Department of Biological and Chemical Sciences, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New York, USA.
Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
J Med Virol. 2022 Sep;94(9):4234-4245. doi: 10.1002/jmv.27871. Epub 2022 Jun 1.
To provide a comparative meta-analysis and systematic review of the risk and clinical outcomes of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Eighteen studies of COVID-19 infections in fully vaccinated ("breakthrough infections") and unvaccinated individuals were reviewed from Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The meta-analysis examined the summary effects and between-study heterogeneity regarding differences in the risk of infection, hospitalization, treatments, and mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. he overall risk of infection was lower for the fully vaccinated compared to that of the unvaccinated (relative risk [RR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-0.21), especially for variants other than Delta (Delta: RR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.13-0.65; other variants: RR 0.06, 95% CI: 0.04-0.08). The risk of asymptomatic infection was not statistically significantly different between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated (RR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.27-1.19). There were neither statistically significant differences in risk of hospitalization (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.38-2.93), invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 1.65, 95% CI: 0.90-3.06), or mortality (RR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.79-1.78). Conversely, the risk of supplemental oxygen during hospitalization was significantly higher for the unvaccinated (RR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08-1.82). Unvaccinated people were more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection than fully vaccinated for all variants. Once infected, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation, or mortality. Still, unvaccinated showed an increased need for oxygen supplementation. Further prospective analysis, including patients' risk factors, COVID-19 variants, and the utilized treatment strategies, would be warranted.
为了提供针对完全接种疫苗和未接种疫苗人群中 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)感染风险和临床结局的比较性荟萃分析和系统评价。从 Medline/PubMed、Scopus、Embase 和 Web of Science 数据库中综述了 18 项关于完全接种疫苗(“突破性感染”)和未接种疫苗个体 COVID-19 感染的研究。该荟萃分析检查了接种和未接种个体之间感染、住院、治疗和死亡率风险差异的汇总效应和研究间异质性。与未接种疫苗者相比,完全接种疫苗者的感染风险总体较低(相对风险 [RR] 0.20,95%置信区间 [CI]:0.19-0.21),尤其是针对除德尔塔(Delta)以外的变异株(Delta:RR 0.29,95% CI:0.13-0.65;其他变异株:RR 0.06,95% CI:0.04-0.08)。完全接种疫苗者和未接种疫苗者之间无症状感染的风险无统计学差异(RR 0.56,95% CI:0.27-1.19)。住院(RR 1.06,95% CI:0.38-2.93)、有创机械通气(RR 1.65,95% CI:0.90-3.06)或死亡率(RR 1.19,95% CI:0.79-1.78)的风险也无统计学差异。相反,住院期间接受补充氧气的风险未接种疫苗者显著更高(RR 1.40,95% CI:1.08-1.82)。对于所有变异株,未接种疫苗者比完全接种疫苗者更容易感染 COVID-19。一旦感染,住院、有创机械通气或死亡率的风险无统计学差异。尽管如此,未接种疫苗者仍需要补充氧气的风险增加。还需要进一步进行包括患者危险因素、COVID-19 变异株和所用治疗策略在内的前瞻性分析。