ABSTRACT
Background: Inactivated, whole-virion vaccines have been used extensively in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Its efficacy and effectiveness across regions have not been systematically evaluated. Efficacy refers to how well a vaccine performs in a controlled environment. Effectiveness refers to how well it performs in real world settings. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed published, peer-reviewed evidence on all WHO-approved inactivated vaccines and evaluated their efficacy and effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic infection, severe clinical outcomes, and severe COVID-19. We searched Pubmed (including MEDLINE), EMBASE (via OVID), Web of Science Core Collection, Web of Science Chinese Science Citation Database, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Findings: The final pool included 28 studies representing over 32 million individuals reporting efficacy or effectiveness estimates of complete vaccination using any approved inactivated vaccine between January 1, 2019 and June 27, 2022. Evidence was found for efficacy and effectiveness against symptomatic infection (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16-0.27, I2 = 28% and OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.64, I2 = 98%, respectively) and infection (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.49-0.57, I2 = 90% and OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.24-0.41, I2 = 0%, respectively) for early SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoCs) (Alpha, Delta), and for waning of vaccine effectiveness with more recent VoCs (Gamma, Omicron). Effectiveness remained robust against COVID-related ICU admission (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04-1.08, I2 = 99%) and death (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00-2.02, I2 = 96%), although effectiveness estimates against hospitalization (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37-0.53, I2 = 0%) were inconsistent. Interpretation: This study showed evidence of efficacy and effectiveness of inactivated vaccines for all outcomes, although inconsistent reporting of key study parameters, high heterogeneity of observational studies, and the small number of studies of particular designs for most outcomes undermined the reliability of the findings. Findings highlight the need for additional research to address these limitations so that more definitive conclusions can be drawn to inform SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and vaccination policies. Funding: Health and Medical Research Fund on COVID-19, Health Bureau of the Government of the Hong Kong SAR.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism with a greater risk for female patients. This study aims to evaluate the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AF and the sex differences. METHODS AND RESULTS: Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis was conducted to evaluate the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding following BNT162b2 or CoronaVac in patients with AF, using the territory-wide electronic medical records from the Hospital Authority and vaccination records from the Department of Health in Hong Kong. Patients with a primary diagnosis of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism or bleeding in the inpatient setting between February 23, 2021 and March 31, 2022 were included. A nested case-control analysis was also conducted with each case randomly matched with ten controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index and date of hospital admission. Conditional Poisson regression was used in the SCCS analysis and conditional logistic regression was used in nested case-control analysis to assess the risks and all analyses were stratified by sex and type of vaccines. Among 51 158 patients with AF, we identified an increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism after the first dose of BNT162b2 in SCCS analysis during 0-13 days (incidence rate ratio 6.60[95% CI 1.51-28.77]) and 14-27 days (6.53[95% CI 1.31-32.51]), and nested case-control analysis during 0-13 days (adjusted odds ratio 6.21 [95% CI 1.14-33.91]) and 14-27 days (5.52 [95% CI 1.12-27.26]) only in female patients. The increased risk in female patients following the first dose of CoronaVac was only detected during 0-13 days (3.88 [95% CI 1.67-9.03]) in the nested case-control analysis. No increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was identified in male patients and no increased risk of bleeding was detected in all patients with AF for both vaccines. An increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism after COVID-19 was also observed in both females (17.42 [95% CI 5.08-59.73]) and males (6.63 [95% CI 2.02-21.79]). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism after COVID-19 vaccination was only increased in female patients with AF. However, as the risk after COVID-19 was even higher, proactive uptake of COVID-19 vaccines is recommended to prevent the potential severe outcomes after infection.