Needs and feasibility of living systematic reviews (LSRs): Experience from LSRs on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.

During 2021 and 2023, a team of researchers at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and partnering institutions conducted two living systematic reviews (LSRs) on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in different age groups to inform recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany (Ständige Impfkommission, STIKO). Based on our experience from the realization of these LSRs, we developed certain criteria to assess the needs and feasibility of conducting LSRs. Combining these with previously established criteria, we developed the following set to inform future planning of LSRs for STIKO: Needs criterion (N)1: Relevance of the research question, N2: Certainty of evidence (CoE) at baseline; N3: Expected need for Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) adaptations; N4: Expected new evidence over time; N5: Expected impact of new evidence on CoE; Feasibility criterion (F)1: Availability of sufficient human resources; F2: Feasibility of timely dissemination of the results to inform decision-making. For each criterion we suggest rating options which may support the decision to conduct an LSR or other forms of evidence synthesis when following the provided flowchart. The suggested criteria were developed on the basis of the experiences from exemplary reviews in a specific research field (i.e., COVID-19 vaccination), and did not follow a formal development or validation process. However, these criteria might also be useful to assess whether questions from other research fields can and should be answered using the LSR approach, or assist in determining whether the use of an LSR is sensible and feasible for specific questions in health policy and practice.

Prevalence of vaccine-derived hepatitis B surface antibodies in children and adolescents in Germany: results from a population-based survey, 2014-2017.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood vaccination against hepatitis B has been recommended in Germany since 1995. WHO defines a primary vaccination series as successful if the initial hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) level is ≥ 10 IU/L directly after vaccination. Anti-HBs levels vary depending on the number of doses, type of vaccine, and time interval between the last two doses. In 2021, Germany began to recommend three instead of four doses of polyvalent hepatitis-B-containing vaccines. Our aim was to estimate the proportion of vaccinated children in Germany with anti-HBs levels < 10 IU/L, 10-99 IU/L, and ≥ 100 IU/L by number and type of vaccine, and assess if number of doses and compliance with recommended time interval between the last two doses are associated with an anti-HBs level ≥ 10 IU/L when considering type of vaccine and time since last dose. METHODS: We used data from a national cross-sectional study (2014-2017) of children (3-17 years). We excluded participants with unknown vaccination dates, unreadable or incomplete vaccination cards, and hepatitis B virus (HBV)-positive participants. We defined a recommended schedule as a vaccination series with at least six months between the two last doses and having three doses or more. We calculated weighted anti-HBs sero-prevalence for three anti-HBs levels: < 10 IU/L, 10-99 IU/L and ≥ 100 IU/L. We fitted two logistic regression models to examine the relationship between number of doses and recommended schedule on anti-HBs levels (≥ 10 IU/L and ≥ 100 IU/L) considering time since last dose and type of vaccine (Infanrix, Hexavac, Monovalent). RESULTS: We included 2,489 participants. The weighted proportion of vaccinated children per anti-HBs level was < 10 IU/L: 36.3% [95%CI 34.0-38.7%], 10-99 IU/L: 35.7% [33.2-38.2%] and ≥ 100 IU/L: 28.0% [25.9-30.2%]. We did not find an association between a recommended schedule of three versus four doses and anti-HBs ≥ 10 IU/L or ≥ 100 IU/L. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-HBs levels in later childhood were about equal, whether children received three or four doses. This implies that the change in the recommendations does not affect the anti-HBs level among children in Germany. Future studies are needed on the association of anti-HBs levels and adequate sustained protection against HBV.

[Development of criteria for the prospective assessment of the need for updating guideline recommendations: The AGIL criteria]. / Entwicklung von Kriterien für die prospektive Einschätzung des Aktualisierungsbedarfs von Leitlinienempfehlungen: AGIL-Kriterien.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guideline and vaccination recommendations should continuously be updated to appropriately support health care decisions. However, resources for updating guidelines are often limited. The aim of this project was to develop a list of criteria for the prospective assessment of the need for updating individual guideline or vaccination recommendations, which can be applied from the time a guideline or guideline update is finalised. METHODS: In this article we describe the development of the AGIL criteria (Assessment of Guidelines for Updating Recommendations). The AGIL criteria were developed by experienced scientists and experts in the field of guideline development in a multi-step process. The five steps included: 1) development of an initial list of criteria by the project team; 2) online survey of guideline experts on the initial version of the criteria list; 3) revision of the criteria list based on the results of the online survey; 4) workshop on the criteria list at the EbM Congress 2023; 5) creation of version 1.0 of the AGIL criteria based on the workshop results. RESULTS: The initial list included the following three criteria: 1) relevance of the question 2) availability of new relevant evidence, and 3) impact of potentially new evidence. The response rate of the online survey for fully completed questionnaires was 31.0% (N=195; 630 guideline experts were contacted by email). For 90.3% (n=176) of the respondents, the criteria list included all essential aspects for assessing the need for updating guideline recommendations. More than three quarters of respondents rated the importance of the three criteria as "very important" or "important" (criteria 1-3: 75.3%, 86.1%, 85.2%) and - with the exception of criterion 1 - comprehensibility as "very comprehensible" or "comprehensible" (criteria 1-3: 58.4%, 75.9%, 78.5%). The results of the online survey and the workshop generally confirmed the three criteria with their two sub-questions. The incorporation of all feedback resulted in the AGIL criteria (version 1.0), recapping: 1) relevance of the question regarding a) PICO components and b) other factors, e.g. epidemiological aspects; 2) availability of new evidence a) on health-related benefits and harms and b) on other decision factors, e.g. feasibility, acceptability; 3) impact of new evidence a) on the certainty of evidence on which the recommendation is based and b) on the present recommendation, e.g. DISCUSSION: The moderate response rate of the online survey may have limited its representativeness. Nevertheless, we consider the response rate to be satisfactory in this research context. The inclusion of many experts in the online survey and the EbM Congress workshop is a strength of the project and supports the quality of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The AGIL criteria provide a structured guidance for the prospective assessment of the need for updating individual guideline recommendations and other evidence-based recommendations. The implementation and evaluation of the AGIL criteria 1.0 in a field test is planned.

Failure of scabies treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment failure is considered to be an important factor in relation to the increase in scabies incidence over the last decade. However, the regional and temporal differences, in addition to the predictors of therapy failure, are unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of treatment failure in patients with scabies and investigation of associated factors. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2021 for randomized and quasi-randomized trials, in addition to observational studies that enrolled children or adults diagnosed with confirmed or clinical scabies treated with permethrin, ivermectin, crotamiton, benzyl benzoate, malathion, sulfur or lindane, and measured treatment failure or factors associated with treatment failure. We performed a random effects meta-analysis for all outcomes reported by at least two studies. RESULTS: A total of 147 studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The overall prevalence of treatment failure was 15.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.9-17.6; I2 = 95.3%, moderate-certainty evidence] with regional differences between World Health Organization regions (P = 0.003) being highest in the Western Pacific region (26.9%, 95% CI 14.5-41.2). Oral ivermectin (11.8%, 95% CI 8.4-15.4), topical ivermectin (9.3%, 95% CI 5.1-14.3) and permethrin (10.8%, 95% CI 7.5-14.5) had relatively lower failure prevalence compared with the overall prevalence. Failure prevalence was lower in patients treated with two doses of oral ivermectin (7.1%, 95% CI 3.1-12.3) compared with those treated with one dose (15.2%, 95% CI 10.8-20.2; P = 0.021). Overall and permethrin treatment failure prevalence in the included studies (1983-2021) increased by 0.27% and 0.58% per year, respectively. Only three studies conducted a multivariable risk factor analysis; no studies assessed resistance. CONCLUSIONS: A second dose of ivermectin showed lower failure prevalence than single-dose ivermectin, which should be considered in all guidelines. The increase in treatment failure over time hints at decreasing mite susceptibility for several drugs, but reasons for failure are rarely assessed. Ideally, scabicide susceptibility testing should be implemented in future studies.

A bead-based multiplex assay covering all coronaviruses pathogenic for humans for sensitive and specific surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity.

