Comparative effectiveness of three common SARS-COV-2 vaccines: A network meta-analysis of randomized trials

IF 0.9 Q4 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Medicina de Familia-SEMERGEN Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1016/j.semerg.2024.102343
A.A. Syed , F. Eqbal , H.R. Shamsi , A.R.S. Syed , S.J. Zakir , M. Fawzy , K.S. Khan
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of three common SARS-COV-2 vaccines: A network meta-analysis of randomized trials","authors":"A.A. Syed ,&nbsp;F. Eqbal ,&nbsp;H.R. Shamsi ,&nbsp;A.R.S. Syed ,&nbsp;S.J. Zakir ,&nbsp;M. Fawzy ,&nbsp;K.S. Khan","doi":"10.1016/j.semerg.2024.102343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for preventing COVID-19 have regulatory approval in most countries. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare their effectiveness.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ICTRP, and Clinicaltrials.gov for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1st January 2020 and 1st February 2024. Eligible RCTs evaluated the Moderna, Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines among healthy individuals and reported the effectiveness of vaccination <em>versus</em> control measured with the outcome occurrence of COVID-19. We performed study selection, data extraction, and quality (risk of bias) assessment in duplicate. Network meta-analysis with random effects models was used to generate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), evaluating heterogeneity statistically using <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> for direct comparisons and ranking vaccines hierarchically using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). This study was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42023457957.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Of the 1954 initial citation, 18 RCTs (272,724 participants; 151,034 received one of the vaccines and 121,690 controls) that reported the outcome occurrence of COVID-19 were selected. Of these, 2 (11%) were moderate and 5 (28%) were high in quality. In network meta-analysis, all three vaccines were effective compared directly with control (Moderna OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07–0.26, <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> 97%; Pfizer OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05–0.19, <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> 78%; AstraZeneca OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25–0.59, <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> 63%). Indirect comparison of vaccines using control as the common comparator showed that AstraZeneca was less effective than Moderna (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.32–6.12) and Pfizer (OR 3.94, 95% CI 1.80–8.60), while Moderna <em>versus</em> Pfizer showed no difference (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.56–3.46). Vaccine SUCRA probabilities were higher for Pfizer than Moderna and AstraZeneca (92%, 75% and 33% respectively compared to control).</div></div><div><h3>Interpretations</h3><div>Pfizer ranks highest followed by Moderna (without a statistically significant difference) and AstraZeneca vaccines for preventing symptomatic COVID-19.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":53212,"journal":{"name":"Medicina de Familia-SEMERGEN","volume":"51 2","pages":"Article 102343"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina de Familia-SEMERGEN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1138359324001539","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for preventing COVID-19 have regulatory approval in most countries. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare their effectiveness.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ICTRP, and Clinicaltrials.gov for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1st January 2020 and 1st February 2024. Eligible RCTs evaluated the Moderna, Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines among healthy individuals and reported the effectiveness of vaccination versus control measured with the outcome occurrence of COVID-19. We performed study selection, data extraction, and quality (risk of bias) assessment in duplicate. Network meta-analysis with random effects models was used to generate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), evaluating heterogeneity statistically using I2 for direct comparisons and ranking vaccines hierarchically using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). This study was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42023457957.

Findings

Of the 1954 initial citation, 18 RCTs (272,724 participants; 151,034 received one of the vaccines and 121,690 controls) that reported the outcome occurrence of COVID-19 were selected. Of these, 2 (11%) were moderate and 5 (28%) were high in quality. In network meta-analysis, all three vaccines were effective compared directly with control (Moderna OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07–0.26, I2 97%; Pfizer OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05–0.19, I2 78%; AstraZeneca OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25–0.59, I2 63%). Indirect comparison of vaccines using control as the common comparator showed that AstraZeneca was less effective than Moderna (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.32–6.12) and Pfizer (OR 3.94, 95% CI 1.80–8.60), while Moderna versus Pfizer showed no difference (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.56–3.46). Vaccine SUCRA probabilities were higher for Pfizer than Moderna and AstraZeneca (92%, 75% and 33% respectively compared to control).

Interpretations

Pfizer ranks highest followed by Moderna (without a statistically significant difference) and AstraZeneca vaccines for preventing symptomatic COVID-19.
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
三种常见SARS-COV-2疫苗的比较有效性:随机试验的网络荟萃分析
现代(moderna)、辉瑞(Pfizer)和阿斯利康(AstraZeneca)用于预防COVID-19的SARS-CoV-2疫苗已在大多数国家获得监管机构的批准。我们进行了网络荟萃分析来比较它们的有效性。方法检索PubMed、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central)、ICTRP和Clinicaltrials.gov,检索2020年1月1日至2024年2月1日发表的随机对照试验(RCTs)。符合条件的随机对照试验在健康个体中评估了Moderna、辉瑞或阿斯利康疫苗,并报告了以COVID-19的结果发生率衡量的疫苗接种与对照的有效性。我们一式两份进行了研究选择、数据提取和质量(偏倚风险)评估。使用随机效应模型的网络荟萃分析生成95%置信区间(CI)的优势比(OR),使用I2进行直接比较,在统计上评估异质性,并使用累积排序曲线下的曲面(SUCRA)对疫苗进行分层排序。本研究注册号为PROSPERO, CRD42023457957。1954年首次引用,18项随机对照试验(272,724名受试者;报告结果发生COVID-19的151,034名接种了其中一种疫苗,121,690名对照)被选中。其中,2个(11%)为中等质量,5个(28%)为高质量。在网络荟萃分析中,与对照组直接比较,这三种疫苗均有效(Moderna OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07-0.26, I2 97%;辉瑞OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05-0.19, I2 78%;阿斯利康OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.59, I2 63%)。以对照作为共同比较物的疫苗间接比较显示,阿斯利康的有效性低于Moderna (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.32-6.12)和辉瑞(OR 3.94, 95% CI 1.80-8.60),而Moderna和辉瑞没有差异(OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.56-3.46)。辉瑞的疫苗SUCRA概率高于Moderna和阿斯利康(分别为92%、75%和33%)。InterpretationsPfizer排名最高,其次是Moderna(无统计学差异)和阿斯利康(AstraZeneca)预防症状性COVID-19疫苗。
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
Medicina de Familia-SEMERGEN
Medicina de Familia-SEMERGEN PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
18.20%
发文量
83
审稿时长
39 days
期刊最新文献
Indicadores bioquímicos y cardiovasculares asociados a la fuerza prensil manual en niños y adolescentes. Una revisión de alcance Asociación entre las variables sociodemográficas, los hábitos saludables y el estrés con síndrome metabólico: un estudio descriptivo y transversal Análisis de características demográficas, de salud y adherencia a la dieta mediterránea en mujeres embarazadas. Cuestionario MEDAS El valor estratégico de la medicina rural: Declaración de Úbeda Fisiología del envejecimiento: Actualización y perspectiva genética
×
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