key: cord-1019378-n551g1dk
authors: Ghazy, Ramy Mohamed; Ashmawy, Rasha; Hamdy, Noha Alaa; Elhadi, Yasir Ahmed Mohammed; Reyad, Omar Ahmed; Elmalawany, Dina; Almaghraby, Abdallah; Shaaban, Ramy; Taha, Sarah Hamed N.
title: Efficacy and Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
date: 2022-02-23
journal: Vaccines (Basel)
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10030350
sha: 3342f2970e2817899ab7e06206987d4ebd5800c8
doc_id: 1019378
cord_uid: n551g1dk

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has threatened global health and prompted the need for mass vaccination. We aimed to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent mortality and reduce the risk of developing severe disease after the 1st and 2nd doses. From conception to 28 June 2021, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, WHO-ICTRP, and Google Scholar. We included both observational and randomized controlled trials. The pooled vaccine efficacy and effectiveness following vaccination, as well as their 95 percent confidence intervals (CI), were estimated using the random-effects model. In total, 22 of the 21,567 screened articles were eligible for quantitative analysis. Mortality 7 and 14 days after full vaccination decreased significantly among the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group (OR = 0.10, ([95% CI, 0.04–0.27], I(2) = 54%) and (OR = 0.46, [95% CI, 0.35–0.61], I(2) = 0%), respectively. The probability of having severe disease one or two weeks after 2nd dose decreased significantly (OR = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.19–0.46], I(2) = 25%) and (OR = 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03–0.25], I(2) = 74%), respectively. The incidence of infection any time after the 1st and 2nd doses diminished significantly (OR = 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07–0.4], I(2) = 100%) and (OR = 0.179 [95% CI, 0.15–0.19], I(2) = 98%), respectively. Also, incidence of infection one week after 2nd dose decreased significantly, (OR = 0.04, [95% CI (0.01–0.2], I(2) = 100%). After meta-regression, the type of vaccine and country were the main predictors of outcome [non-mRNA type, ß = 2.99, p = 0.0001; country UK, ß = −0.75, p = 0.038; country USA, ß = 0.8, p = 0.02]. This study showed that most vaccines have comparable effectiveness, and it is purported that mass vaccination may help to end this pandemic.

The major determinants of vaccine acceptance are vaccine safety and efficacy [25] . Most COVID-19 vaccines have mild side effects, such as pain at the site of injection, tiredness, headache, fever, or shivering for 1-2 days after vaccination. Very rare side effects include allergic reactions and blood clotting problems, the latter affecting a small number of people who had the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine [26] . Vaccine efficacy is defined as the degree to which a vaccine prevents disease, and possibly, also its transmission under ideal and controlled circumstances; this is determined by comparing a vaccinated group with a placebo group in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Vaccine effectiveness also refers to how well the vaccine performs in the real world based on observational studies [27] . The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to shed light on different studies evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines after phase III trials.

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items of the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist [28] . All steps were performed with strict compliance to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [29] . Supplementary Table S1. Reference [1] is cited in Supplementary Materials.

All studies that met the following criteria were included:

• Reported COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (RCTs) or effectiveness (observational studies). • Had a comparator group receiving either a placebo or another vaccine.

The intervention group were either partially vaccinated (received only one dose of COVID-19 vaccine) or fully vaccinated.

No restriction regarding country, race, gender, or age.

We excluded abstract only letters to the editor, reviews, conference reports, study protocols, author responses, case reports, case series, and surveillance studies with no control group, in addition to any studies that had unreliable data for extraction or duplicates.

Primary outcomes:

• Efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent COVID-19 mortality.

Secondary outcomes:

• Efficacy and effectiveness of the vaccine to prevent severe disease. 

Confirmed cases are persons who had a positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), a person with a positive SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic antigen test [30] and fulfill probable or suspected criteria of WHO case definitions, or a positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen (by rapid diagnostic test) asymptomatic patient but in close contact to probable or confirmed case [31] .

Severe COVID-19: Adult patients categorized as having severe COVID-19, if matching one of the following criteria: oxygen saturation less than 90% in room air, a respiratory rate more than 30 breaths per minute, or had signs of severe respiratory distress [32] .

Critical COVID-19: Adult patients with acute severe acute respiratory distress, septic shock, or any life-threatening condition needing critical care admission or mechanical ventilation [32] .

Test negative cases control design: The best study design to detect risk factors of severe COVID-19 illness. In this study type, symptomatic COVID-19 patients are tested using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, then categorized into cases (test positive patients) and controls (test-negative patients) [33] .

Search methods for identification of studies Electronic searches: The following databases were searched: Scopus, EBSCO, MED-LINE central/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register for Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Web of Science (WOS), ProQuest Coronavirus database, and Google scholar. Search terms were determined and approved after the consultation with PubMed. The following keywords were used in our search, after adapting according to each database search strategy, ('coronavirinae' OR 'coronaviridae infection' OR 'coronavirus disease 2019' OR 'coronavirus' OR 'coronavirus infection') AND (Vaccin * efficacy * OR Vaccin * effective * OR Vaccin * immune *). We searched these databases to compile all studies on COVID-19 vaccination that were available up to 28 June 2021.

Searching other resources: In addition to searching the grey literature, a manual search of studies by checking reference lists of all eligible papers was undertaken to ensure that we did not miss any relevant study.

Two independent reviewers searched the included databases (S.H. and R.M.G.). After which, all citations were exported to Endnote 20 to remove duplicates. Title and abstract screening was conducted by (R.A., A.A., N.H., D.M., and O.A.R.) and disagreement was resolved by (R.M.G). The inter-reviewer agreement was substantial (K = 0.8). Two reviewers (R.M.G. and S.H.) delineated accepted papers eligible for full-text screening. The two reviewers then extracted data related to patient characteristics and outcomes (authors, year of publication, country, inclusion, and exclusion criteria, when the study was conducted, study design, sample size, type of vaccine and number of doses, time point of analysis, primary and secondary outcomes). The Supplementary Materials of eligible articles were also reviewed for relevant data and the extracted data were checked and confirmed by a third author (Y.E.).

Assessment of publication bias: We assessed publication bias through a visual inspection of the funnel plot and Egger's test.

Quality assessment:

The risk of bias was assessed using two different tools according to the type of study: Cochrane risk of bias for randomized controlled trials (RoB2) [34] and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's quality assessment tool for cohort, cross-sectional, and casecontrol studies [35] . D.M. and N.H. reviewed the quality of the studies and any disagreement was resolved by R.M.G. and S.H. Effect size measurement: We used the random-effects model to study the proposed outcomes due to the significant heterogeneity. The effect size was reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval level.

Assessment of heterogeneity:

• Visual inspection of the forest plot was carried out to analyze the consistency of intervention effects across the included studies. If the same intervention effect is estimated, there should be an overlap between the confidence intervals for each effect estimate on the forest plot. However, if the overlap is weak, or there are outliers, statistical heterogeneity is likely to be present.

Statistical test for variation: heterogeneity was assessed by inspecting the forest plots to detect overlapping confidence intervals (CIs) and the I 2 statistic used to denote levels of heterogeneity as defined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [30] .

Heterogeneity was classified as follows:

• 0% to 40%: might not be important. • 30% to 60%: may represent moderate heterogeneity. • 50% to 90%: may represent substantial heterogeneity. • 75% to 100%: considerable heterogeneity.

Sensitivity analysis: To conduct a sensitivity analysis, we recalculated the results of our meta-analysis K times, leaving out one study each time. This analysis also provides a classification for what is considered influential. We ordered studies in the plot via I 2 . Here we identified the studies with the highest heterogeneity as well as the final heterogeneity when these studies were removed.

Subgroup analysis: The included studies were divided into subgroups based on research design (RCT and observational), and the study outcomes were compared between the subgroups of studies.

Meta-regression: The outcome variable was the effect estimate (COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness). The explanatory variables were study design (RCT/observational), type of vaccine (mRNA/not mRNA), and country where the study was conducted.

Statistical analysis: we used Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4 and RStudio Desktop 2022.02.0+443 (meta package).

A total of 21,567 articles were found after searching nine different databases. Out of these, 8088 articles were excluded either because they were duplicates as found by Endnote X8 or because they were published before 2019. The title and abstract screening of 13,479 papers resulted in exclusion of 13,284 irrelevant papers and 195 manually found duplicates. A total of 78 articles were screened for eligibility. Finally, 22 papers were deemed eligible for the meta-analysis ( Figure 1 ). List of papers rejected and causes of rejection are provided as Supplementary Table S2 . References are cited in Supplementary Materials.