Serological assays measuring antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are key to describe the epidemiology, pathobiology or induction of immunity after infection or vaccination. Of those, multiplex assays targeting multiple antigens are especially helpful as closely related coronaviruses or other antigens can be analysed simultaneously from small sample volumes, hereby shedding light on patterns in the immune response that would otherwise remain undetected. We established a bead-based 17-plex assay detecting antibodies targeting antigens from all coronaviruses pathogenic for humans: SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, HCoV strains 229E, OC43, HKU1, and NL63. The assay was validated against five commercial serological immunoassays, a commercial surrogate virus neutralisation test, and a virus neutralisation assay, all targeting SARS-CoV-2. It was found to be highly versatile as shown by antibody detection from both serum and dried blot spots and as shown in three case studies. First, we followed seroconversion for all four endemic HCoV strains and SARS-CoV-2 in an outbreak study in day-care centres for children. Second, we were able to link a more severe clinical course to a stronger IgG response with this 17-plex-assay, which was IgG1 and IgG3 dominated. Finally, our assay was able to discriminate recent from previous SARS-CoV-2 infections by calculating the IgG/IgM ratio on the N antigen targeting antibodies. In conclusion, due to the comprehensive method comparison, thorough validation, and the proven versatility, our multiplex assay is a valuable tool for studies on coronavirus serology.

Human papillomavirus prevalence and vaccine effectiveness in young women in Germany, 2017/2018: results from a nationwide study.

Background: Infections with human papillomaviruses (HPV) are sexually transmitted and can cause cancer. In Germany, vaccination against HPV is recommended for girls and boys aged 9-17 years. We aimed to investigate HPV DNA prevalence, genotype distribution and vaccine effectiveness (VE) in women aged 20-25 years 10 years after the introduction of HPV vaccination in Germany (2018-2019), and compared these data to an equally designed study from 2010-2012. Methods: Seventy six geographical clusters were randomly selected, followed by random selection of 61 women aged 20-25 years per cluster. Participants performed cervicovaginal self-sampling and answered questions on demographics, sexual behaviour and HPV vaccination. Samples were tested for 18 high risk and nine low risk HPV genotypes. We performed chi-square tests, Fisher's exact test, unpaired Student's t-test and proportion t-test, and calculated crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% CIs. Results: Of 7,858 contacted women a total of 1,226 agreed to participate. Of these, 94 women were positive for HPV types 16 and/or 18. HPV16 prevalence was 7.0% (95% CI 5.6-8.6) and HPV18 prevalence was 0.8% (95% CI 0.4-1.5). HPV6 and HPV11 were rare with only five (0.4%; 0.1-0.9) and one (0%; 95% CI 0.0-0.5) positive tests. Seven hundred fifty-seven women (62%) had received at least one HPV vaccine dose and 348 (28%) were vaccinated as currently recommended. Confounder-adjusted VE was 46.4% (95% CI 4.2-70.1) against HPV16/18 infection and 49.1% (95% CI 8.2-71.8) against infection with at least one HPV genotype covered by the quadrivalent HPV vaccine. Compared with the 2010-2012 study results, HPV16/18 prevalence dropped from 22.5% (95% CI 19.0-26.3) to 10.3% (95% CI 7.5-13.9; p < 0.0001) in unvaccinated participants. Conclusion: Vaccine-covered HPV genotypes were rare among 20-25 years old women in Germany and decreased compared to the time point shortly after the start of the HPV vaccination program. HPV prevalence of almost all vaccine-covered genotypes was strongly reduced in vaccinated participants. A decrease of HPV16 and HPV18 was even observed in unvaccinated participants, compared to 2010-2012 data, suggesting indirect protection of unvaccinated women. Low VE against HPV16/18 and HPV6/11/16/18 in our study might be attributable to study design in combination with the endpoint selection of (mainly transient) HPV DNA positivity.

Direct comparison of clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva from buccal swabs versus combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: While current guidelines recommend the use of respiratory tract specimens for the direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva has recently been suggested as preferred sample type for the sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron). By comparing saliva collected using buccal swabs and oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, we aimed at identifying potential differences in virus detection sensitivity between these sample types. METHODS: We compare the clinical diagnostic sensitivity of paired buccal swabs and combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs from hospitalized, symptomatic COVID-19 patients collected at median six days after symptom onset by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antigen test. RESULTS: Of the tested SARS-CoV-2 positive sample pairs, 55.8% were identified as SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and 44.2% as Omicron BA.2. Real-time PCR from buccal swabs generated significantly higher quantification cycle (Cq) values compared to those from matched combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs and resulted in an increased number of false-negative PCR results. Reduced diagnostic sensitivity of buccal swabs by real-time PCR was observed already at day one after symptom onset. Similarly, antigen test detection rates were reduced in buccal swabs compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest reduced clinical diagnostic sensitivity of saliva collected using buccal swabs when compared to combined oro-/nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in symptomatic individuals.

