Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant (B.1.1.529): A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

  1. Nando Reza Pratama
  2. Ifan Ali Wafa
  3. David Setyo Budi
  4. Henry Sutanto
  5. Tri Pudy Asmarawati
  6. Gema Barlian Effendi
  7. Citrawati Dyah Kencono Wungu

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) and the urgency of booster vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant need evaluation. A systematic search was conducted from 1–6 April, 2022. VE difference (VED) estimates were assessed using random-effects and meta-regression analyses were performed for evaluating VE over time. Compared to full dose, booster dose of overall vaccines provided better protection against any and severe Omicron infections within 3 months (p < 0.001), and within 3 months or more in any, severe, and symptomatic infections (p < 0.001). From meta-regression analysis of overall vaccines, the full-dose VE against any and symptomatic Omicron infections reduced per month by 2.45% and 5.5%, respectively; whereas booster dose effectiveness against any and symptomatic Omicron infections reduced per month by 1.79% and 1.14%, respectively. The VE estimates of booster dose provide excellent protection against symptomatic infection compared to full dose. The VE estimates of Ad26.COV2.S, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCov-19, and mRNA-1273 against Omicron infection are generally moderate, despite the VE estimates declining over time.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/vaccines10122180
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.29.22274454: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Search Strategy and Selection of Studies: Two authors (I.A.W and D.S.B) conducted a keyword search for articles published in databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Extended manual search (e.g., in medRxiv, bioRxiv) and bibliographical search were also conducted to obtain additional potential articles.
    bioRxiv
    suggested: (bioRxiv, RRID:SCR_003933)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    We acknowledge that this study has some limitations. First, most results had high heterogeneity. In the meta-analysis of VED outcome, we attempted to perform subgroup analyses based on the study design and types of the vaccine, but the heterogeneity remained high. Since there was a considerable discrepancy in the follow-up time between the booster and full doses, we suspected that the high heterogeneity was due to covariate time, as we have demonstrated in the other outcomes. Secondly, all included studies were observational studies. In observational studies, some confounding factors are difficult to measure, thereby cannot be controlled. For example, significant differences in the follow-up time would result in different exposure received between the two groups. Moreover, the fact that VE declines over time should be considered because cumulative comparison would lead to a bias. As the result, we attempted to limit the time interval in one model to only include data within three months to minimize this bias. Third, some included studies were obtained from preprint servers, which had not been preceded by a peer-review process and the presented data may differ from the final published, peer-reviewed, version.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.04.29.22274454v1 on medRxiv