Safety, immunogenicity, and protective effective of inhaled COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study aimed to examine the safety, immunogenicity and protective effective of inhaled COVID-19 vaccines (ICVs). Literature research was done through EMBASE, Cochrane, PubMed, and Web of Science up to 10 March 2024. Pooled estimates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed and compared using the random effects and common effects model. Of the 15 studies, 11 analyzed safety, 13 analyzed immunogenicity, and 3 analyzed protective effective. The results showed a favorable safety profile of ICVs for primary vaccination series, however it does not always seem to produce the expected immune response and protective effective. Meta-analysis of ICVs booster vaccinations (BVs) showed that the levels of neutralizing antibody Geometric mean titer (nAb-GMT) with aerosolised Ad5-nCoV (AAd5-nCoV) were all higher than those with inactivated vaccine (INA-nCoV) (standard mean difference (SMD) = 2.32; 95% CI: 1.96-2.69) and intramuscular Ad5-nCoV (IMAd5-nCoV) (SMD = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.14-0.48) against the original strain of SARS-CoV-2. Importantly, we also observed similar results in the omicron variant. In addition, ICV in BVs has high mucosal immunity to IgA antibodies. The risk of adverse events was comparable or lower for AAd5-nCoV compared to INA-nCoV or IMAd5-nCoV. Current evidence shows that the safety profile of ICVs were well. The booster dose of AAd5-nCoV had a high immune response (including mucosal immunity) and provided protection against COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant. Further studies are needed to investigate the long-term safety of intranasal vaccine booster protection and various types of ICVs.

Efficacy of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvants may enhance the efficacy of vaccines. however, the efficacy of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines (ACVs) remains unclear since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to address this gap by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of ACVs against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 CoV (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOC). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the vaccine efficacy (VE) of ACVs against VOC (alpha, beta, gamma, delta, or Omicron), up to May 27, 2023. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model was used to assess VE with 95% confidence intervals (CI) through meta-analysis. Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. RESULTS: Eight RCTs with 113,202 participants were included in the analysis, which incorporated 4 ACVs [Matrix-M (NVX-CoV2373), Alum (BBV152), CpG-1018/Alum (SCB-2019), and AS03 (CoVLP]). The pooled efficacy of full vaccination with ACVs against VOC was 88.0% (95% CI: 83.0-91.5). Full vaccination was effective against Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Gamma variants, with VE values of 93.66% (95% CI: 86.5-100.74), 64.70% (95% CI: 41.87-87.54), 75.95% (95% CI: 67.9-83.99), and 91.26% (95% CI: 84.35-98.17), respectively. Currently, there is a lack of RCT evidence regarding the efficacy of ACVs against the Omicron variant. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, it should be that full vaccination with ACVs has high efficacy against Alpha or Gamma variants and moderate efficacy against Beta and Delta variants. Notably, with the exception of the aluminum-adjuvanted vaccine, the other ACVs had moderate to high efficacy against the SARS-CoV-2 variant. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of ACVs booster vaccinations against Omicron.

Immunogenicity and safety of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: The benefits and risks of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines (ACVs) are unclear. The study aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of ACVs compared with controls (placebo or the same vaccine without adjuvants [NACVs]). Methods: Randomized controlled trials sourced from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically reviewed. Evaluators extracted information independently. The evidence quality was assessed using random-effects models. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: Of the 33 studies, 27 analyzed immunogenicity (n = 9069, ACVs group; n = 3757, control), and 26 analyzed safety (n = 58669, ACVs groups; n = 30733 control). Compared with controls, full vaccination with ACVs produced significant immune responses (relative risk [RR] of seroneutralization reaction, 12.3; 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI], 6.92-21.89; standardized mean deviation of geometric mean titer 3.96, 95 % CI, 3.35-4.58). Additionally, ACVs produced significant immunoreactivity compared with NACVs only (P < 0.05). Furthermore, full vaccination with ACVs significantly increased the risk of local and systemic adverse reactions (AEs) compared with controls. However, vaccination with ACVs did not significantly increase the risk of systemic and localized AEs compared with vaccination with NACVs only (P > 0.05). It was observed that ACVs had a lower risk of all-cause mortality than controls (RR, 0.51; 95 % CI 0.30-0.87). It was further found that ACVs produced nAb response against all sublines of the Omicron variant, but the antibody titers were lower than those for the SARS-CoV-2 original strain. Conclusions: The findings of this meta-analysis demonstrate that ACVs may have a superior effect and an acceptable safety in preventing COVID-19. Although these results suggest the potential of ACVs, further studies are required.

