcomes, e.g. death causes; using maximal/best information in properly-matched studies, multivariable analyses, propensity analyses, and other models; performing randomised trials, whenever possible, for suitable questions, e.g. booster doses or comparative effectiveness of different vaccination strategies; living meta-analyses of vaccine effectiveness; better communication with both relative and absolute metrics of risk reduction and presentation of uncertainty; and avoidance of exaggeration in communicating results to the general public.

Current clinical status of new COVID-19 vaccines and immunotherapy

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, is a positive-strand RNA belonging to Coronaviridae family, along with MERS and SARS. Since its first report in 2019 in Wuhan, China, it has affected over 530 million people and led to 6.3 million deaths worldwide until June 2022. Despite eleven vaccines being used worldwide already, new variants are of concern. Therefore, the governing bodies are re-evaluating the strategies for achieving universal vaccination. Initially, the WHO expected that vaccines showing around 50-80% efficacy would develop in 1-2 years. However, US-FDA announced emergency approval of the two m-RNA vaccines within 11 months of vaccine development, which enabled early vaccination for healthcare workers in many countries. Later, in January 2021, 63 vaccine candidates were under human clinical trials and 172 under preclinical development. Currently, the number of such clinical studies is still increasing. In this review, we have summarized the updates on the clinical status of the COVID-19 and the available treatments. Additionally, COVID-19 had created negative impacts on world's economy; affected agriculture, industries, and tourism service sectors; and majorly affected low-income countries. The review discusses the clinical outcomes, latest statistics, socio-economic impacts of pandemic and treatment approaches against SARS-CoV-2, and strategies against the new variant of concern. The review will help understand the current status of vaccines and other therapies while also providing insights about upcoming vaccines and therapies for COVID-19 management.

Estimating conditional vaccine effectiveness

Vaccine effectiveness for COVID-19 is typically estimated for different outcomes that often are hierarchical in severity (e.g. any documented infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization, death) and subsets of each other. Conditional effectiveness for a more severe outcome conditional on a less severe outcome is the protection offered against the severe outcome (e.g. death) among those who already sustained the less severe outcome (e.g. documented infection). The concept applies also to the protection offered by previous infection rather than vaccination. Formulas and a nomogram are provided here for calculating conditional effectiveness. Illustrative examples are presented from recent vaccine effectiveness studies, including situations where effectiveness for different outcomes changed at different pace over time. E(death | documented infection) is the percent decrease in the case fatality rate and E(death | infection) is the percent decrease in the infection fatality rate (IFR). Conditional effectiveness depends on many factors and should not be misinterpreted as a causal effect estimate. However, it may be used for better personalized communication of the benefits of vaccination, considering also IFR and epidemic activity in public health decision-making and communication.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic across Africa: Current Status of Vaccinations and Implications for the Future

The introduction of effective vaccines in December 2020 marked a significant step forward in the global response to COVID-19. Given concerns with access, acceptability, and hesitancy across Africa, there is a need to describe the current status of vaccine uptake in the continent. An exploratory study was undertaken to investigate these aspects, current challenges, and lessons learnt across Africa to provide future direction. Senior personnel across 14 African countries completed a self-administered questionnaire, with a descriptive analysis of the data. Vaccine roll-out commenced in March 2021 in most countries. COVID-19 vaccination coverage varied from low in Cameroon and Tanzania and up to 39.85% full coverage in Botswana at the end of 2021; that is, all doses advocated by initial protocols versus the total population, with rates increasing to 58.4% in Botswana by the end of June 2022. The greatest increase in people being fully vaccinated was observed in Uganda (20.4% increase), Botswana (18.5% increase), and Zambia (17.9% increase). Most vaccines were obtained through WHO-COVAX agreements. Initially, vaccination was prioritised for healthcare workers (HCWs), the elderly, adults with co-morbidities, and other at-risk groups, with countries now commencing vaccination among children and administering booster doses. Challenges included irregular supply and considerable hesitancy arising from misinformation fuelled by social media activities. Overall, there was fair to reasonable access to vaccination across countries, enhanced by government initiatives. Vaccine hesitancy must be addressed with context-specific interventions, including proactive programmes among HCWs, medical journalists, and the public.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several vaccines showed a good safety profile and significant efficacy against COVID-19. Moreover, in the absence of direct head to head comparison between COVID-19 vaccines, a network meta-analysis that indirectly compares between them is needed.

METHODS

Databases PubMed, CENTRAL, medRxiv, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Studies were included if they were placebo-controlled clinical trials and reported the safety profile and/or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for nonrandomized trials.

RESULTS

Forty-nine clinical trials that included 421,173 participants and assessed 28 vaccines were included in this network meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that Pfizer is the most effective in preventing COVID-19 infection whereas the Sputnik Vaccine was the most effective in preventing severe COVID-19 infection. In terms of the local and systemic side, the Sinopharm and V-01 vaccines were the safest.

CONCLUSION

We found that almost all of the vaccines included in this study crossed the threshold of 50% efficacy. However, some of them did not reach the previously mentioned threshold against the B.1.351 variant while the remainder have not yet investigated vaccine efficacy against this variant. Since each vaccine has its own strong and weak points, we strongly advocate continued vaccination efforts in individualized manner that recommend the best vaccine for each group in the community which is abundantly required to save lives and to avert the emergence of future variants.