In total, 25 studies were included in this review, 11 studies were RCTs [6, 30, [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] ] and 14 studies were observational studies [14, [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] with total sample sizes ranged from 268 [48] , to 6,538,911 subjects [49] . Among the included studies, two studies were conducted across countries [30, 39] . We found that studies assessed the efficacy or effectiveness of vaccination after the 1st dose that ranged from 60 to 94.1% [14, 30, 37, 40, 43, [45] [46] [47] [48] 50, [52] [53] [54] 56, 57] , while 18 studies assessed the efficacy or effectiveness of vaccination after 2nd dose that ranged from 21.1 to 100% [6, 14, 36, 38, 39, [41] [42] [43] [44] 46, 47, [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] 55, 56] . Effectiveness or efficacy of BNT162b2 (Pfizer vaccine) was reported in 15 studies [14, 39, 42, [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [54] [55] [56] [57] while 6 studies addressed the AstraZeneca vaccine [38, 41, 43, 52, 54, 57] , 6 studies addressed the Moderna vaccine [14, 37, 51, 53, 55, 56] , and the Johnson and Johnson vaccine was studied in one study [30] (Table 1) . 

We assessed publication bias of mortality associated with COVID-19 (primary outcome) through visual inspection of a funnel plot ( Figure 2 ) and by conducting Egger's test (t = 0.844, p = 0.43). We found that data was symmetric with low risk of publication bias. 

The quality assessment for the RCTs is presented in the summary of the risk of bias graph (Figure 3 ). The quality assessment of observational studies is included in Supplementary Table S3 . References [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] are cited in Supplementary Materials. Figure 4B ). Figure 6B ).

Main finding: incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in observational studies decreased significantly after vaccination within 14 days of 1st dose. Thus, we carried out a meta-regression analysis to understand the main predictors of this heterogeneity. Again, the type of vaccine and the country were responsible for 88.21% of the heterogeneity; [non-mRNA vaccine β = 3.519, p = 0.004; country Spain β = 2.6256, p = 0.028: Israel was the reference country) ( Figure 1A ). • Seven studies reported the incidence of symptomatic infection 14 days after the 2nd dose.

Vaccination had a protective effect against symptomatic infection. The odds among vaccinated subjects was (0.10 [95% CI, 0.02-0.54], I 2 = 100%), p < 0.001. To further explain this substantial heterogeneity, we performed meta-regression analysis that explained 100% of the heterogeneity using type of vaccine and country as predictors; [non-mRNA type, β = 3.16, p = 0.0044; country Spain β = 2.7, p = 0.0048; Israel is the reference country] ( Figure 12B ). Figure 12C ).

Main findings: incidence of SARS-CoV-2 cases (total cases and asymptomatic cases) two weeks after the 2nd dose was significantly reduced. The test for subgroup differences suggested that there was no statistically significant subgroup effect (p = 0.98), meaning that the type of study did not significantly modify the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccination. Vaccination decreased the number of cases regardless of the study design, although the protective effect was greater in RCT than in observational studies. There was no heterogeneity between the results of the RCT studies, while the heterogeneity of observational studies was I 2 = 99% ( Figure 13 ).

Main findings: vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 decreased incidence of infection after the 2nd dose regardless of the duration. 

The aim of vaccine development is to provide a weapon that protects people from getting infected or becoming a source of transmission. By the end of 2020, several COVID-19 vaccines had become available for use across the world, with over 40 different vaccines in human trials, and over 150 in preclinical trials. An updated list of vaccine candidates under evaluation is maintained by the WHO [58] . Although some of the vaccines were approved for emergency use by the FDA in the USA and the respective health departments of other countries across the world, the efficacy and effectiveness should be periodically assessed due to the ongoing antigenic drift. It is worth noting that while vaccinations are still being administered worldwide, the vaccinated population (received at least one dose of vaccine) represents around three-fifth of the entire population [59] , with safety and effectiveness representing the main concern and points of hesitation for many people [25] . Another main concern affecting vaccination coverage is COVID-19 vaccine inequity; vaccine supply will have a long-term and severe impact on socioeconomic recovery in low-and lower-middleincome countries (LMIC) unless immediate action is taken to increase supply and provide equal access for all countries. If LMIC had similar vaccination rates as high-income countries (HIC), an acceleration in scaling up manufacturing and providing adequate vaccine doses might have added costs. A high price per COVID-19 vaccine dose in comparison to other vaccines, as well as delivery costs, including those for the health workforce surge, could put a huge strain on fragile health systems, undermining vaccination programs and essential health services, and causing alarming spikes in measles, pneumonia, and diarrhea [60] .

