Efficacy and effectiveness of inactivated vaccines against symptomatic COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 clinical outcomes in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.

COVID-19 Vaccination Preferences of University Students and Staff in Hong Kong.

Importance: COVID-19 has required universities to rapidly develop vaccination policies for students and staff, yet little is known about the preferences of these individuals toward vaccination. Objective: To quantify student and staff preferences for COVID-19 vaccination at a university in Hong Kong. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional online survey study was conducted from July 20 to September 21, 2021, before the announcement of a campus-wide vaccine mandate. A survey of 42 451 eligible university students and staff used discrete-choice experiment methods to quantify 7 attributes of COVID-19 vaccination: risk of a mild or moderate adverse event after vaccination, risk of a severe adverse event after vaccination, efficacy against COVID-19 infection, efficacy against severe manifestation of COVID-19 infection, duration of protection after vaccination, incentive for completing vaccination, and out-of-pocket costs. Main Outcomes and Measures: A mixed logit regression model was used to estimate the preferences of attributes for COVID-19 vaccines and marginal willingness to pay (mWTP) adjusted for background characteristics, role, vaccination, and COVID-19 infection status of family or friends, adverse event status after vaccination among family and friends of participants, and scenario block. Results: Among 42 451 eligible university students and staff invited, 3423 individuals completed the survey (mean [SD] age, 27.1 [9.9] years; 2053 [60.0%] women). Participants included 2506 students (73.2%) and 917 staff (26.8%), with a response rate of 8.1%. Quarantine-free travel was preferred (ß = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; mWTP: $235.9; 95% CI, $190.3-$294.2), followed by efficacy against any COVID-19 infection (ß = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.29-0.32; mWTP: $84.1; 95% CI, $71.8-$100.8), against severe manifestation of COVID-19 infection (ß = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.24-0.27; mWTP: $69.7; 95% CI, $465-$653), and risk of severe adverse events following vaccination (ß = -0.24; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.21; mWTP: -$66.8; 95% CI, -$81.5 to -$55.3). Participants were less concerned about protection duration (ß = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.15-0.18; mWTP: $46.0; 95% CI, $38.6-$56.2) and risk of mild to moderate adverse events (ß = -0.12; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.10; mWTP: -$32.7; 95% CI, -$41.2 to -$26.4). Conclusions and Relevance: Preference of all attributes were significant and were considered important by the participants for vaccine decision-making. Insights drawn could assist policy makers in future vaccination decisions, such as campus vaccine mandate and requirement of a third dose.