FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4313547515> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4313547515 endingPage "e66" @default.
• W4313547515 startingPage "e64" @default.
• W4313547515 abstract "We read with great interest the paper by Xu et al., which found that the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine for children is not only effective and safe but also more effective than the adult COVID-19 vaccine.1Xu W. Tang J. Chen C. et al.Safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine in children and/or adolescents: a meta-analysis.J Infect. 2022; 84: 722-746Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar The emergence of the Omicron variant in November 2021 has further increased transmissibility and led to a significant increase in COVID-19 cases.2Karim S.S.A. Karim Q.A. Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant: a new chapter in the COVID-19 pandemic.Lancet. 2021; 398: 2126-2128Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (679) Google Scholar To date, many articles found that the effect of COVID-19 vaccine in children/adolescents with Omicron variant may be different due to the variations in the age and vaccine dose.3Jara A. Undurraga E.A. Zubizarreta J.R. et al.Effectiveness of CoronaVac in children 3-5 years of age during the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron outbreak in Chile.Nat Med. 2022; 28: 1377-1380Crossref PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar, 4Price A.M. Olson S.M. Newhams M.M. et al.BNT162b2 protection against the Omicron variant in children and adolescents.N Engl J Med. 2022; 386: 1899-1909Crossref PubMed Scopus (86) Google Scholar, 5Fleming-Dutra K.E. Britton A. Shang N. et al.Association of prior BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents during Omicron predominance.JAMA. 2022; 327: 2210-2219Crossref PubMed Scopus (51) Google Scholar However, the results on the effect of COVID-19 vaccine in children and adolescents with the Omicron variant remain controversial. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis is critical to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of COVID-19 vaccines in children and adolescents with Omicron variant. We comprehensively searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for articles published between November 1, 2021, and November 30, 2022. A combination of MeSH/Emtree and title/abstract keywords was used. The search terms were “COVID-19″, “COVID 19 vaccine”, “sars cov2 vaccine”, “omicron” (Supplementary Table 1). The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the children or/and adolescents were confirmed with Omicron variant infection who had previously been injected with COVID-19 vaccine; (2) the comparator arms were not injected with vaccine; (3) the studies measured the VE of the Omicron infection, hospitalization or symptomatic COVID-19; (4) the studies were observational studies and published in English. Any case reports, reviews, and preprints were excluded (Supplementary Fig. 1). The relationship between children/adolescents with Omicron infection and the vaccine was evaluated through the random-effects models after pooling the VE and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome. The I2 and P values were used to assess the heterogeneity, and potential publication bias by Funnel plots and Egger's tests (Supplementary Figs. 2–9), and the risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (Supplementary Table 2). STATA 14.0 (College Station, Texas 77,845, USA, Serial number: 401,406,267,051) was used to perform all statistical analyses. A total of 14 observational studies including 3793,543 patients were eligible to be included in this study, and the type of vaccines mainly included BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines and CoronaVac vaccines as well as the characteristics of the included articles and correspondent references are shown in the Supplementary Table 3. The pooled results showed that the overall VE for children with Omicron infection was 46.33% (95% CIs: 29.85–62.81, p < 0.01) (Fig. 1A). Subgroup analysis was performed according to the first and second vaccine doses, and the results showed the VE 18% (95% CIs: 0–36, p = 0.05) of the first dose was significantly lower than the VE 50.67% (95% CIs: 33.02–68.31, p < 0.01) of the second dose (Fig. 1A) among the children with Omicron infection. Moreover, the overall VE for adolescents was 54.35% (95% CIs: 43.49–65.20, p < 0.01) (Fig. 1B). Subgroup analysis showed that the VE 39.11% (95% CIs: 27.43–50.79, <0.05) of the first dose was lowest, and the second dose 60.59% (95% CIs: 41.31–79.86, p < 0.01) as well as the booster dose 63.38% (95% CIs: 48.59–78.17, p < 0.01) (Fig. 1B) were significantly higher than the first dose. Furthermore, the pooled VE for the COVID-19-related hospitalization was 70.43% (95% CIs: 56.71–84.15, p < 0.01) (Fig. 1C). Subgroup analysis suggested that the VE had no difference between children (70.98%) (95% CIs: 63.33–78.63, p < 0.01) and adolescents (70.17%) (95% CIs: 48.30–91.99, p < 0.01) (Fig. 1C). Additionally, the pooled VE for symptomatic COVID-19 in adolescents was 73.05% (95% CIs: 61.68–84.42, p < 0.01) which was higher than in children 45.18% (95% CIs: 29.96–60.40, p < 0.05) (Fig. 2A). The pooled VE for symptomatic COVID-19 after the first dose was 26.41% (95% CIs: 17.64–35.18, p < 0.01), which was lower than VE for second dose 59.72% (95% CIs: 42.93%−76.50%, p < 0.01) and the booster dose 71.10% (95% CIs: 66.0–76.20, p < 0.01) (Fig. 2B). Evaluating the safety of the vaccine is critical for children. The adverse reaction of vaccine was 0.02 (−0.01 to 0.04, p > 0.05) (Fig. 2C), which suggested that the vaccine was safe for children and adolescents with Omicron infection.Fig. 2Forest plot of VE and it's 95% CI for (A, B) symptomatic COVID-19 Omicron infection and (C) the adverse reactions of COVID-19 vaccine.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) This meta-analysis included 14 studies and demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccine for Omicron variant is safe and more effective in adolescents than in children. Moreover, the second dose as well as the booster vaccine were more effective than the first dose in protecting children and adolescents from the Omicron infection, especially those with symptomatic COVID-19. More importantly, different doses of the COVID-19 vaccine were higher VE in adolescents than in children with Omicron variant infection. Interestingly, like many the present articles,4Price A.M. Olson S.M. Newhams M.M. et al.BNT162b2 protection against the Omicron variant in children and adolescents.N Engl J Med. 2022; 386: 1899-1909Crossref PubMed Scopus (86) Google Scholar, 5Fleming-Dutra K.E. Britton A. Shang N. et al.Association of prior BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents during Omicron predominance.JAMA. 2022; 327: 2210-2219Crossref PubMed Scopus (51) Google Scholar, 6Sabu J.M. Zahid I. Jacob N. et al.Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Vaccines. 2022; 10 (Basel): 1880Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar most of the vaccines for Omicron infection in this study were BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines, only one study involved in CoronaVac vaccines3Jara A. Undurraga E.A. Zubizarreta J.R. et al.Effectiveness of CoronaVac in children 3-5 years of age during the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron outbreak in Chile.Nat Med. 2022; 28: 1377-1380Crossref PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar (showed in Supplementary Table 3). This may be caused by the Omicron strains have significantly reduced the VE, and 20% and 24% of BNT162b2 recipients had detectable neutralizing antibody against the omicron variant, but for the CoronaVac receptor, had almost no neutralizing antibody titer against Omicron strains.7Lu L. Mok B.W.Y. Chen L.L. et al.Neutralization of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron variant by sera from BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccine recipients.Clin Infect Dis. 2022; 75: e822-e826Crossref PubMed Scopus (181) Google Scholar A previous meta-analysis6Sabu J.M. Zahid I. Jacob N. et al.Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Vaccines. 2022; 10 (Basel): 1880Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar suggested that the BNT162b2 vaccine could protect children and adolescents against COVID-19 infection, especially Delta variant and its complications, which is similar to the results with the Omicron strains in our study. In summary, this was the first systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the relationship between COVID-19 vaccine and effectiveness in children and adolescents with Omicron variant infection. The findings suggested that the COVID-19 vaccine for Omicron variant was more effective in adolescents than in children, and the second dose and the booster vaccine were more effective than the first dose. Importantly, the second and booster doses were very important for protecting children and adolescents from COVID-19 infection. Not available. The datasets used and/or analyzed in the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper We thank Yifan Niu and Boyang Duo for their help with this study. We also thank the Chinese Evidence Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, for providing the STATA 14.0 statistical software. Download .docx (5.56 MB) Help with docx files" @default.
• W4313547515 created "2023-01-06" @default.
• W4313547515 creator A5028929096 @default.
• W4313547515 creator A5035776006 @default.
• W4313547515 creator A5048670482 @default.
• W4313547515 creator A5062094478 @default.
• W4313547515 creator A5064149596 @default.
• W4313547515 creator A5067142874 @default.
• W4313547515 date "2023-03-01" @default.
• W4313547515 modified "2023-09-29" @default.
• W4313547515 title "Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in children and adolescents with the Omicron variant: A systematic review and meta-analysis" @default.
• W4313547515 cites W4200066927 @default.
• W4313547515 cites W4200505933 @default.
• W4313547515 cites W4210455250 @default.
• W4313547515 cites W4220914416 @default.
• W4313547515 cites W4280551210 @default.
• W4313547515 cites W4281296929 @default.
• W4313547515 cites W4308518348 @default.
• W4313547515 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2023.01.001" @default.
• W4313547515 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36621642" @default.
• W4313547515 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4313547515 type Work @default.
• W4313547515 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W4313547515 countsByYear W43135475152023 @default.
• W4313547515 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4313547515 hasAuthorship W4313547515A5028929096 @default.
• W4313547515 hasAuthorship W4313547515A5035776006 @default.
• W4313547515 hasAuthorship W4313547515A5048670482 @default.
• W4313547515 hasAuthorship W4313547515A5062094478 @default.
• W4313547515 hasAuthorship W4313547515A5064149596 @default.
• W4313547515 hasAuthorship W4313547515A5067142874 @default.
• W4313547515 hasBestOaLocation W43135475151 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConcept C116675565 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConcept C159047783 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConcept C3006700255 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConcept C3007834351 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConcept C3008058167 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConcept C524204448 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConceptScore W4313547515C116675565 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConceptScore W4313547515C126322002 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConceptScore W4313547515C159047783 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConceptScore W4313547515C2779134260 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConceptScore W4313547515C3006700255 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConceptScore W4313547515C3007834351 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConceptScore W4313547515C3008058167 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConceptScore W4313547515C524204448 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConceptScore W4313547515C71924100 @default.
• W4313547515 hasConceptScore W4313547515C95190672 @default.
• W4313547515 hasFunder F4320322990 @default.
• W4313547515 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W4313547515 hasLocation W43135475151 @default.
• W4313547515 hasLocation W43135475152 @default.
• W4313547515 hasLocation W43135475153 @default.
• W4313547515 hasOpenAccess W4313547515 @default.
• W4313547515 hasPrimaryLocation W43135475151 @default.
• W4313547515 hasRelatedWork W3032377983 @default.
• W4313547515 hasRelatedWork W3036314732 @default.
• W4313547515 hasRelatedWork W3081241235 @default.
• W4313547515 hasRelatedWork W3127693599 @default.
• W4313547515 hasRelatedWork W3178186717 @default.
• W4313547515 hasRelatedWork W3184386184 @default.
• W4313547515 hasRelatedWork W4200153954 @default.
• W4313547515 hasRelatedWork W4206669628 @default.
• W4313547515 hasRelatedWork W4210401150 @default.
• W4313547515 hasRelatedWork W4287374796 @default.
• W4313547515 hasVolume "86" @default.
• W4313547515 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4313547515 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4313547515 workType "article" @default.