4.7 Review

Sex Disparities in Efficacy in COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

VACCINES
Volume 9, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9080825

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; vaccines; sex; gender; immune system

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A systematic review and meta-analysis on COVID-19 vaccines investigated the influence of sex on vaccine efficacy, finding that men had significantly higher efficacy compared to women in the vaccine group, while women showed increased toxicity. These findings highlight the importance of considering sex as a core variable in the design of clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines.
Sex differences in adaptive and innate immune responses have been shown to occur and anecdotal reports suggest that vaccine efficacy and safety may be sex-dependent. We investigated the influence of sex on the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines through a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on COVID-19 vaccines. The safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines was also investigated. A systematic review included eligible articles published in three databases and three websites. A meta-analysis of available data, stratified by sex, was conducted. Statistical analysis was performed using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method, as well as influence and heterogeneity analysis. Pooled analysis showed significantly higher efficacy, measured as the rate of new COVID-19 cases, in men compared to women in the vaccine group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.94). No sex differences were found in the rate of new cases in the control group (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.78-1.09). Safety profiles derived from pharmacovigilance reports appear to indicate increased toxicity in women. In conclusion, evidence of a potential role of sex in COVID-19 vaccine efficacy was described. It strengthens the need to include sex as a core variable in the clinical trial design of COVID-19 vaccines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available