Several studies recruited different numbers of participants to study various outcomes with variable endpoints providing different doses of vaccine with variable intervals. Studying the efficacy and effectiveness of several types of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing mortality and severity were the focus of this meta-analysis aiming to provide strong evidence to decision-makers in health policy sectors to deal with the ongoing pandemic.

We reviewed a total of 22 articles to study the desired outcomes, among which 10 were RCTs, 4 were case-control, and 8 were cohort studies. The highest number of recruited subjects in a single study was 6,538,911 [49] , while the smallest number was 268 subjects [48] .

Based on the findings of this meta-analysis, the mortality related to COVID-19 two weeks after vaccination was significantly decreased (OR = 0.46, [95% CI, 0.35-0.61], I 2 = 0%). Similarly, mortality one week after vaccination dropped significantly (OR = 0.10, [95% CI, 0.04-0.27], I 2 = 54%). In RCTs, the odds ratio for severe COVID-19 was 0.14 [95% CI, 0.03-0.75], I 2 = 30%), whereas in observational studies, the odds ratio was 0.06 [0.02-0.24], I 2 = 85%. In the same line, the odds ratio of having severe COVID-19 after the 1st dose was 0.15 [0.10-0.25], I 2 = 26%. Analyzing our results, different studies reported a significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalizations, and fatalities among those who had been fully vaccinated compared to those who had not been fully vaccinated [61] [62] [63] . Fiolet et al. [64] recently published a review on different COVID-19 vaccines effectiveness; when the strain was not sequenced, the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccination against hospitalization and mortality was over 87-94%. Similarly, inactivated viral COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac) was extremely effective against hospitalization (87.5%) and death (86.3%). In addition, if a breakthrough occurs in a vaccinated individual, the events are usually less severe than in an unprotected person [65] . Similarly, a recently published metaanalysis highlighted that the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines had the best effectiveness in preventing symptomatic COVID-19. The efficacy of comparing different vaccines in preventing serious illness was not different. Moreover, there was no difference in the efficacy of vaccinations to prevent symptomatic COVID-19 among the elderly [66] . Unfortunately, this protective effect wanes with time-5 months or more after vaccination-and vaccine effectiveness decreased against hospitalization and deaths (80.0 and 84.8% with the ChAdOx1-S) and (91.7% and 91.9% with BNT162b2), respectively [67] .

It is worthy to note that Alagoz et al. [68] hypothesized that if there is a strong adherence to non-pharmacological interventions in the community, the controllable spread of SARS-CoV-2 can be reached sooner than when a substantial part of the population gets vaccinated (e.g., 70-80%). In the current study, COVID-19 vaccines effectively reduced the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic infection. On the same lines, the WHO reported that unvaccinated persons account for the great majority of the current SARS-CoV-2 infection [65] . Virus-neutralizing antibodies are principally responsible for the protection provided by presently available vaccinations. These antibodies often inhibit the virus's binding with its cellular receptor or prevent the virus from undergoing the conformational changes essential for fusion with the cell membrane [69] We found that vaccination against COVID-19 decreased the number of cases reported within a week of the 2nd dose (OR = 0.06 (95% CI, 0.02-0.21), I 2 = 98%). Type of vaccine and country where study was conducted were the main predictors of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. Similarly, the total number of cases diagnosed within 14 days of the 2nd dose decreased significantly, (OR = 0.01 [95% CI, 0.01-0.02], I 2 = 0%). In terms of cases reported 7 days after 2nd dose, the total number of cases decreased significantly with vaccination (OR = 0.03 [95% CI, 0.02-0.05], I 2 = 73%). About 100% of this heterogeneity was explained by meta-regression (vaccine type and country). Regarding symptomatic cases diagnosed 7 days after the 2nd dose, COVID-19 vaccine was effective in reducing the number of symptomatic cases in comparison to placebo or control group (OR = 0.02 [95% CI, 0.02-0.02], I 2 = 0%). The odds ratio of cases reported 14 days after the 2nd dose among vaccinated versus unvaccinated subjects was OR = 0.08, [95% CI, 0.02-0.34], I 2 = 100%). Confirmed cases reported after the 1st and 2nd dose regardless of the duration decreased significantly, OR = 0.14 (95% CI, 0.07-0.4) I 2 = 100% and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.15-0.19), I 2 = 98%, respectively.

