Cargando…

Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Heterologous Booster Doses with Homologous Booster Doses for SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

As vaccine resources were distributed unevenly worldwide, sometimes there might have been shortages or delays in vaccine supply; therefore, considering the use of heterogeneous booster doses for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be an alternative strategy. Therefore, we aimed to review the d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Deng, Jie, Ma, Yirui, Liu, Qiao, Du, Min, Liu, Min, Liu, Jue
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9517782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36078466
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710752
_version_ 1784799021548699648
author Deng, Jie
Ma, Yirui
Liu, Qiao
Du, Min
Liu, Min
Liu, Jue
author_facet Deng, Jie
Ma, Yirui
Liu, Qiao
Du, Min
Liu, Min
Liu, Jue
author_sort Deng, Jie
collection PubMed
description As vaccine resources were distributed unevenly worldwide, sometimes there might have been shortages or delays in vaccine supply; therefore, considering the use of heterogeneous booster doses for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be an alternative strategy. Therefore, we aimed to review the data available to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of heterologous booster doses with homologous booster doses for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines. We searched relevant studies up to 27 April 2022. Random-effects inverse variance models were used to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of COVID-19 outcomes and odds ratio (OR) and its CI of safety events. The Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale and Cochrane Collaboration’s tool were used to assess the quality of the included cohort studies. A total of 23 studies involving 1,726,506 inoculation cases of homologous booster dose and 5,343,580 inoculation cases of heterologous booster dose was included. The VE of heterologous booster for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection (VE(heterologous) = 96.10%, VE(homologous) = 84.00%), symptomatic COVID-19 (VE(heterologous) = 56.80%, VE(homologous) = 17.30%), and COVID-19-related hospital admissions (VE(heterologous) = 97.40%, VE(homologous) = 93.20%) was higher than homologous booster. Compared with homologous booster group, there was a higher risk of fever (OR = 1.930, 95% CI, 1.199–3.107), myalgia (OR = 1.825, 95% CI, 1.079–3.089), and malaise or fatigue (OR = 1.745, 95% CI, 1.047–2.906) within 7 days after boosting, and a higher risk of malaise or fatigue (OR = 4.140, 95% CI, 1.729–9.916) within 28 days after boosting in heterologous booster group. Compared with homologous booster group, geometric mean neutralizing titers (GMTs) of neutralizing antibody for different SARS-CoV-2 variants and response rate of antibody and gama interferon were higher in heterologous booster group. Our findings suggested that both homologous and heterologous COVID-19 booster doses had great effectiveness, immunogenicity, and acceptable safety, and a heterologous booster dose was more effective, which would help make appropriate public health decisions and reduce public hesitancy in vaccination.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9517782
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95177822022-09-29 Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Heterologous Booster Doses with Homologous Booster Doses for SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Deng, Jie Ma, Yirui Liu, Qiao Du, Min Liu, Min Liu, Jue Int J Environ Res Public Health Systematic Review As vaccine resources were distributed unevenly worldwide, sometimes there might have been shortages or delays in vaccine supply; therefore, considering the use of heterogeneous booster doses for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be an alternative strategy. Therefore, we aimed to review the data available to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of heterologous booster doses with homologous booster doses for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines. We searched relevant studies up to 27 April 2022. Random-effects inverse variance models were used to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of COVID-19 outcomes and odds ratio (OR) and its CI of safety events. The Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale and Cochrane Collaboration’s tool were used to assess the quality of the included cohort studies. A total of 23 studies involving 1,726,506 inoculation cases of homologous booster dose and 5,343,580 inoculation cases of heterologous booster dose was included. The VE of heterologous booster for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection (VE(heterologous) = 96.10%, VE(homologous) = 84.00%), symptomatic COVID-19 (VE(heterologous) = 56.80%, VE(homologous) = 17.30%), and COVID-19-related hospital admissions (VE(heterologous) = 97.40%, VE(homologous) = 93.20%) was higher than homologous booster. Compared with homologous booster group, there was a higher risk of fever (OR = 1.930, 95% CI, 1.199–3.107), myalgia (OR = 1.825, 95% CI, 1.079–3.089), and malaise or fatigue (OR = 1.745, 95% CI, 1.047–2.906) within 7 days after boosting, and a higher risk of malaise or fatigue (OR = 4.140, 95% CI, 1.729–9.916) within 28 days after boosting in heterologous booster group. Compared with homologous booster group, geometric mean neutralizing titers (GMTs) of neutralizing antibody for different SARS-CoV-2 variants and response rate of antibody and gama interferon were higher in heterologous booster group. Our findings suggested that both homologous and heterologous COVID-19 booster doses had great effectiveness, immunogenicity, and acceptable safety, and a heterologous booster dose was more effective, which would help make appropriate public health decisions and reduce public hesitancy in vaccination. MDPI 2022-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9517782/ /pubmed/36078466 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710752 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Deng, Jie
Ma, Yirui
Liu, Qiao
Du, Min
Liu, Min
Liu, Jue
Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Heterologous Booster Doses with Homologous Booster Doses for SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Heterologous Booster Doses with Homologous Booster Doses for SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Heterologous Booster Doses with Homologous Booster Doses for SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Heterologous Booster Doses with Homologous Booster Doses for SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Heterologous Booster Doses with Homologous Booster Doses for SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Heterologous Booster Doses with Homologous Booster Doses for SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort comparison of the effectiveness and safety of heterologous booster doses with homologous booster doses for sars-cov-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9517782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36078466
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710752
work_keys_str_mv AT dengjie comparisonoftheeffectivenessandsafetyofheterologousboosterdoseswithhomologousboosterdosesforsarscov2vaccinesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mayirui comparisonoftheeffectivenessandsafetyofheterologousboosterdoseswithhomologousboosterdosesforsarscov2vaccinesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liuqiao comparisonoftheeffectivenessandsafetyofheterologousboosterdoseswithhomologousboosterdosesforsarscov2vaccinesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dumin comparisonoftheeffectivenessandsafetyofheterologousboosterdoseswithhomologousboosterdosesforsarscov2vaccinesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liumin comparisonoftheeffectivenessandsafetyofheterologousboosterdoseswithhomologousboosterdosesforsarscov2vaccinesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liujue comparisonoftheeffectivenessandsafetyofheterologousboosterdoseswithhomologousboosterdosesforsarscov2vaccinesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis