The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the incidence, hospitalization, and mortality from COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Rahmani, Kazem; Shavaleh, Rasoul; Forouhi, Mahtab; Disfani, Hamideh Feiz; Kamandi, Mostafa; Oskooi, Rozita Khatamian; Foogerdi, Molood; Soltani, Moslem; Rahchamani, Maryam; Mohaddespour, Mohammad; Dianatinasab, Mostafa

doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.873596

Cited by 113 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of comparing the two mRNA vaccines showed that the incidence of AEs and serious AEs for BNT162b2 was slightly lower than that for mRNA-1273 [49]. Therefore, the outcomes of the quantitative BR model for both pre-and post-authorization in the study were consistent with the published literature results [48,50].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Beyond collecting data, network meta-analysis, in which multiple treatments are being compared, can be used for advanced analysis. In contrast, real-world data showed that mRNA-based vaccines were comparable to or had better safety profiles than viral-vector vaccines [48]. The results of comparing the two mRNA vaccines showed that the incidence of AEs and serious AEs for BNT162b2 was slightly lower than that for mRNA-1273 [49].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantitative Benefit–Risk Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccines Using the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Son

Kwon

et al. 2022

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the early SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, four major vaccines were approved despite limited efficacy and safety data through short regulatory review periods. Thus, it is necessary to assess the benefit-risk (BR) profiles of the COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted a quantitative BR assessment for four COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA-based: mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2; viral vector-based: Ad26.COV.2 and ChAdOx1-S) using multi-criteria decision analysis. Three benefit criteria and two risk criteria were considered: preventing COVID-19 infection for (1) adults aged ≥18 years; (2) seniors aged 60 years or older; and (3) severe COVID-19, adverse events (AEs), and serious AEs. Data were retrieved from clinical trials, observational studies, and county-specific AE monitoring reports. Based on the collected data, vaccines were scored for each criterion. 22 professionals weighted each criterion. The overall BR score was calculated using scores and weights. mRNA-1273 was the most preferred vaccine in pre-authorization and BNT162b2 in post-authorization. We found that the mRNA vaccine had a good balance between the benefits and risks. Using this BR assessment, the benefit-risk profile of COVID-19 vaccines can be updated with cumulated data. It will contribute to building evidence for decision making by policy makers and health professionals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Quantitative Benefit–Risk Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccines Using the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Son

Kwon

et al. 2022

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Globally, governments have implemented public health measures, including quarantine/stay at home orders, social distancing, lockdowns and closures of various social or commercial venues, travel restrictions, vaccination, and more, to help mitigate the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus [1,2] Immunization is critical to protecting the public from the deleterious health consequences of COVID-19 infection and facilitating the reopening of the economy and society at-large. [3,4,5,6] For the latter, vaccine certificates have been introduced as a hybrid approach of gating access to certain privileges (e.g., cross-border travel, return to work, access to certain shared public spaces and venues, etc.) under the condition of vaccination against COVID-19.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Impact of Vaccine Certificates on COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Scoping Review

Zhu

Mithani

Smith

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Globally, COVID-19 vaccines have proven to be instrumental for promoting population health by curbing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and achieving herd immunity. Vaccine certificates have emerged as a promising solution for encouraging vaccination and facilitating the safe reopening of society, however, they remain controversial due to criticisms of infringing upon individual rights of bodily autonomy. While there is extensive literature describing the ethical, legal, and public health implications of vaccine certificates, there is currently a gap in knowledge about the impact of vaccine certificates on vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives The objectives of this scoping review are to (i) evaluate the impact of vaccine certificates on the rates of COVID-19 vaccine uptake across several countries and (ii) describe the myriad intrinsic and extrinsic barriers or facilitators that moderate this relationship. Methods We conducted a scoping review based on PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRSIMA-ScR) guidelines. We searched three bibliographic databases (APA PsychInfo, Embase Classic + Embase, OVID-Medline) and preprint severs on May 17, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the studies based on pre-specified eligibility criteria and performed data extraction for pre-specified themes. Results Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority documented that vaccine certificates significantly increased the rates of COVID-19 vaccine uptake (n=9), motivated by factors such as travel/employer requirements, influence from the government/peers, and trust in the safety, efficacy, and science behind COVID-19 vaccines. Three studies had non-significant or mixed findings. Only one study found a significant decrease in COVID-19 vaccine uptake, motivated by pervasive distrust in the QR code-based system of digital vaccine certificates in Russia. Conclusion Our findings provide valuable insights into the consequences of vaccine certificates on vaccine uptake at a global scale, which can be used to guide future implementation of vaccine certificates in a more acceptable, feasible, and sustainable manner.

show abstract

“…Vaccination is among the most advantageous health interventions due to its positive effects on population health and the economy. COVID-19 vaccination has effectively prevented the disease and lowered the risk of hospitalization and death [4]. This protection, however, declines over time due to waning immunity and, most importantly, the emergence of new virus variants [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Acceptance among Healthcare workers: the role of Anti-Vaccination Attitudes and Burnout

Maraqa¹,

Nazzal

Baroud

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants may necessitate an annual COVID-19 booster vaccine. This study aimed to evaluate healthcare workers' (HCWs) acceptance of a COVID-19 yearly booster vaccine, if recommended, and its association with their attitudes and burnout levels. Methods: We used an online self-administered questionnaire to conduct a cross-sectional study of all HCWs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip of Palestine between August and September 2022. We used the Vaccination Attitudes Examination scale to assess HCWs' vaccination attitudes and the Maslach Burnout Inventory to assess work-related Burnout. In addition, we conducted logistic regression to identify factors independently associated with the acceptance of the booster vaccine. Results: The study included 919 HCWs; 52.3% were male, 46.5% were physicians, 30.0% were nurses, and 63.1% worked in hospitals. One-third of HCWs (95% CI: 30.5%-36.7%) said they would accept an annual COVID-19 booster vaccine if recommended. HCWs who are suspicious of vaccine benefits [aOR= .70; 95%CI: .65-.75] and those concerned about unforeseeable future effects [aOR= .90; 95%CI: .84-.95] are less likely to accept the booster vaccine if recommended, whereas those who receive annual influenza vaccine are more likely to get it [aOR= 2.9; 95%CI: 1.7-5.0]. Conclusion: We found that only about a third of HCWs would agree to receive an annual COVID-19 booster vaccine if it was recommended. Mistrust of the vaccine's efficacy and concerns about side effects continue to drive COVID-19 vaccine reluctance. Health officials need to address HCWs' concerns to increase their acceptance of the annual vaccine if it is to be recommended.

show abstract

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the incidence, hospitalization, and mortality from COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 113 publications

References 97 publications

Quantitative Benefit–Risk Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccines Using the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Quantitative Benefit–Risk Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccines Using the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

The Global Impact of Vaccine Certificates on COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Scoping Review

Annual COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Acceptance among Healthcare workers: the role of Anti-Vaccination Attitudes and Burnout

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About