Safety and effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19 in children aged 5-11 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To date, more than 761 million confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections have been recorded globally, and more than half of all children are estimated to be seropositive. Despite high SARS-CoV-2 infection incidences, the rate of severe COVID-19 in children is low. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines approved in the EU for children aged 5-11 years. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included studies of any design identified through searching the COVID-19 L·OVE (living overview of evidence) platform up to Jan 23, 2023. We included studies with participants aged 5-11 years, with any COVID-19 vaccine approved by the European Medicines Agency-ie, mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), BNT162b2 Bivalent (against original strain and omicron [BA.4 or BA.5]), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), or mRNA-1273.214 (against original strain and omicron BA.1). Efficacy and effectiveness outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-confirmed or antigen-test confirmed), symptomatic COVID-19, hospital admission due to COVID-19, COVID-19-related mortality, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), and long-term effects of COVID-19 (long COVID or post-COVID-19 condition as defined by study investigators or per WHO definition). Safety outcomes of interest were serious adverse events, adverse events of special interest (eg, myocarditis), solicited local and systemic events, and unsolicited adverse events. We assessed risk of bias and rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022306822. FINDINGS: Of 5272 screened records, we included 51 (1·0%) studies (n=17 [33%] in quantitative synthesis). Vaccine effectiveness after two doses against omicron infections was 41·6% (95% CI 28·1-52·6; eight non-randomised studies of interventions [NRSIs]; CoE low), 36·2% (21·5-48·2; six NRSIs; CoE low) against symptomatic COVID-19, 75·3% (68·0-81·0; six NRSIs; CoE moderate) against COVID-19-related hospitalisations, and 78% (48-90, one NRSI; CoE very low) against MIS-C. Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related mortality was not estimable. Crude event rates for deaths in unvaccinated children were less than one case per 100 000 children, and no events were reported for vaccinated children (four NRSIs; CoE low). No study on vaccine effectiveness against long-term effects was identified. Vaccine effectiveness after three doses was 55% (50-60; one NRSI; CoE moderate) against omicron infections, and 61% (55-67; one NRSI; CoE moderate) against symptomatic COVID-19. No study reported vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against hospitalisation following a third dose. Safety data suggested no increased risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0·83 [95% CI 0·21-3·33]; two randomised controlled trials; CoE low), with approximately 0·23-1·2 events per 100 000 administered vaccines reported in real-life observations. Evidence on the risk of myocarditis was uncertain (RR 4·6 [0·1-156·1]; one NRSI; CoE low), with 0·13-1·04 observed events per 100 000 administered vaccines. The risk of solicited local reactions was 2·07 (1·80-2·39; two RCTs; CoE moderate) after one dose and 2·06 (1·70-2·49; two RCTs; CoE moderate) after two doses. The risk of solicited systemic reactions was 1·09 (1·04-1·16; two RCTs; CoE moderate) after one dose and 1·49 (1·34-1·65; two RCTs; CoE moderate) after two doses. The risk of unsolicited adverse events after two doses (RR 1·21 [1·07-1·38]; CoE moderate) was higher among mRNA-vaccinated compared with unvaccinated children. INTERPRETATION: In children aged 5-11 years, mRNA vaccines are moderately effective against infections with the omicron variant, but probably protect well against COVID-19 hospitalisations. Vaccines were reactogenic but probably safe. Findings of this systematic review can serve as a basis for public health policy and individual decision making on COVID-19 vaccination in children aged 5-11 years. FUNDING: German Federal Joint Committee.

Modeling the impact of the Omicron infection wave in Germany.

