Cargando…

Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Perez Navarro, Andrea, Pilkington, Victoria, Pepperrell, Toby, Mirchandani, Manya, Levi, Jacob, Hill, Andrew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9452066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36092832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac408
_version_ 1784784862206492672
author Perez Navarro, Andrea
Pilkington, Victoria
Pepperrell, Toby
Mirchandani, Manya
Levi, Jacob
Hill, Andrew
author_facet Perez Navarro, Andrea
Pilkington, Victoria
Pepperrell, Toby
Mirchandani, Manya
Levi, Jacob
Hill, Andrew
author_sort Perez Navarro, Andrea
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9452066
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94520662022-09-09 Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials Perez Navarro, Andrea Pilkington, Victoria Pepperrell, Toby Mirchandani, Manya Levi, Jacob Hill, Andrew Open Forum Infect Dis Invited Article 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. Oxford University Press 2022-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9452066/ /pubmed/36092832 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac408 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Invited Article
Perez Navarro, Andrea
Pilkington, Victoria
Pepperrell, Toby
Mirchandani, Manya
Levi, Jacob
Hill, Andrew
Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials
title Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials
title_full Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials
title_fullStr Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials
title_short Efficacy of Approved Versus Unapproved Vaccines for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Randomized Blinded Clinical Trials
title_sort efficacy of approved versus unapproved vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in randomized blinded clinical trials
topic Invited Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9452066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36092832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac408
work_keys_str_mv AT pereznavarroandrea efficacyofapprovedversusunapprovedvaccinesforsevereacuterespiratorysyndromecoronavirus2infectioninrandomizedblindedclinicaltrials
AT pilkingtonvictoria efficacyofapprovedversusunapprovedvaccinesforsevereacuterespiratorysyndromecoronavirus2infectioninrandomizedblindedclinicaltrials
AT pepperrelltoby efficacyofapprovedversusunapprovedvaccinesforsevereacuterespiratorysyndromecoronavirus2infectioninrandomizedblindedclinicaltrials
AT mirchandanimanya efficacyofapprovedversusunapprovedvaccinesforsevereacuterespiratorysyndromecoronavirus2infectioninrandomizedblindedclinicaltrials
AT levijacob efficacyofapprovedversusunapprovedvaccinesforsevereacuterespiratorysyndromecoronavirus2infectioninrandomizedblindedclinicaltrials
AT hillandrew efficacyofapprovedversusunapprovedvaccinesforsevereacuterespiratorysyndromecoronavirus2infectioninrandomizedblindedclinicaltrials