ABSTRACT
Background A global shift to bivalent mRNA vaccines is ongoing to counterbalance diminishing monovalent vaccine effectiveness (VE) due to the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants, yet substantial variation in the bivalent VE exists across studies and a complete picture is lacking.
Methods We searched papers evaluating SARS-CoV-2 bivalent mRNA vaccines on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, Scopus, bioRxiv, and medRxiv published from September 1st, 2022, to November 8th, 2023. Pooled VE against Omicron-associated infection and severe events was estimated in reference to unvaccinated, ≥2 monovalent doses, and ≥3 monovalent doses.
Results From 630 citations identified, 28 studies were included, involving 55,393,303 individuals. Bivalent boosters demonstrated superior protection against symptomatic or any infection compared to unvaccinated, ≥2 monovalent doses, and ≥3 monovalent doses, with corresponding relative VE estimated as 53.5% (95% CI: - 22.2-82.3%), 30.8% (95% CI: 22.5-38.2%), and 28.4% (95% CI: 10.2-42.9%) for all ages, and 22.5% (95% CI: 16.8-39.8%), 31.4% (95% CI: 27.7-35.0%), and 30.6% (95% CI: -13.2-57.5%) for adults ≥60 years old. Pooled bivalent VE estimates against severe events were higher, 72.9% (95% CI: 60.5-82.4%), 57.6% (95% CI: 42.4-68.8%), and 62.1% (95% CI: 54.6-68.3%) for all ages, and 72.0% (95% CI: 51.4-83.9%), 63.4% (95% CI: 41.0-77.3%), and 60.7% (95% CI: 52.4-67.6%) for adults ≥60 years old, compared to unvaccinated, ≥2 monovalent doses, and ≥3 monovalent doses, respectively.
Conclusions Bivalent boosters demonstrated higher VE against severe outcomes than monovalent boosters across age groups, highlighting the critical need for improving vaccine coverage, especially among the vulnerable older subpopulation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
SSong, YY and IL were supported by US CDC grant U01 CK000670.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The raw summary-level data were derived from publicly available papers cited in the reference. Extracted data and programming codes will be made available upon request by email to the corresponding author.
