Zheng Zhu1, Lizhen Xu1, Gang Chen1,2,3. 1. Shengli Clinical Medical College, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China. 2. Department of Endocrinology, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China. 3. Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Medical Analysis, Fujian Academy of Medical Sciences, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Females generally have higher antibody responses to viral vaccines. Our objectives were to compare gender differences in the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Data sources: Studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. RESULTS: We included four eligible trials; all were categorized as having a low risk of bias. COVID-19 vaccine was significantly effective in both males and females. Slightly more SARS-CoV-2 infections were recorded in females than in males, but the difference was not significant (RR 1.064 [0.888-1.274]; p = .502, I2 = 5.7%; p = .367, 643,127 participants). CONCLUSION: Despite significant biological and behavioral differences between males and females, we found no significant gender differences in the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, especially in younger populations. Further pragmatic trials are needed to confirm the gender differences in protective response of different types of vaccines to different age groups.
INTRODUCTION: Females generally have higher antibody responses to viral vaccines. Our objectives were to compare gender differences in the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Data sources: Studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. RESULTS: We included four eligible trials; all were categorized as having a low risk of bias. COVID-19 vaccine was significantly effective in both males and females. Slightly more SARS-CoV-2 infections were recorded in females than in males, but the difference was not significant (RR 1.064 [0.888-1.274]; p = .502, I2 = 5.7%; p = .367, 643,127 participants). CONCLUSION: Despite significant biological and behavioral differences between males and females, we found no significant gender differences in the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, especially in younger populations. Further pragmatic trials are needed to confirm the gender differences in protective response of different types of vaccines to different age groups.
Authors: Catharine Chambers; Danuta M Skowronski; Caren Rose; Gaston De Serres; Anne-Luise Winter; James A Dickinson; Agatha Jassem; Jonathan B Gubbay; Kevin Fonseca; Steven J Drews; Hugues Charest; Christine Martineau; Martin Petric; Mel Krajden Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Fernando P Polack; Stephen J Thomas; Nicholas Kitchin; Judith Absalon; Alejandra Gurtman; Stephen Lockhart; John L Perez; Gonzalo Pérez Marc; Edson D Moreira; Cristiano Zerbini; Ruth Bailey; Kena A Swanson; Satrajit Roychoudhury; Kenneth Koury; Ping Li; Warren V Kalina; David Cooper; Robert W Frenck; Laura L Hammitt; Özlem Türeci; Haylene Nell; Axel Schaefer; Serhat Ünal; Dina B Tresnan; Susan Mather; Philip R Dormitzer; Uğur Şahin; Kathrin U Jansen; William C Gruber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Denis Y Logunov; Inna V Dolzhikova; Dmitry V Shcheblyakov; Amir I Tukhvatulin; Olga V Zubkova; Alina S Dzharullaeva; Anna V Kovyrshina; Nadezhda L Lubenets; Daria M Grousova; Alina S Erokhova; Andrei G Botikov; Fatima M Izhaeva; Olga Popova; Tatiana A Ozharovskaya; Ilias B Esmagambetov; Irina A Favorskaya; Denis I Zrelkin; Daria V Voronina; Dmitry N Shcherbinin; Alexander S Semikhin; Yana V Simakova; Elizaveta A Tokarskaya; Daria A Egorova; Maksim M Shmarov; Natalia A Nikitenko; Vladimir A Gushchin; Elena A Smolyarchuk; Sergey K Zyryanov; Sergei V Borisevich; Boris S Naroditsky; Alexander L Gintsburg Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Yuanyuan Qiao; Xiao-Ming Wang; Rahul Mannan; Sethuramasundaram Pitchiaya; Yuping Zhang; Jesse W Wotring; Lanbo Xiao; Dan R Robinson; Yi-Mi Wu; Jean Ching-Yi Tien; Xuhong Cao; Stephanie A Simko; Ingrid J Apel; Pushpinder Bawa; Steven Kregel; Sathiya P Narayanan; Gregory Raskind; Stephanie J Ellison; Abhijit Parolia; Sylvia Zelenka-Wang; Lisa McMurry; Fengyun Su; Rui Wang; Yunhui Cheng; Andrew D Delekta; Zejie Mei; Carla D Pretto; Shaomeng Wang; Rohit Mehra; Jonathan Z Sexton; Arul M Chinnaiyan Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Noa Dagan; Noam Barda; Eldad Kepten; Oren Miron; Shay Perchik; Mark A Katz; Miguel A Hernán; Marc Lipsitch; Ben Reis; Ran D Balicer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Takehiro Takahashi; Mallory K Ellingson; Patrick Wong; Benjamin Israelow; Carolina Lucas; Jon Klein; Julio Silva; Tianyang Mao; Ji Eun Oh; Maria Tokuyama; Peiwen Lu; Arvind Venkataraman; Annsea Park; Feimei Liu; Amit Meir; Jonathan Sun; Eric Y Wang; Arnau Casanovas-Massana; Anne L Wyllie; Chantal B F Vogels; Rebecca Earnest; Sarah Lapidus; Isabel M Ott; Adam J Moore; Albert Shaw; John B Fournier; Camila D Odio; Shelli Farhadian; Charles Dela Cruz; Nathan D Grubaugh; Wade L Schulz; Aaron M Ring; Albert I Ko; Saad B Omer; Akiko Iwasaki Journal: Nature Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Marco Clari; Alessandro Godono; Beatrice Albanesi; Elena Casabona; Rosanna Irene Comoretto; Ihab Mansour; Alessio Conti; Valerio Dimonte; Catalina Ciocan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.390