How well do different COVID-19 vaccines protect against different viral variants? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1093/trstmh/trae082
Thi Ngoc Anh Hoang, Aisling Byrne, Ha-Linh Quach, Melanie Bannister-Tyrrell, Florian Vogt
{"title":"How well do different COVID-19 vaccines protect against different viral variants? A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Thi Ngoc Anh Hoang, Aisling Byrne, Ha-Linh Quach, Melanie Bannister-Tyrrell, Florian Vogt","doi":"10.1093/trstmh/trae082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While the efficacy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has been evaluated in numerous trials, comprehensive evidence on how protection by different vaccines has varied over time remains limited. We aimed to compare protective effects of different vaccines against different viral variants. To achieve this, we searched Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Forest plots using Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects models were generated showing risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs by vaccines and variants. We included 36 studies with 90 variant-specific primary outcomes. We found a RR of 0.26 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.31) against all variants overall, with the highest protective effects against the wild-type (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18), followed by Alpha (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.36), Gamma (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55), Delta (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.56) and Beta (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62) variants. Nucleic acid vaccines showed the highest protection levels against all variants (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15), followed by protein subunit, inactivated virus and viral vector. In conclusion, we found high but heterogenous levels of protection for most COVID-19 vaccines, with decreasing protective effects for vaccines based on traditional technologies as SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged over time. Novel nucleic acid-based vaccines offered substantially higher and more consistent protection.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/trae082","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While the efficacy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has been evaluated in numerous trials, comprehensive evidence on how protection by different vaccines has varied over time remains limited. We aimed to compare protective effects of different vaccines against different viral variants. To achieve this, we searched Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Forest plots using Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects models were generated showing risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs by vaccines and variants. We included 36 studies with 90 variant-specific primary outcomes. We found a RR of 0.26 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.31) against all variants overall, with the highest protective effects against the wild-type (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18), followed by Alpha (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.36), Gamma (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55), Delta (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.56) and Beta (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62) variants. Nucleic acid vaccines showed the highest protection levels against all variants (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15), followed by protein subunit, inactivated virus and viral vector. In conclusion, we found high but heterogenous levels of protection for most COVID-19 vaccines, with decreasing protective effects for vaccines based on traditional technologies as SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged over time. Novel nucleic acid-based vaccines offered substantially higher and more consistent protection.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同的 COVID-19 疫苗对不同病毒变种的保护效果如何?系统回顾和荟萃分析。
虽然冠状病毒病 2019(COVID-19)疫苗的功效已在许多试验中得到评估,但关于不同疫苗的保护效果随时间变化的全面证据仍然有限。我们旨在比较不同疫苗对不同病毒变种的保护效果。为此,我们在 Medline、Cochrane 图书馆和 Embase 中检索了评估 COVID-19 疫苗疗效的随机对照试验。使用曼特尔-海恩泽尔模型和随机效应模型生成森林图,显示疫苗和变种的风险比 (RR) 和 95% CI。我们纳入了 36 项研究和 90 个变异株的主要结果。我们发现,针对所有变异体的总体 RR 为 0.26(95% CI 0.21 至 0.31),针对野生型变异体的保护效果最高(RR 0.13;95% CI 0.10 至 0.18),其次是 Alpha 变异体(RR 0.26;95% CI 0.18 至 0.36)、Gamma 变异体(RR 0.34;95% CI 0.21 至 0.55)、Delta 变异体(RR 0.39;95% CI 0.28 至 0.56)和 Beta 变异体(RR 0.49;95% CI 0.40 至 0.62)。核酸疫苗对所有变异株的保护水平最高(RR 0.11;95% CI 0.08 至 0.15),其次是蛋白亚单位、灭活病毒和病毒载体。总之,我们发现大多数 COVID-19 疫苗的保护水平较高,但并不均衡,随着时间的推移,SARS-CoV-2 变种的出现,基于传统技术的疫苗的保护效果也在下降。基于核酸的新型疫苗提供了更高更稳定的保护效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1