Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America..
Background: Five severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are approved in North America and/or Europe: Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen, Oxford-AstraZeneca, and Novavax. Other vaccines have been developed, including Sinopharm, SinoVac, QazVac, Covaxin, Soberana, Zifivax, Medicago, Clover, and Cansino, but they are not approved in high-income countries. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved and -unapproved vaccines in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
Methods: A systematic review of trial registries identified RCTs of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool (RoB 2). In the meta-analysis, relative risks of symptomatic infection and severe disease were compared for each vaccine versus placebo, using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel Tests (random effects method).
Results: Twenty-two RCTs were identified and 1 was excluded for high-risk of bias. Ten RCTs evaluated 5 approved vaccines and 11 RCTs evaluated 9 unapproved vaccines. In the meta-analysis, prevention of symptomatic infection was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68%-92%) for approved vaccines versus 72% (95% CI, 66%-77%) for unapproved vaccines, with no significant difference between vaccine types (P = .12). Prevention of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection was 94% (95% CI, 75%-98%) for approved vaccines versus 86% (95% CI, 76%-92%) for unapproved vaccines (P = .33). The risk of serious adverse events was similar between vaccine types (P = .12).
Conclusions: This meta-analysis of 21 RCTs in 390 459 participants showed no significant difference in efficacy between the FDA/EMA-approved and -unapproved vaccines for symptomatic or severe infection. Differences in study design, endpoint definitions, variants, and infection prevalence may have influenced results. New patent-free vaccines could lower costs of worldwide SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns significantly.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:9 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Open forum infectious diseases - 9(2022), 9 vom: 16. Sept., Seite ofac408 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Perez Navarro, Andrea [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Access to medicines |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 13.09.2022 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1093/ofid/ofac408 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM34609805X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM34609805X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226030618.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1093/ofid/ofac408 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1153.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM34609805X | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)36092832 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Perez Navarro, Andrea |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 13.09.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. | ||
| 520 | |a Background: Five severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are approved in North America and/or Europe: Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen, Oxford-AstraZeneca, and Novavax. Other vaccines have been developed, including Sinopharm, SinoVac, QazVac, Covaxin, Soberana, Zifivax, Medicago, Clover, and Cansino, but they are not approved in high-income countries. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved and -unapproved vaccines in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) | ||
| 520 | |a Methods: A systematic review of trial registries identified RCTs of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool (RoB 2). In the meta-analysis, relative risks of symptomatic infection and severe disease were compared for each vaccine versus placebo, using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel Tests (random effects method) | ||
| 520 | |a Results: Twenty-two RCTs were identified and 1 was excluded for high-risk of bias. Ten RCTs evaluated 5 approved vaccines and 11 RCTs evaluated 9 unapproved vaccines. In the meta-analysis, prevention of symptomatic infection was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68%-92%) for approved vaccines versus 72% (95% CI, 66%-77%) for unapproved vaccines, with no significant difference between vaccine types (P = .12). Prevention of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection was 94% (95% CI, 75%-98%) for approved vaccines versus 86% (95% CI, 76%-92%) for unapproved vaccines (P = .33). The risk of serious adverse events was similar between vaccine types (P = .12) | ||
| 520 | |a Conclusions: This meta-analysis of 21 RCTs in 390 459 participants showed no significant difference in efficacy between the FDA/EMA-approved and -unapproved vaccines for symptomatic or severe infection. Differences in study design, endpoint definitions, variants, and infection prevalence may have influenced results. New patent-free vaccines could lower costs of worldwide SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns significantly | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a COVID-19 vaccination | |
| 650 | 4 | |a access to medicines | |
| 650 | 4 | |a vaccines | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Pilkington, Victoria |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Pepperrell, Toby |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mirchandani, Manya |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Levi, Jacob |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hill, Andrew |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Open forum infectious diseases |d 2014 |g 9(2022), 9 vom: 16. Sept., Seite ofac408 |w (DE-627)NLM243576811 |x 2328-8957 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:9 |g year:2022 |g number:9 |g day:16 |g month:09 |g pages:ofac408 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac408 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 9 |j 2022 |e 9 |b 16 |c 09 |h ofac408 | ||