Paola Rogliani1, Alfredo Chetta2, Mario Cazzola1, Luigino Calzetta2. 1. Unit of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", 00133 Rome, Italy. 2. Respiratory Disease and Lung Function Unit, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy.
Abstract
Background: There are no studies providing head-to-head comparison across SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Therefore, we compared the efficacy of candidate vaccines in inducing neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the peak levels of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies across candidate vaccines. Data were reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) since the outcome was assessed via different metrics and methods across the studies. Results: Data obtained from 836 healthy adult vaccine recipients were extracted from 11 studies. BBIBP-CorV, AZD1222, BNT162b2, New Crown COVID-19, and Sputnik V induced a very large effect on the level of neutralizing antibodies (SMD > 1.3); CoVLP, CoronaVac, NVX-CoV2373, and Ad5-nCoV induced a large effect (SMD > 0.8 to ≤1.3); and Ad26.COV2.S induced a medium effect (SMD > 0.5 to ≤0.8). BBIBP-CorV and AZD122 were more effective (p < 0.05) than Ad26.COV2.S, Ad5-nCoV, mRNA-1237, CoronaVac, NVX-CoV2373, CoVLP, and New Crown COVID-19; New Crown COVID-19 was more effective (p < 0.05) than Ad26.COV2.S, Ad5-nCoV, and mRNA-1237; CoronaVac was more effective (p < 0.05) than Ad26.COV2.S and Ad5-nCoV; and Sputnik V and BNT162b2 were more effective (p < 0.05) than Ad26.COV2.S. In recipients aged ≤60 years, AZD1222, BBIBP-CorV, and mRNA-1237 were the most effective candidate vaccines. Conclusion: All the candidate vaccines induced significant levels of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies, but only AZD1222 and mRNA-1237 were certainly tested in patients aged ≥70 years. Compared with AZD1222, BNT162b and mRNA-1237 have the advantage that they can be quickly re-engineered to mimic new mutations of SARS-CoV-2.
Background: There are no studies providing head-to-head comparison across SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Therefore, we compared the efficacy of candidate vaccines in inducing neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the peak levels of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies across candidate vaccines. Data were reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) since the outcome was assessed via different metrics and methods across the studies. Results: Data obtained from 836 healthy adult vaccine recipients were extracted from 11 studies. BBIBP-CorV, AZD1222, BNT162b2, New Crown COVID-19, and Sputnik V induced a very large effect on the level of neutralizing antibodies (SMD > 1.3); CoVLP, CoronaVac, NVX-CoV2373, and Ad5-nCoV induced a large effect (SMD > 0.8 to ≤1.3); and Ad26.COV2.S induced a medium effect (SMD > 0.5 to ≤0.8). BBIBP-CorV and AZD122 were more effective (p < 0.05) than Ad26.COV2.S, Ad5-nCoV, mRNA-1237, CoronaVac, NVX-CoV2373, CoVLP, and New Crown COVID-19; New Crown COVID-19 was more effective (p < 0.05) than Ad26.COV2.S, Ad5-nCoV, and mRNA-1237; CoronaVac was more effective (p < 0.05) than Ad26.COV2.S and Ad5-nCoV; and Sputnik V and BNT162b2 were more effective (p < 0.05) than Ad26.COV2.S. In recipients aged ≤60 years, AZD1222, BBIBP-CorV, and mRNA-1237 were the most effective candidate vaccines. Conclusion: All the candidate vaccines induced significant levels of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies, but only AZD1222 and mRNA-1237 were certainly tested in patients aged ≥70 years. Compared with AZD1222, BNT162b and mRNA-1237 have the advantage that they can be quickly re-engineered to mimic new mutations of SARS-CoV-2.
Authors: David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-01
Authors: Merryn Voysey; Sue Ann Costa Clemens; Shabir A Madhi; Lily Y Weckx; Pedro M Folegatti; Parvinder K Aley; Brian Angus; Vicky L Baillie; Shaun L Barnabas; Qasim E Bhorat; Sagida Bibi; Carmen Briner; Paola Cicconi; Andrea M Collins; Rachel Colin-Jones; Clare L Cutland; Thomas C Darton; Keertan Dheda; Christopher J A Duncan; Katherine R W Emary; Katie J Ewer; Lee Fairlie; Saul N Faust; Shuo Feng; Daniela M Ferreira; Adam Finn; Anna L Goodman; Catherine M Green; Christopher A Green; Paul T Heath; Catherine Hill; Helen Hill; Ian Hirsch; Susanne H C Hodgson; Alane Izu; Susan Jackson; Daniel Jenkin; Carina C D Joe; Simon Kerridge; Anthonet Koen; Gaurav Kwatra; Rajeka Lazarus; Alison M Lawrie; Alice Lelliott; Vincenzo Libri; Patrick J Lillie; Raburn Mallory; Ana V A Mendes; Eveline P Milan; Angela M Minassian; Alastair McGregor; Hazel Morrison; Yama F Mujadidi; Anusha Nana; Peter J O'Reilly; Sherman D Padayachee; Ana Pittella; Emma Plested; Katrina M Pollock; Maheshi N Ramasamy; Sarah Rhead; Alexandre V Schwarzbold; Nisha Singh; Andrew Smith; Rinn Song; Matthew D Snape; Eduardo Sprinz; Rebecca K Sutherland; Richard Tarrant; Emma C Thomson; M Estée Török; Mark Toshner; David P J Turner; Johan Vekemans; Tonya L Villafana; Marion E E Watson; Christopher J Williams; Alexander D Douglas; Adrian V S Hill; Teresa Lambe; Sarah C Gilbert; Andrew J Pollard Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sofia Dias; Nicky J Welton; Alex J Sutton; Deborah M Caldwell; Guobing Lu; A E Ades Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Cassia F Estofolete; Cecilia A Banho; Guilherme R F Campos; Beatriz de C Marques; Livia Sacchetto; Leila S Ullmann; Fabio S Possebon; Luana F Machado; Juliana D Syrio; João P Araújo Junior; Cintia Bittar; Paula Rahal; Suzana M A Lobo; Helena Lage Ferreira; Nikos Vasilakis; Mauricio L Nogueira Journal: Viruses Date: 2021-06-26 Impact factor: 5.048