In the same vein, many reviews addressed vaccine effectiveness and efficacy. Pormohammad et al. [70] included 25 studies in phase II/III RCTs, the efficacy of mRNA-based and adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines was 94.6% and 80.2%, respectively. After 3 weeks of vaccinations, the adenovirus-vectored vaccine had the maximum efficacy against receptor-binding domain (RBD) antigen after the 1st and 2nd doses (97.6% and 98.2% respectively). Similarly, a review of phase III studies showed a significant increase in neutralizing antibodies with the 2nd dose of the vaccine [71] . However, it was also advised that when vaccine supply is scarce, countries should vaccinate with a single dose. This may provide better overall protection in the population than vaccinating half the number of individuals with both doses [72] .

Many factors can explain the observed difference in efficacy and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention [73] demonstrated that in the real-world, vaccine effectiveness can be affected by several factors, including population host factors (e.g., those who were not included in clinical trials) and virus factors (e.g., variants) as well as programmatic factors (e.g., adherence to dosing schedules or vaccine storage/handling) [74] . Thompson et al. [75] reported that under real-world conditions, complete immunization (14 days after 2nd dose) was 90% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, while partial immunization (14 days after 1st dose but before 2nd dose) was 80% effective. In addition, the effectiveness of vaccination varied according to the types of vaccine; Pilishvili et al. [76] stated that vaccine effectiveness for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna were 77.6% (95.6% CI, 70.9-82.7) and 88.9% (95.9% CI, 78.7-94.2) after the 1st dose and were 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6-91.8) and 96.3% (95.3-98.4) after the 2nd dose, respectively. Of note, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became prevalent, the percentage of completely vaccinated people who got SARS-CoV-2 infection grew higher than predicted [63] . The effectiveness of the mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 was 88-100% against Alpha, 76-100% against Beta/Gamma, 47.3-88% against Delta, and 89-100% when the SARS-CoV-2 strain was not sequenced. Oxford/AstraZeneca (AZD1222) was 74.5% effective against Alpha and 67% effective against Delta. CoronaVac was effective against the Alpha/Gamma/D614G strain in 36.8-73.8% of cases [64] .

Unfortunately, new data consistently demonstrated that vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection declines with time following immunization [77] . It is worth noting that according to a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis, immunization efficacy against severe COVID-19 infection dropped by around 8% (95% CI, 4-15) during the 6-months period in all age groups. Over the same time, vaccine efficacy against serious illness declined by around 10% (95% CI, 6-15%) in individuals over the age of 50. Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic illness fell by 32% (95% CI, 11-69%) in individuals over the age of 50 [78] . Consequently, WHO has already recommended administering a booster dose of vaccine to people aged 60 years or older as part of the main series to strengthen initial protection [65] . Therefore, people should adhere to public health and social measures even though they have received vaccines to avoid COVID-19 infection and its consequences [79] .

This systematic review has some limitations. First, there is no evidence of the longterm effectiveness of the vaccine. Due to the urgency of vaccine development, most trials only followed up participants for 28 days after vaccination. Second, this metanalysis cannot give solid evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines on the variant strain B.1.351. This variant strain can escape neutralizing relevant antibodies. Consequently, more studies need to be conducted to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines against variants of concern like delta strain and omicron [64] . Third, due to scarce of literature, we neither included all approved vaccines nor all age groups (elderly, adolescents, and children).

The points of strength in this systematic review are that we did not include preprinted documents, studies that were not peer-reviewed, and studies with missing data. Due to the scarcity of RCTs, observational studies were included, as were retrospective case analyses. Animal studies were excluded, and we did not have lingual restrictions. Our analysis has identified numerous critical components to consider when planning a real-world efficacy trial of COVID-19 vaccinations, such as the appropriate study design, study population, outcome, and period for follow-up. The majority of studies identified were from HICs, frequently utilizing national databases (which may not exist or may be of lower quality in LMICs), and the vast majority assessed mRNA vaccines, which are more prevalent in HICs. These findings highlight the need for pressing for real-world efficacy studies on all licensed COVID-19 vaccines in a variety of LMIC contexts using different study designs.

This systematic review and meta-analysis summarized the results of clinical trials related to the COVID-19 vaccines, showing that most vaccines had comparable effectiveness and efficacy. It is believed that vaccination can effectively reduce COVID-19 related deaths and severe cases. The incidence of COVID-19, either symptomatic or asymptomatic, decreased significantly after vaccination by one or two doses. However, in the light of the ongoing appearance of novel variants, the efficacy/effectiveness of vaccination against COVID-19 infection needs to be re-assessed.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/vaccines10030350/s1, Table S1 : PRISMA 2020 Checklist. Table S2 : Summary of studies not met inclusion criteria of qualitative and quantitative analysis. Table S3 : Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. 