In November 2021, the first infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant of concern (VOC) B.1.1.529 ('Omicron') was reported in Germany, alongside global reports of reduced vaccine efficacy (VE) against infections with this variant. The potential threat posed by its rapid spread in Germany was, at the time, difficult to predict. We developed a variant-dependent population-averaged susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered infectious-disease model that included information about variant-specific and waning VEs based on empirical data available at the time. Compared to other approaches, our method aimed for minimal structural and computational complexity and therefore enabled us to respond to changes in the situation in a more agile manner while still being able to analyze the potential influence of (non-)pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) on the emerging crisis. Thus, the model allowed us to estimate potential courses of upcoming infection waves in Germany, focusing on the corresponding burden on intensive care units (ICUs), the efficacy of contact reduction strategies, and the success of the booster vaccine rollout campaign. We expected a large cumulative number of infections with the VOC Omicron in Germany with ICU occupancy likely remaining below capacity, nevertheless, even without additional NPIs. The projected figures were in line with the actual Omicron waves that were subsequently observed in Germany with respective peaks occurring in mid-February and mid-March. Most surprisingly, our model showed that early, strict, and short contact reductions could have led to a strong 'rebound' effect with high incidences after the end of the respective NPIs, despite a potentially successful booster campaign. The results presented here informed legislation in Germany. The methodology developed in this study might be used to estimate the impact of future waves of COVID-19 or other infectious diseases.

Vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 during the Omicron wave in Germany: results from the COViK study.

PURPOSE: COViK, a prospective hospital-based multicenter case-control study in Germany, aims to assess the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against severe disease. Here, we report vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-caused hospitalization and intensive care treatment during the Omicron wave. METHODS: We analyzed data from 276 cases with COVID-19 and 494 control patients recruited in 13 hospitals from 1 December 2021 to 5 September 2022. We calculated crude and confounder-adjusted VE estimates. RESULTS: 21% of cases (57/276) were not vaccinated, compared to 5% of controls (26/494; p < 0.001). Confounder-adjusted VE against COVID-19-caused hospitalization was 55.4% (95% CI: 12-78%), 81.5% (95% CI: 68-90%) and 95.6% (95%CI: 88-99%) after two, three and four vaccine doses, respectively. VE against hospitalization due to COVID-19 remained stable up to one year after three vaccine doses. CONCLUSION: Three vaccine doses remained highly effective in preventing severe disease and this protection was sustained; a fourth dose further increased protection.

Use of existing systematic reviews for the development of evidence-based vaccination recommendations: Guidance from the SYSVAC expert panel.

National immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) develop immunization-related recommendations and assist policy-makers in making evidence informed decisions. Systematic reviews (SRs) that summarize the available evidence on a specific topic are a valuable source of evidence in the development of such recommendations. However, conducting SRs requires significant human, time, and financial resources, which many NITAGs lack. Given that SRs already exist for many immunization-related topics, and to prevent duplication and overlap of reviews, a more practical approach may be for NITAGs to use existing SRs. Nevertheless, it can be challenging to identify relevant SRs, to select one SR from among multiple SRs, or to critically assess and effectively use them. To support NITAGs, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Robert Koch Institute and collaborators developed the SYSVAC project, which consists of an online registry of systematic reviews on immunization-related topics and an e-learning course, that supports the use of them (both freely accessible at https://www.nitag-resource.org/sysvac-systematic-reviews). Drawing from the e-learning course and recommendations from an expert panel, this paper outlines methods for using existing systematic reviews when making immunization-related recommendations. With specific examples and reference to the SYSVAC registry and other resources, it offers guidance on locating existing systematic reviews; assessing their relevance to a research question, up-to-dateness, and methodological quality and/or risk of bias; and considering the transferability and applicability of their findings to other populations or settings.

High speed, high power 2D beam steering for mitigation of optomechanical parametric instability in gravitational wave detectors.

In this paper, we propose what we believe to be a novel strategy to control optomechanical parametric instability (PI) in gravitational wave (GW) detectors based on radiation pressure. The fast deflection of a high-power beam is the key element of our approach. We built a 2D deflection system based on a pair of acousto-optic modulators (AOMs) that combines high rapidity and a large scan range. As a fast frequency switching configurable AOM driver, we used a Universal Software Radio Peripheral (USRP) combined with a high-performance personal computer (PC). In this way, we demonstrate a 2D beam steering system with flat efficiency over the whole scan range and with a transition time of 50 ns between two arbitrary consecutive deflection positions for a beam power of 3.6 W.

Effectiveness of vaccines in preventing hospitalization due to COVID-19: A multicenter hospital-based case-control study, Germany, June 2021 to January 2022.

We included 852 patients in a prospectively recruiting multicenter matched case-control study in Germany to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization during the Delta-variant dominance. The two-dose VE was 89 % (95 % CI 84-93 %) overall, 79 % in patients with more than two comorbidities and 77 % in adults aged 60-75 years. A third dose increased the VE to more than 93 % in all patient-subgroups.