Immunogenicity and effectiveness of COVID-19 booster vaccination among people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The effect of booster vaccinations with the coronavirus virus disease (COVID-19) vaccine on people living with HIV (PLWH) remains unknown. In this study, we aimed to investigate the immunogenicity and effectiveness of booster doses of the COVID-19 vaccine in PLWH. Methods: Literature research was done through the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Review, and Web of Science databases up to 4 July 2023. Pooled estimates were calculated and compared using the DerSimonian and Laird method for a random effects model. Randomized control trials and observational studies were both considered for inclusion. Results: We included 35 eligible studies covering 30,154 PLWH. The pooled immune response rate (IRR) of PLWH after the COVID-19 booster vaccination was 97.25% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.81-99.49), and similar to healthy control (HC) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98, 95% CI, 0.96-1.00). The pooled IRR for PLWH with CD4+ T-cell counts ≤ 200 was 86.27 (95% CI, 65.35-99.07). For Omicron variants, the pooled IRR for PLWH after booster dose was 74.07% (95% CI, 58.83-89.30), and the risk of IRR was reduced by 10% in PLWH compared with HC (RR = 0.90, 95% CI, 0.80-1.00). The T-cell immune response of PLWH was found to be comparable to HC (p ≥ 0.05). Subgroup analyses revealed that mRNA vaccines produced a relatively high IRR in PLWH compared to other vaccines. In addition, the results showed that booster vaccination appeared to further reduce the risk of COVID-19-related infections, hospitalizations, and deaths compared with the primary vaccination. Conclusion: It was shown that booster vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine provided a high IRR in PLWH and still produced a desirable moderate IRR in PLWH with a CD4+ T-cell count of ≤ 200. Importantly, the humoral and T-cell responses to booster vaccination in PLWH were comparable to HC, and similar results were observed with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. Our review strongly emphasizes the effect of mRNA vaccine booster vaccination in PLWH on eliciting desirable protective IRR. Furthermore, booster vaccination appears to further reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death in PLWH compared to primary vaccination. However, more evidence is needed to confirm its effectiveness.

Relative effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: The rapid development of COVID-19 bivalent vaccines (BVs) has encompassed both the original virus strains and the variant strain. However, the effectiveness of BVs is largely unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of BVs. Methods: Literature research was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science up until November 4, 2023. Both randomized control trials and observational studies were considered for inclusion. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in cohort and case-control studies. Results: A total of 1,174 articles were reviewed and 22 eligible studies were included. All included studies were observational (15 cohort studies, 7 case-control studies). The total number of participants was 39,673,160, and the number of people vaccinated with BVs as an intervention group was 11,585,182. Two mRNA BVs were mainly involved, including the ancestral strain and the BA.1 or BA.4-5 variants. Meta-analysis results showed, compared with the monovalent vaccines (MVs), the relative effectiveness (rVE) of the BVs in COVID-19-associated infections/symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths was 30.90% [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.43-53.37], 39.83% (95% CI, 27.34-52.32), 59.70% (95% CI, 44.08-75.32), and 72.23% (95% CI, 62.08-82.38), respectively. For those aged 50 years and older, BVs provided an additional 49.69% (95% CI, 41.44-57.94) effective protection compared with MVs. During the dominance period of the omicron XBB variant strain, BVs provided an additional 47.63% (95% CI, 27.45-67.82) effective protection compared with MVs. Conclusion: Our findings show that the rVE of BVs in preventing COVID-19-associated infections, symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths is higher compared to MVs. Particularly for people over 50 years of age and during the Omicron variant XBB dominance phase, BVs provided superior protection. Therefore, BVs may have a broader application in the prevention and control of coronaviruses variant.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome with high procalcitonin levels due to piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem: A case report.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a rare and life-threatening adverse drug reaction. It is characterized by a long latency period with rash, hematological abnormalities, and visceral damage. Clinical manifestations of DRESS vary. Thus, accurate clinical diagnosis and identification are essential to ensure timely treatment commencement for improving prognosis and speeding up recovery. We report the case of a 66-year-old male patient with a drug reaction induced by a beta-lactam antibiotic, piperacillin/tazobactam (Pip/Taz). This resulted in the manifestation of both eosinophilic and systemic symptoms. Ten days after the Pip/Taz treatment commencement, the patient developed hyperthermia and elevated serum procalcitonin (PCT), leading to a misdiagnosis of an exacerbated infection. Meropenem treatment was then started. However, after 72 h, the patient developed a generalized rash, eosinophilia, hematological abnormalities, and visceral damage. Moreover, PCT levels were significantly elevated. All these symptoms were associated with DRESS. The sensitizing drug was discontinued, and glucocorticoids were administered, resulting in gradual subsiding of symptoms and decreases in serum PCT levels. Clinicians should be aware that elevated PCT serum levels may be a diagnostic biomarker for DRESS, which requires specific treatment. Furthermore, studies are warranted to further evaluate and elucidate the role of PCT in response to DRESS.