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Recent insights into emerging coronaviruses

Middle East respiratory syndrome

Epidemic and Pandemic-Prone Diseases: MERS Situation Update

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV): Infection, Immunological Response, and Vaccine Development

SARS vaccines: Where are we?

Efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 COVID-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant

Efficacy of an Adjuvanted Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Spike Protein Vaccine in Dromedary Camels and Alpacas

From SARS to MERS: 10 years of research on highly pathogenic human coronaviruses

Outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, China: The mystery and the miracle

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan

In the eye of the COVID-19 cytokine storm

COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic

Estimating Mortality from COVID-19

Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines Among Health Care Personnel-33

World Health Organization. COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker and Landscape

The SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Pipeline: An Overview

Draft Landscape of COVID-19 Candidate Vaccines

COVID-19: FDA approves Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in record time

FDA Authorizes Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for Emergency Use in Children 5 through 11 Years of Age

COVID-19 Vaccination

Live COVID-19 Vaccination Tracker Asia

The New New York Times. Covid Vaccinations Tracker

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker

A Snapshot of the Global Race for Vaccines Targeting SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination psychological antecedent assessment using the Arabic 5c validated tool: An online survey in 13 Arab countries

COVID-19) Vaccines Side Effects and Safety

World Health Organization. Vaccine Efficacy, Effectiveness and Protection

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Safety and Efficacy of Single-Dose Ad26.COV2.S Vaccine against COVID-19

World Health Organization. WHO COVID-19 Case Definition

World Health Organization. COVID-19 Clinical Management: Living Guidance

A Test-Negative Design with Additional Population Controls Can Be Used to Rapidly Study Causes of the SARS-CoV-2

Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2)

National Institution of Health. Study Quality Assessment Tools

Effect of 2 Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines on Symptomatic COVID-19 Infection in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

Efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern 202012/01 (B.1.1.7): An explora-tory analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Safety, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents

Safety and efficacy of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterol-ogous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine: An interim analysis of a randomised controlled phase 3 trial in Russia

Efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 COVID-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: An interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and ef-ficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: A pooled analysis of four randomised trials

Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Among Residents of Two Skilled Nursing Facilities Experiencing COVID-19 Outbreaks-Connecticut

BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting

BioNTech/Pfizer) vaccine in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers, Treviso province

Effectiveness of the first dose of BNT162b2 vaccine to preventing COVID-19 in healthcare personnel

Impact and effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths following a nationwide vaccination campaign in Israel: An observational study using national surveillance data

COVID-19 vaccine coverage in health-care workers in England and effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against infec-tion (SIREN): A prospective, multicentre, cohort study

Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in a Veterans Affairs Cohort of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Diverse Exposure to Immunosuppressive Medications

Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on COVID-19 related symptoms, hospital ad-missions, and mortality in older adults in England: Test negative case-control study

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation

Vaccine side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: A prospective observational study

Effec-tiveness of Messenger RNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccines Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection in a Cohort of Healthcare Personnel

Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines Against COVID-19 Among Hospitalized Adults Aged ≥65 Years-United States

Interim findings from first-dose mass COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and COVID-19 hospital admissions in Scotland: A na-tional prospective cohort study

Vaccine Inequity Undermining Global Economic Recovery

SARS-CoV-2 infections and hospitalizations among persons aged≥ 16 years, by vaccination status

COVID-19-associated hospitalizations among vaccinated and unvaccinated adults ≥18 years-COVID-NET, 13 states

Monitoring incidence of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, by vaccination status-13 US jurisdictions

Peiffer-Smadja, N. Comparing COVID-19 vaccines for their characteristics, efficacy and effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern: A narrative review

Interim Statement on Booster Doses for COVID-19 Vaccination

Comparing the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Duration of Protection against Mild and Severe Disease by COVID-19 Vaccines

The impact of vaccination to control COVID-19 burden in the United States: A simulation modeling approach

COVID-19: Mechanisms of Vaccination and Immunity. Vaccines 2020, 8, 404

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Review of COVID-19 vaccine subtypes, efficacy and geographical dis-tributions

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness-the elephant (not) in the room

Africa Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention. Responding to COVID-19 in Africa: Finding the Balance (Part IV) and Calls to action

COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Research

Interim estimates of vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers-eight US locations

Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine among US health care personnel

Boutron, I. Considerations in boosting COVID-19 vaccine immune responses

Duration of Effectiveness of Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Disease: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Regression

Letter from Egypt