Efficacy and safety profile of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in patients with hematological malignancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Patient populations, including those with hematological malignancies, have different responses to COVID-19 vaccines. This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies. Studies reporting on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in cohorts with hematological malignancies compared to healthy controls were systematically searched in four databases. Meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were performed to generate quantitative synthesis. Fifteen studies with 2,055 cohorts with hematological malignancies and 1,105 healthy subjects as control were included. After two doses of COVID-19 vaccination, only 60% of cohorts with hematological malignancies were seroconverted compared to healthy controls (RR 0.60; 95%CI 0.50–0.71). A single dose of the vaccine resulted in a significantly lower seroconversion rate (RR 0.30; 95%CI 0.16–0.54). Non-Hodgkin lymphoma cohorts had the lowest rate of seroconversion (RR 0.5; 95%CI 0.35–0.71) and those who received active treatments had lower immunological responses (RR 0.59; 95%CI 0.46–0.75). Antibody titers were lower in cohorts with hematological malignancies without any differences in adverse effects in both groups. In conclusion, cohorts with hematological malignancies showed a lower seroconversion rate and antibody titers after receiving COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The type of malignancy and the status of treatment had a significant impact on the response to vaccination. The vaccines were shown to be safe for both patients with hematological malignancies and healthy controls. Booster doses and stricter health protocols might be beneficial for patient populations.

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Purpose

The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed.

Results

Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode.

Conclusion

Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

Myocardial Infarction Following COVID-19 Vaccine Administration: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc?

Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the safest and most effective strategy for controlling the pandemic. However, some cases of acute cardiac events following vaccine administration have been reported, including myocarditis and myocardial infarction (MI). While post-vaccine myocarditis has been widely discussed, information about post-vaccine MI is scarce and heterogenous, often lacking in histopathological and pathophysiological details. We hereby present five cases (four men, mean age 64 years, range 50–76) of sudden death secondary to MI and tightly temporally related to COVID-19 vaccination. In each case, comprehensive macro- and microscopic pathological analyses were performed, including post-mortem cardiac magnetic resonance, to ascertain the cause of death. To investigate the pathophysiological determinants of MI, toxicological and tryptase analyses were performed, yielding negative results, while the absence of anti-platelet factor 4 antibodies ruled out vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia. Finally, genetic testing disclosed that all subjects were carriers of at least one pro-thrombotic mutation. Although the presented cases do not allow us to establish any causative relation, they should foster further research to investigate the possible link between COVID-19 vaccination, pro-thrombotic genotypes, and acute cardiovascular events.

A single-center COVID-19 vaccine experience with CoronaVac and BNT162b2 in familial Mediterranean fever patients

AIM

To determine frequency of adverse events and attacks related to vaccination in recipients of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 in familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) patients, and to search whether history of prior COVID-19 or a booster dose increases occurrence of adverse events/attacks.

METHODS

FMF patients were surveyed for administration of any COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine-related adverse events or FMF attacks. Demographic, clinical, vaccine-related data, history of COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination, adherence to FMF treatment during vaccination were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 161 vaccinated FMF patients were included. Ninety-three patients out of 161 had reported suffering from an adverse event/attack after a vaccine dose. There were 54.7% of BNT162b2 recipients who reported any adverse event after any vaccine dose in comparison to 29.9% of CoronaVac recipients (P < .001). There were 22.2% of BNT162b2 recipients who reported suffering from a FMF attack within 1 month after vaccination in comparison to 19.4% of CoronaVac recipients (P = .653). When patients with or without adverse event/attack were compared, no significant differences were observed in means of demographics, comorbid diseases, disease duration, total vaccine doses, or treatments adhered to for FMF. Rates of adverse events/attacks were similar between patients with and without prior COVID-19. In booster recipients, adverse events/attacks were most frequent after the booster dose.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable number of FMF patients suffered from vaccine-related adverse events/attacks, particularly with BNT162b2. No serious events or mortalities due to vaccination were detected. Demographics, clinical characteristics and prior history of vaccination did not significantly affect these results. We observed an increased rate of adverse events/attacks with booster dose administration.

Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in vaccine randomised clinical trials: a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in randomised clinical trials in relation to human vaccine development.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis assessing the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

DATA SOURCES

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science until 29 June 2021, and Chinese databases until September 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials irrespective of type, status and language of publication, with trial participants of any sex, age, ethnicity, diagnosis, comorbidity and country of residence.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Cochrane's RoB tool 1. Dichotomous data were analysed as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences. We explored both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was quantified with I2 statistic. We GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

We included 102 randomised clinical trials (26 457 participants). Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may have no effect on serious adverse events (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.43; very low certainty) and on all-cause mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.41; very low certainty). No trial reported on quality of life. Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may increase adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.20; very low certainty). We found no or little evidence of a difference between aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention when assessing serology with geometric mean titres or concentrations or participants' seroprotection.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on evidence at very low certainty, we were unable to identify benefits of aluminium adjuvants, which may be associated with adverse events considered non-serious.