Analysis of the WHO ICTRP for novel coronavirus clinical trial registrations.

Up-to-date information on the current progress made in the research and development to control the global COVID-19 pandemic is important. The study aimed to analyze the clinical trial characteristics and vaccine development progress of the new Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) registered with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP).A comprehensive search of COVID-19 clinical trials since the establishment of the ICTRP to June 11, 2020, was conducted to record and analyze relevant characteristics. Chi-Squared test was used to compare the statistical differences between different research types, interventions, and sources.A total of 3282 COVID-19 clinical trials in 17 clinical trial registration centers were registered with the WHO ICTRP. The main research sources for the present study were ClinicalTrials.gov and ChiCTR. There were significant differences in the parameters of study location (P = .000), number of participants (P = .000), study duration (P = .001), research stage (P = .000), randomization procedure (P = .000), and blinding method (P = .000) between the 2 registration sources. There were significant differences in all the parameters between different kinds of intervention methods. Hydroxychloroquine, plasma therapy, and Xiyanping injection were the high-frequency research drugs used. Ten different vaccine studies were registered under phases I-II.Amongst the studies researched, heterogeneity existed for various parameters. Differences in the type of study, interventions, and registration sources of the studies led to significant differences in certain parameters of the COVID-19 clinical trials. The statistics of high-frequency drugs and the progress of vaccine trials may provide an informative reference for the prevention and control of COVID-19.

Gentiopicroside ameliorates bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis in mice via inhibiting inflammatory and fibrotic process.

Pulmonary fibrosis (PF) is a chronic and ultimately fatal interstitial lung disease of various causes. The advent of nintedanib and pirfenidone provides treatment options for PF patients for the first time. However, the adverse effects of the two drugs such as gastrointestinal disorders and hepatic dysfunction often lead to treatment discontinuation. Gentiopicroside (GPS) is a natural secoiridoid glycoside from gentian species of medicinal plants, and has a variety of pharmacological activities, including hepatoprotective and cholagogic, anti-inflammatory, antinociceptive, and smooth muscle relaxing activities. The present study aimed to investigate the therapeutical effects of GPS on bleomycin (BLM)-induced PF in mice. Severe lung inflammation and fibrosis were observed in BLM-treated mice. GPS significantly ameliorated inflammatory and fibrotic responses in lungs of PF mice which were confirmed by histopathological examinations including light microscopy and transmission electron microscopy. Additionally, GPS significantly decreased the levels of inflammatory cytokines including TNF-α and IL-1ß in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and reduced the content of hydroxyproline in lungs of PF mice. Furthermore, GPS significantly downregulated the expression of TGF-ß1 and CTGF in lungs of PF mice. In vitro, GPS inhibited epithelial-mesenchymal transition of A549 cells stimulated by TGF-ß1, in a dose-dependent manner. Our findings suggest that GPS has the potential as an ideal drug candidate for PF, as it has both anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects. Alveolar epithelial cells and TGF-ß1 may be the main target cells and molecule of GPS on BLM-induced PF, respectively.