Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine to reduce COVID-19 infections and hospitalisations in healthcare workers: a living systematic review and prospective ALL-IN meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials
ter Schure, J.; Ly, A.; Belin, L.; Benn, C. S.; Bonten, M. J. M.; Cirillo, J. D.; Damen, J. A. A.; Fronteira, I.; Hendriks, K. D.; Junqueira-Kipnis, A. P.; Kipnis, A.; Launay, O.; Mendez-Reyes, J. E.; Moldvay, J.; Netea, M. G.; Nielsen, S.; Upton, C. M.; van den Hoogen, G.; Weehuizen, J. M.; Grunwald, P. D.; van Werkhoven, H.
Show abstract
BACKGROUNDThe objective is to determine the impact of the Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine compared to placebo or no vaccine on COVID-19 infections and hospitalisations in healthcare workers. We are using a living and prospective approach to Individual-Participant-Data (IPD) meta-analysis of ongoing studies based on the Anytime Live and Leading Interim (ALL-IN) meta-analysis statistical methodology. METHODSPlanned and ongoing randomised controlled trials were identified from trial registries and by snowballing (final elicitation: Oct 3 2022). The methodology was specified prospectively - with no trial results available - for trial inclusion as well as statistical analysis. Inclusion decisions were made collaboratively based on a risk-of-bias assessment by an external protocol review committee (Cochrane risk-of-bias tool adjusted for use on protocols), expected homogeneity in treatment effect, and agreement with the predetermined event definitions. The co-primary endpoints were incidence of COVID-19 infection and COVID-19-related hospital admission. Accumulating IPD from included trials was analysed sequentially using the exact e-value logrank test (at level = 0.5% for infections and level = 4.5% for hospitalisations) and anytime-valid 95%-confidence intervals (CIs) for the hazard ratio (HR) for a predetermined fixed-effects approach to meta-analysis (no measures of statistical heterogeneity). Infections were included if demonstrated by PCR tests, antigen tests or suggestive lung CTs. Participants were censored at date of first COVID-19-specific vaccination and two-stage analyses were performed in calendar time, with a stratification factor per trial. RESULTSSix trials were included in the primary analysis with 4 433 participants in total. The e-values showed no evidence of a favourable effect of minimal clinically relevance (HR < 0.8) in comparison to the null (HR = 1) for COVID-19 infections, nor for COVID-19 hospitalisations (HR < 0.7 vs HR = 1). COVID-19 infection was observed in 251 participants receiving BCG and 244 participants not receiving BCG, HR 1.02 (anytime-valid 95%-CI 0.78-1.35). COVID-19 hospitalisations were observed in 13 participants receiving BCG and 7 not receiving BCG, resulting in an uninformative estimate (HR 1.88; anytime-valid 95%-CI 0.26-13.40). DISCUSSIONIt is highly unlikely that BCG has a clinically relevant effect on COVID-19 infections in healthcare workers. With only limited observations, no conclusion could be drawn for COVID-19 related hospitalisation. Due to the nature of ALL-IN meta-analysis, emerging data from new trials can be included without violating type-I error rates or interval coverage. We intend to keep this meta-analysis alive and up-to-date, as more trials report. For COVID-19 related hospitalisations, we do not expect enough future observations for a meaningful analysis. For BCG-mediated protection against COVID-19 infections, on the other hand, more observations could lead to a more precise estimate that concludes the meta-analysis for futility, meaning that the current interval excludes the HR of 0.8 predetermined as effect size of minimal clinical relevance. OTHERNo external funding. Preregistered at PROSPERO: CRD42021213069.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 96%
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 94%
- UKCTOCS Update: Applying insights of delayed effects in cancer screening trials to the long-term follow-up mortality analysis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 95%
- Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center 94%
- Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 96%
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 95%
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 96%
- Investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of study effect estimates in meta-analyses of nutrition research 94%
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials That Inform Clinical Practice: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 95%
- Effects of Side-Effect Risk Framing Strategies on COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions: A Randomized Controlled Trial 91%
- Multicenter preclinical studies as an innovative method to enhance translation: a systematic review of published studies 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.