Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccines against COVID-19 Infection: A Meta-Analysis of Test-Negative Design Studies.

Although numerous COVID-19 vaccines are effective against COVID-19 infection and variants of concern (VOC) in the real world, it is imperative to obtain evidence of the corresponding vaccine effectiveness (VE). This study estimates the real-world effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines against COVID-19 infection and determines the influence of different virus variants on VE by using test-negative design (TND) studies. We systematically searched for published articles on the efficacy of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 against COVID-19 infection. Two researchers independently selected and extracted data from eligible studies. We calculated the VE associated with different vaccine types, SARS-CoV-2 variants, and vaccination statuses, using an inverse variance random-effects model. We selected 19 eligible studies in the meta-analysis from 1651 records. For the partially vaccinated group, the VE of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 was 61% and 78% against COVID-19 infection, respectively. For the completely vaccinated group, the VE of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 was 90% and 92% against COVID-19 infection, respectively. During subgroup analyses, the overall VE of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 against the Delta variant was 53% and 71%, respectively, for the partially vaccinated group; the respective VE values were 85% and 91% for the fully vaccinated group. Irrespective of the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines, the Delta variant significantly weakened vaccine protection for the partially vaccinated group, while full vaccination was highly effective against COVID-19 infection and various VOC. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is more effective against COVID-19 infection and VOC than the BNT162b2 vaccine, especially for the partially vaccinated group. Overall, the results provide recommendations for national and regional vaccine policies.

A meta-analysis on the risk factors adjusted association between cardiovascular disease and COVID-19 severity.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD), one of the most common comorbidities of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been suspected to be associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, but their correlation remains controversial. METHOD: This is a quantitative meta-analysis on the basis of adjusted effect estimates. PubMed, Web of Science, MedRxiv, Scopus, Elsevier ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library and EMBASE were searched comprehensively to obtain a complete data source up to January 7, 2021. Pooled effects (hazard ratio (HR), odds ratio (OR)) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to evaluate the risk of the adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients with CVD. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran's Q-statistic, I2test, and meta-regression. In addition, we also provided the prediction interval, which was helpful for assessing whether the variation across studies was clinically significant. The robustness of the results was evaluated by sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed by Begg's test, Egger's test, and trim-and-fill method. RESULT: Our results revealed that COVID-19 patients with pre-existing CVD tended more to adverse outcomes on the basis of 203 eligible studies with 24,032,712 cases (pooled ORs = 1.41, 95% CIs: 1.32-1.51, prediction interval: 0.84-2.39; pooled HRs = 1.34, 95% CIs: 1.23-1.46, prediction interval: 0.82-2.21). Further subgroup analyses stratified by age, the proportion of males, study design, disease types, sample size, region and disease outcomes also showed that pre-existing CVD was significantly associated with adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated that pre-existing CVD was an independent risk factor associated with adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

Is Cancer an Independent Risk Factor for Fatal Outcomes of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients?

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel virus called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has brought new challenges for global health systems. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate whether pre-diagnosed cancer was an independent risk factor for fatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. METHOD: A comprehensive search was conducted in major databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE to identify all published full-text studies as of January 20, 2021. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q-statistic and I² test. A meta-analysis of random- or fixed-effects model was used to estimate the effect size. Publication bias, sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were also carried out. RESULTS: The confounders-adjusted pooled effects (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-1.65; pooled hazard ratio [HR] = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.21-1.54) indicated that COVID-19 patients with pre-diagnosed cancer were more likely to progress to fatal outcomes based on 96 articles with 6,518,992 COVID-19 patients. Further subgroup analyses by age, sample size, the proportion of males, region, study design and quality rating exhibited consistent findings with the overall effect size. CONCLUSION: Our analysis provides the objective findings based on the adjusted effect estimates that pre-diagnosed cancer is an independent risk factor for fatal outcome of COVID-19 patients. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health workers should pay particular attention to cancer care for cancer patients and should prioritize cancer patients for vaccination.

Asthma in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether asthma has an influence on contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or having worse outcomes from COVID-19 disease. OBJECTIVE: To explore the prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 and the relationship between asthma and patients with COVID-19 with poor outcomes. METHODS: The pooled prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated. The pooled effect size (ES) was used to evaluate the association between asthma and patients with COVID-19 with poor outcomes. RESULTS: The pooled prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 worldwide was 8.3% (95% CI, 7.6-9.0) based on 116 articles (119 studies) with 403,392 cases. The pooled ES based on unadjusted effect estimates revealed that asthma was not associated with reduced risk of poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19 (ES, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06). Similarly, the pooled ES based on unadjusted effect estimates revealed that asthma was not associated with the reduced risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 (ES, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.05). However, the pooled ES based on adjusted effect estimates indicated that asthma was significantly associated with reduced risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 (ES 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.86). CONCLUSION: The pooled prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 was similar to that in the general population, and asthma might be an independent protective factor for the death of patients with COVID-19, which suggests that we should pay high attention to patients co-infected asthma and COVID-19 and take locally tailored interventions and treatment. Further well-designed studies with large sample sizes are required to verify our findings.

The Association of Cerebrovascular Disease with Adverse Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients: A Meta-Analysis Based on Adjusted Effect Estimates.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to address the association between cerebrovascular disease and adverse outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients by using a quantitative meta-analysis based on adjusted effect estimates. METHOD: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE up to August 10th, 2020. The adjusted effect estimates were extracted and pooled to evaluate the risk of the unfavorable outcomes in COVID-19 patients with cerebrovascular disease. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were also carried out. RESULTS: There were 12 studies with 10,304 patients included in our meta-analysis. A significant trend was observed when evaluating the association between cerebrovascular disease and adverse outcomes (pooled effect = 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34-3.16). In addition, the pooled effects showed that patients with a history of cerebrovascular disease had more likelihood to progress fatal outcomes than patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease (pooled effect = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.04-3.07). CONCLUSION: This study for the first time indicated that cerebrovascular disease was an independent risk factor for predicting the adverse outcomes, particularly fatal outcomes, in COVID-19 patients on the basis of adjusted effect estimates. Well-designed studies with larger sample size are needed for further verification.