Author
Listed:
- Jie Deng
(Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China
These authors contributed equally to this work.)
- Yirui Ma
(Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China
These authors contributed equally to this work.)
- Qiao Liu
(Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China)
- Min Du
(Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China)
- Min Liu
(Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China)
- Jue Liu
(Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China
Institute for Global Health and Development, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China)
Abstract
As vaccine resources were distributed unevenly worldwide, sometimes there might have been shortages or delays in vaccine supply; therefore, considering the use of heterogeneous booster doses for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be an alternative strategy. Therefore, we aimed to review the data available to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of heterologous booster doses with homologous booster doses for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines. We searched relevant studies up to 27 April 2022. Random-effects inverse variance models were used to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of COVID-19 outcomes and odds ratio (OR) and its CI of safety events. The Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale and Cochrane Collaboration’s tool were used to assess the quality of the included cohort studies. A total of 23 studies involving 1,726,506 inoculation cases of homologous booster dose and 5,343,580 inoculation cases of heterologous booster dose was included. The VE of heterologous booster for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection (VE heterologous = 96.10%, VE homologous = 84.00%), symptomatic COVID-19 (VE heterologous = 56.80%, VE homologous = 17.30%), and COVID-19-related hospital admissions (VE heterologous = 97.40%, VE homologous = 93.20%) was higher than homologous booster. Compared with homologous booster group, there was a higher risk of fever (OR = 1.930, 95% CI, 1.199–3.107), myalgia (OR = 1.825, 95% CI, 1.079–3.089), and malaise or fatigue (OR = 1.745, 95% CI, 1.047–2.906) within 7 days after boosting, and a higher risk of malaise or fatigue (OR = 4.140, 95% CI, 1.729–9.916) within 28 days after boosting in heterologous booster group. Compared with homologous booster group, geometric mean neutralizing titers (GMTs) of neutralizing antibody for different SARS-CoV-2 variants and response rate of antibody and gama interferon were higher in heterologous booster group. Our findings suggested that both homologous and heterologous COVID-19 booster doses had great effectiveness, immunogenicity, and acceptable safety, and a heterologous booster dose was more effective, which would help make appropriate public health decisions and reduce public hesitancy in vaccination.
Suggested Citation
Jie Deng & Yirui Ma & Qiao Liu & Min Du & Min Liu & Jue Liu, 2022.
"Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Heterologous Booster Doses with Homologous Booster Doses for SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-17, August.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10752-:d:900754
Download full text from publisher
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10752-:d:900754. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.