RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine to reduce COVID-19 infections and hospitalisations in healthcare workers – a living systematic review and prospective ALL-IN meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.12.15.22283474
DO 10.1101/2022.12.15.22283474
A1 ter Schure, J.A. (Judith)
A1 Ly, Alexander
A1 Belin, Lisa
A1 Benn, Christine S.
A1 Bonten, Marc J.M.
A1 Cirillo, Jeffrey D.
A1 Damen, Johanna A.A.
A1 Fronteira, Inês
A1 Hendriks, Kelly D.
A1 Junqueira-Kipnis, Ana Paula
A1 Kipnis, André
A1 Launay, Odile
A1 Mendez-Reyes, Jose Euberto
A1 Moldvay, Judit
A1 Netea, Mihai G.
A1 Nielsen, Sebastian
A1 Upton, Caryn M.
A1 van den Hoogen, Gerben
A1 Weehuizen, Jesper M.
A1 Grünwald, Peter D.
A1 van Werkhoven, C.H. (Henri)
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/19/2022.12.15.22283474.abstract
AB BACKGROUND The objective is to determine the impact of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine compared to placebo or no vaccine on COVID-19 infections and hospitalisations in healthcare workers. We are using a living and prospective approach to Individual-Participant-Data (IPD) meta-analysis of ongoing studies based on the Anytime Live and Leading Interim (ALL-IN) meta-analysis statistical methodology.METHODS Planned and ongoing randomised controlled trials were identified from trial registries and by snowballing (final elicitation: Oct 3 2022). The methodology was specified prospectively – with no trial results available – for trial inclusion as well as statistical analysis. Inclusion decisions were made collaboratively based on a risk-of-bias assessment by an external protocol review committee (Cochrane risk-of-bias tool adjusted for use on protocols), expected homogeneity in treatment effect, and agreement with the predetermined event definitions. The co-primary endpoints were incidence of COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-related hospital admission. Accumulating IPD from included trials was analysed sequentially using the exact e-value logrank test (at level α = 0.5% for infections and level α = 4.5% for hospitalisations) and anytime-valid 95%-confidence intervals (CIs) for the hazard ratio (HR) for a predetermined fixed-effects approach to meta-analysis (no measures of statistical heterogeneity). Infections were included if demonstrated by PCR tests, antigen tests or suggestive lung CTs. Participants were censored at date of first COVID-19-specific vaccination and two-stage analyses were performed in calendar time, with a stratification factor per trial.RESULTS Six trials were included in the primary analysis with 4 433 participants in total. The e-values showed no evidence of a favourable effect of minimal clinically relevance (HR < 0.8) in comparison to the null (HR = 1) for COVID-19 infections, nor for COVID-19 hospitalisations (HR < 0.7 vs HR = 1). COVID-19 infection was observed in 251 participants receiving BCG and 244 participants not receiving BCG, HR 1.02 (anytime-valid 95%-CI 0.78-1.35). COVID-19 hospitalisations were observed in 13 participants receiving BCG and 7 not receiving BCG, resulting in an uninformative estimate (HR 1.88; anytime-valid 95%-CI 0.26-13.40).DISCUSSION It is highly unlikely that BCG has a clinically relevant effect on COVID-19 infections in healthcare workers. With only limited observations, no conclusion could be drawn for COVID-19 related hospitalisation. Due to the nature of ALL-IN meta-analysis, emerging data from new trials can be included without violating type-I error rates or interval coverage. We intend to keep this meta-analysis alive and up-to-date, as more trials report. For COVID-19 related hospitalisations, we do not expect enough future observations for a meaningful analysis. For BCG-mediated protection against COVID-19 infections, on the other hand, more observations could lead to a more precise estimate that concludes the meta-analysis for futility, meaning that the current interval excludes the HR of 0.8 predetermined as effect size of minimal clinical relevance.OTHER No external funding. Preregistered at PROSPERO: CRD42021213069.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://www.researchequals.com/collections/kyep-h9 Funding StatementNo external funding for the meta-analysisAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:datasets were obtained after a request and signing of data transfer agreementsI 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll supplementary material and possibly links to data publications will be collected in this Replication Package: https://www.researchequals.com/collections/kyep-h9 https://www.researchequals.com/collections/kyep-h9