Back

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.

2022-12-19 infectious diseases
10.1101/2022.12.15.22283474 medRxiv
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 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
2
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.4%
3
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.4%
4
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.2%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 36%
4.0%
8
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
9
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.7%
10
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
11
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
12
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.6%
13
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.4%
14
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
15
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
16
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
17
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
18
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
19
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
20
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
21
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
22
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
23
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Research Synthesis Methods
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
25
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
27
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
29
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
30
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
39 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%