[Evaluation of the COVID-19 vaccination after broad implementation-an interim conclusion for Germany in July 2022]. / Evaluation der COVID-19-Impfung nach breiter Anwendung ­ ein Zwischenfazit für Deutschland im Juli 2022.

Vaccines against COVID-19 have been available in Germany since December 2020. At the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the Immunization Unit is responsible for monitoring vaccination coverage and assessment of vaccine effectiveness. This article provides an overview of the respective reporting structures, vaccination databases, and epidemiological studies established by the Immunization Unit during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe the COVID-19 Digital Vaccination Coverage Monitoring (DIM), which provides daily updates on vaccination coverage by age group. We next describe how, based on the DIM data and COVID-19 case data, the assessment of vaccine effectiveness against different clinical endpoints (hospitalization, intensive care, death) is performed. While this method is used for a preliminary estimate of vaccine efficacy, population-based nonrandomized studies are able to provide more precise and detailed estimates under "real-world" conditions. In this context, we describe the hospital-based case-control study COViK, which is being conducted in collaboration with the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI). We discuss strengths and limitations of the abovementioned structures and tools. Finally, we provide an outlook on future challenges that may arise during the ongoing pandemic and during the transition phase into an endemic situation.

Facing the Omicron variant-how well do vaccines protect against mild and severe COVID-19? Third interim analysis of a living systematic review.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is currently the dominant variant globally. This third interim analysis of a living systematic review summarizes evidence on the effectiveness of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (vaccine effectiveness, VE) and duration of protection against Omicron. Methods: We systematically searched literature on COVID-19 for controlled studies, evaluating the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines approved in the European Union up to 14/01/2022, complemented by hand searches of websites and metasearch engines up to 11/02/2022. We considered the following comparisons: full primary immunization vs. no vaccination, booster immunization vs. no vaccination, and booster vs. full primary immunization. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 (i.e., COVID-19-related hospitalization, ICU admission, or death) was indicated, providing estimate ranges. Meta-analysis was not performed due to high study heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results: We identified 26 studies, including 430 to 2.2 million participants, which evaluated VE estimates against infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. VE against any confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged between 0-62% after full primary immunization and between 34-66% after a booster dose compared to no vaccination. VE range for booster vs. full primary immunization was 34-54.6%. After full primary immunization VE against symptomatic COVID-19 ranged between 6-76%. After booster immunization VE ranged between 3-84% compared to no vaccination and between 56-69% compared to full primary immunization. VE against severe COVID-19 ranged between 3-84% after full primary immunization and between 12-100% after booster immunization compared to no vaccination, and 100% (95% CI 71.4-100) compared to full primary immunization (data from only one study). VE was characterized by a moderate to strong decline within 3-6 months for SARS-CoV-2 infections and symptomatic COVID-19. Against severe COVID-19, protection remained robust for at least up to 6 months. Waning immunity was more profound after primary than booster immunization. The risk of bias was moderate to critical across studies and outcomes. GRADE certainty was very low for all outcomes. Conclusions: Under the Omicron variant, the effectiveness of EU-licensed COVID-19 vaccines in preventing any SARS-CoV-2 infection is low and only short-lasting after full primary immunization, but can be improved by booster vaccination. VE against severe COVID-19 remains high and is long-lasting, especially after receiving the booster vaccination.

Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare both groups. RESULTS: Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality.

Duration of Protection After Vaccination Against Yellow Fever: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The duration of protection after a single dose of yellow fever vaccine is a matter of debate. To summarize the current knowledge, we performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Studies on the duration of protection after 1 and ≥2 vaccine doses were reviewed. Data were stratified by time since vaccination. In our meta-analysis, we used random-effects models. We identified 36 studies from 20 countries, comprising more than 17 000 participants aged 6 months to 85 years. Among healthy adults and children, pooled seroprotection rates after single vaccination dose were close to 100% by 3 months and remained high in adults for 5 to 10 years. In children vaccinated before age 2 years, the seroprotection rate was 52% within 5 years after primary vaccination. For immunodeficient persons, data indicate relevant waning. The extent of waning of seroprotection after yellow fever vaccination depends on age and immune status at primary vaccination.