Abstract
Introduction & Objective Vaccination is one of the most important and effective ways of preventing infectious diseases, and has recently been used in the COVID-19 epidemic and pandemic. The present meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the incidence of infection, hospitalization, and mortality in observational studies.
Materials and Methods A systematic search was performed independently in Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest, and Google Scholar electronic databases as well as Preprint servers using the keywords under study. The heterogeneity of the studies was assessed using I2 and χ2 statistics, according to which the I2 of > 50% and P -value <0.1 was reported as heterogeneity of the studies. In addition, the Pooled Vaccine Effectiveness (PVE) obtained from the studies was calculated by converting (1-Pooled estimate × 100%) based on the type of outcome.
Results A total of 54 records were included in this meta-analysis. The rate of PVE against SARS-COV 2 infection was about 71% (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.23-0.36) in the first dose and 87% (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) in the second, and the highest effectiveness in the first and second doses was that of BNT162b2 mRNA and combined studies. The PVE versus COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 73% (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18-0.41) in the first dose and 89% (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.17) in the second. mRNA-1273 and combined studies in the first dose and ChAdOx1 and mRNA-1273 in the second dose had the highest effectiveness. Regarding the COVID-19-related mortality, PVE was about 28% (HR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.23-0.45) in the first dose and 89% (HR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03-0.43) in the second.
Conclusion The evidence obtained from this study showed that the effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 in the first and second doses, and even combined studies were associated with increased effectiveness against SARS-COV2 infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. In addition, considering that the second dose was significantly more efficient than the first one, a booster dose injection could be effective in high-risk individuals. On the other hand, it was important to observe other prevention considerations in the first days after taking the first dose.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
