Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 498

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 138 of the 138 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy of covid-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Lee, Ainsley Ryan Yan Bin, Wong, Shi Yin, Chai, Louis Yi Ann, Lee, Soo Chin, Lee, Matilda Xinwei, Muthiah, Mark Dhinesh, Tay, Sen Hee, Teo, Chong Boon, Tan, Benjamin Kye Jyn, Chan, Yiong Huak, Sundar, Raghav, Soon, Yu Yang·2022·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of covid-19 vaccines between immunocompromised and immunocompetent people. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: PubMed, Embase, Central Register of Controlled Trials, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset Challenge (CORD-19), and WHO covid-19 databases for studies published between 1 December 2020 and 5 November 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched in November 2021 to identify registered but as yet unpublished or ongoing studies. Study selection: Prospective observational studies comparing the efficacy of covid-19 vaccination in immunocompromised and immunocompetent participants. Methods: A frequentist random effects meta-analysis was used to separately pool relative and absolute risks of seroconversion after the first and second doses of a covid-19 vaccine. Systematic review without meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 antibody titre levels was performed after first, second, and third vaccine doses and the seroconversion rate after a third dose. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed. Results: 82 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Of these studies, 77 (94%) used mRNA vaccines, 16 (20%) viral vector vaccines, and 4 (5%) inactivated whole virus vaccines. 63 studies were assessed to be at low risk of bias and 19 at moderate risk of bias. After one vaccine dose, seroconversion was about half as likely in patients with haematological cancers (risk ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.50, I 2 =80%; absolute risk 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.40, I 2 =89%), immune mediated inflammatory disorders (0.53, 0.39 to 0.71, I 2 =89%; 0.29, 0.11 to 0.58, I 2 =97%), and solid cancers (0.55, 0.46 to 0.65, I 2 =78%; 0.44, 0.36 to 0.53, I 2 =84%) compared with immunocompetent controls, whereas organ transplant recipients were 16 times less likely to seroconvert (0.06, 0.04 to 0.09, I 2 =0%; 0.06, 0.04 to 0.08, I 2 =0%). After a second dose, seroconversion remained least likely in transplant recipients (0.39, 0.32 to 0.46, I 2 =92%; 0.35, 0.26 to 0.46), with only a third achieving seroconversion. Seroconversion was increasingly likely in patients with haematological cancers (0.63, 0.57 to 0.69, I 2 =88%; 0.62, 0.54 to 0.70, I 2 =90%), immune mediated inflammatory disorders (0.75, 0.69 to 0.82, I 2 =92%; 0.77, 0.66 to 0.85, I 2 =93%), and solid cancers (0.90, 0.88 to 0.93, I 2 =51%; 0.89, 0.86 to 0.91, I 2 =49%). Seroconversion was similar between people with HIV and immunocompetent controls (1.00, 0.98 to 1.01, I 2 =0%; 0.97, 0.83 to 1.00, I 2 =89%). Systematic review of 11 studies showed that a third dose of a covid-19 mRNA vaccine was associated with seroconversion among vaccine non-responders with solid cancers, haematological cancers, and immune mediated inflammatory disorders, although response was variable in transplant recipients and inadequately studied in people with HIV and those receiving non-mRNA vaccines. Conclusion: Seroconversion rates after covid-19 vaccination were significantly lower in immunocompromised patients, especially organ transplant recipients. A second dose was associated with consistently improved seroconversion across all patient groups, albeit at a lower magnitude for organ transplant recipients. Targeted interventions for immunocompromised patients, including a third (booster) dose, should be performed. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021272088.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj-2021-068632

Cites

138 of 138 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 138 references

Cited by

See all 498

Metadata

Authors
Lee, A. R. Y. B., Wong, S. Y., Chai, L. Y. A., Lee, S. C., Lee, M. X., Muthiah, M. D., Tay, S. H., Teo, C. B., Tan, B. K. J., Chan, Y. H., Sundar, R., & Soon, Y. Y.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2022-03-02
Volume
376
Pages
e068632
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4214907427
Cited by
498
References
138
FWCI
23.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of covid-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj-2021-068632
The paper
Lee, A. R. Y. B., Wong, S. Y., Chai, L. Y. A., Lee, S. C., Lee, M. X., Muthiah, M. D., Tay, S. H., Teo, C. B., Tan, B. K. J., Chan, Y. H., Sundar, R., & Soon, Y. Y. (2022). Efficacy of covid-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-068632

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.