metricas
covid
Buscar en
Medicina de Familia. SEMERGEN
Toda la web
Inicio Medicina de Familia. SEMERGEN Comparative effectiveness of three common SARS-COV-2 vaccines: A network meta-an...
Journal Information
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
249
Original
Comparative effectiveness of three common SARS-COV-2 vaccines: A network meta-analysis of randomized trials
Efectividad comparativa de tres vacunas comunes contra el SARS-CoV-2: un metaanálisis en red de ensayos aleatorizados
Visits
249
A.A. Syeda,
Corresponding author
ahadshah321@gmail.com

Corresponding author.
, F. Eqbala, H.R. Shamsia, A.R.S. Syeda, S.J. Zakira, M. Fawzyb, K.S. Khanc,d
a Department of Medicine, Dow Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan
b Ibnsina, Banon, Qena IVF Centers, Egypt
c Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
d Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (3)
Show moreShow less
Tables (1)
Table 1. Characteristics of the included randomized controlled trials (RCT) in network meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety of three common SARS-COV-2 vaccines.
Additional material (1)
Abstract
Background

Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for preventing COVID-19 have regulatory approval in most countries. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare their effectiveness.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ICTRP, and Clinicaltrials.gov for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1st January 2020 and 1st February 2024. Eligible RCTs evaluated the Moderna, Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines among healthy individuals and reported the effectiveness of vaccination versus control measured with the outcome occurrence of COVID-19. We performed study selection, data extraction, and quality (risk of bias) assessment in duplicate. Network meta-analysis with random effects models was used to generate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), evaluating heterogeneity statistically using I2 for direct comparisons and ranking vaccines hierarchically using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). This study was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42023457957.

Findings

Of the 1954 initial citation, 18 RCTs (272,724 participants; 151,034 received one of the vaccines and 121,690 controls) that reported the outcome occurrence of COVID-19 were selected. Of these, 2 (11%) were moderate and 5 (28%) were high in quality. In network meta-analysis, all three vaccines were effective compared directly with control (Moderna OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07–0.26, I2 97%; Pfizer OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05–0.19, I2 78%; AstraZeneca OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25–0.59, I2 63%). Indirect comparison of vaccines using control as the common comparator showed that AstraZeneca was less effective than Moderna (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.32–6.12) and Pfizer (OR 3.94, 95% CI 1.80–8.60), while Moderna versus Pfizer showed no difference (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.56–3.46). Vaccine SUCRA probabilities were higher for Pfizer than Moderna and AstraZeneca (92%, 75% and 33% respectively compared to control).

Interpretations

Pfizer ranks highest followed by Moderna (without a statistically significant difference) and AstraZeneca vaccines for preventing symptomatic COVID-19.

Keywords:
Moderna
Pfizer
AstraZeneca
Network meta-analysis
COVID-19
Resumen
Antecedentes

Las vacunas de Moderna, Pfizer y AstraZeneca SARS-CoV-2 para prevenir COVID-19 tiene aprobación regulatoria en la mayoría de los países. Elaboramos un network metaanálisis en red para comparar su efectividad.

Métodos

Se realizaron búsquedas en PubMed, Cochrane Registro Central de Ensayos Controlados (CENTRAL), ICTRP y Clinicaltrials.gov para ensayos clínicos (RCTs) publicados entre el 1 de Enero de 2020 y el 1 Febrero de 2024. Se incluyeron RCTs elegibles que evaluaron la efectividad de las vacunas Moderna, Pfizer o AstraZeneca vacunas comparado con control y administradas en individuos sanos medido con el desenlace de aparición de COVID-19 sintomático. La búsqueda, selección, extracción de datos y análisis de la calidad (riesgo de sesgos) se llevó a cabo en duplicado. Se utilizó un metaanálisis en red con modelos de efectos aleatorios para generar odds ratios (OR) con intervalos de confianza (IC) del 95%, se estimó la heterogeneidad estadísticamente mediante I2 para comparaciones directas y las vacunas se clasificaron jerárquicamente utilizando la superficie debajo de la curva de ranking acumulativo (SUCRA). Este estudio fue registrado en PROSPERO (CRD42023457957).

Resultados

Se revisaron 1.954 citaciones, de las que 18 RCTs (272.724 participantes; 151.034 recibieron una vacuna y 121.690 controles) informaron la tasa de aparición de casos de COVID-19. De ellos, dos (11%) fueron moderados y cinco (28%) de alta calidad. En el metaanálisis, las tres vacunas fueron efectivas comparado directamente con el control (Moderna OR 0,13, IC 95% 0,07-0,26, I2 97%; Pfizer OR 0,10; IC 95%: 0,05-0-19, I2 78%; AstraZeneca OR 0,38; IC del 95%: 0,25-0,59, I2 63%). La comparación indirecta de vacunas utilizando el control como comparador común mostró que AstraZeneca fue menos efectiva que Moderna (OR 2,84, IC 95% 1,32-6,12) y Pfizer (OR 3,94; IC del 95%: 1,80-8,60), mientras que Moderna frente a Pfizer no mostró diferencia (OR 1,39; IC del 95%: 0,56-3,46). La clasificación de probabilidades (SUCRA) fue más alta para Pfizer que para Moderna y AstraZeneca (92%, 75% y 33%, respectivamente comparado con el control).

Interpretaciones

Pfizer presentó la eficacia más elevada seguida de Moderna (sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas) y de AstraZeneca para la prevención del COVID-19 sintomático.

Palabras clave:
Moderna
Pfizer
AstraZeneca
Network metaanálisis
COVID-19

Article

These are the options to access the full texts of the publication Medicina de Familia. SEMERGEN
Member
Si es usted socio de SEMERGEN:
Diríjase al área privada de socios de la web de la SEMERGEN, (https://www.semergen.es/index.php?seccion=biblioteca&subSeccion=revistaSEMERGEN ) y autentifíquese.
Subscriber
Subscriber

If you already have your login data, please click here .

If you have forgotten your password you can you can recover it by clicking here and selecting the option “I have forgotten my password”
Subscribe
Subscribe to

Medicina de Familia. SEMERGEN

Purchase
Purchase article

Purchasing article the PDF version will be downloaded

Price 19.34 €

Purchase now
Contact
Phone for subscriptions and reporting of errors
From Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (GMT + 1) except for the months of July and August which will be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Calls from Spain
932 415 960
Calls from outside Spain
+34 932 415 960
E-mail
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos