RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.09.28.21264126
DO 10.1101/2021.09.28.21264126
A1 Ainsley Ryan Yan Bin Lee
A1 Shi Yin Wong
A1 Louis Yi Ann Chai
A1 Soo Chin Lee
A1 Matilda Lee
A1 Mark Dhinesh Muthiah
A1 Sen Hee Tay
A1 Chong Boon Teo
A1 Benjamin Kye Jyn Tan
A1 Yiong Huak Chan
A1 Raghav Sundar
A1 Yu Yang Soon
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/01/2021.09.28.21264126.abstract
AB Objective To compare the efficacy of COVID 19 vaccines between those with immunocompromised medical conditions and those who are immunocompetentDesign Systematic review and meta-analysisData sources PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CORD-19 and WHO COVID-19 research databases were searched for eligible comparative studies published between 1 December 2020 and 3 September 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched in September 2021 to identify registered yet unpublished or ongoing studies.Study selection Prospective observational studies which compared the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination between those with immunocompromising medical conditions and those who were immunocompetent were included. Two reviewers independently screened for potentially eligible studies.Data extraction The primary outcomes of interest were cumulative incidence of seroconversion after first and second doses of COVID vaccination. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 antibody titre level after first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccination. After duplicate data abstraction, a frequentist random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.Results After screening 3283 studies, 42 studies that met our inclusion criteria were identified. 18 immunocompromised cohorts from 17 studies reported seroconversion in immunocompromised patients compared to healthy controls after the first dose and 30 immunocompromised cohorts in 28 studies reporting data after the second dose.Among immunocompromised groups, in incremental order, transplant recipients had the lowest pooled risk ratio of 0.06 (95%CI: 0.04 to 0.09, I^2=0%, p=0.81) (GRADE=Moderate) followed by haematological cancer patients at 0.36 (95%CI: 0.21 to 0.62, I^2 = 89%, p<0.01) (GRADE=Moderate), solid cancer patients at 0.40 (95%CI: 0.31 to 0.52, I^2 = 63%, p=0.03) (GRADE=Moderate) and IMID patients at 0.66 (95%CI: 0.48 to 0.91, I^2=81%, p<0.01) (GRADE=Moderate).After the second dose, the lowest pooled risk ratio was again seen in transplant recipients at 0.29 (95%CI: 0.21 to 0.40, I^2=91%, p<0.01) (GRADE=Moderate), haematological cancer patients at 0.68 (95%CI: 0.57 to 0.80, I^2=68%, p=0.02) (GRADE=Low), IMID patients at 0.79 (95%CI: 0.72 to 0.86, I^2=87%, p<0.01) (GRADE=Low) and solid cancer at 0.92 (95%CI: 0.89 to 0.95, I^2=26%, p=0.25) (GRADE=Low).Conclusion Seroconversion rates and serological titres are significantly lower in immunocompromised patients with transplant recipients having the poorest outcomes. Additional strategies on top of the conventional 2-dose regimen will likely be warranted, such as a booster dose of the vaccine.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42021272088Competing Interest StatementRS received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Roche, Taiho, Astra Zeneca, DKSH and MSD; had advisory activity with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck, Bayer, Taiho, Novartis, MSD and AstraZeneca; received research funding from Paxman Coolers and MSD; received travel grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Eisai and Taiho Pharmaceutical (all outside the submitted work). All other authors have no conflicts of interest to report.Funding StatementNo external funding was received.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No IRB approval was required for this study.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis study has no additional data available.