IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0321511.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy of BCG vaccination against COVID-19 in health care workers and non-health care workers: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author

Listed:
  • Zhuoyang Xia
  • Jiahao Meng
  • Xuanyu Wang
  • Pan Liu
  • Yumei Wu
  • Yilin Xiong
  • Baimei He
  • Shuguang Gao

Abstract

Background: The Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine has shown potential non-specific protection against infectious diseases through “trained immunity”, which may offer cross-protection against viral infections. However, there is no consensus on whether BCG vaccination could prevent COVID-19 or reduce its symptoms. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials on BCG vaccination and COVID-19 prevention, covering studies from the inception of each database to 2 May 2024. We included studies where participants, not infected with COVID-19, were vaccinated with BCG or placebo. We excluded non-randomized trials, studies without full texts, unrelated interventions, and those not reporting relevant outcomes. Clinical data on COVID-19 infection, severity, hospitalization, mortality, and other adverse events, were extracted and analyzed. The DerSimonian–Laird random-effects model and the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of Bias Tool were used for analysis and risk of bias assessment. Results: A total of 12 RCTs involving 18,086 patients were finally included. For the prophylactic effect of BCG on COVID-19, pooled results showed no statistically significant difference between BCG and placebo (pooled RR 1.02; 95%CI: 0.91–1.14). There was no statistically significant difference between non-health care workers (pooled RR 0.91; 95%CI: 0.67–1.24) and health care workers (pooled RR 1.03; 95%CI: 0.93–1.15). Regarding COVID-19 severity, no significant difference were found for asymptomatic (pooled RR 1.18; 95%CI: 0.81–1.72), mild to moderate (pooled RR 0.99; 95%CI: 0.84–1.17), severe COVID-19 (pooled RR 1.25; 95%CI: 0.92–1.70), hospitalization (pooled RR 0.93; 95%CI: 0.58–1.50) or all-cause mortality (pooled RR 0.60; 95%CI: 0.18–1.95) between BCG and placebo groups. Subgroup analysis also showed no significant difference between BCG and placebo in non-health care workers or health care workers. Conclusions: Vaccination of BCG could not effectively prevent COVID-19 infection or decrease COVID-19 symptoms both in non-health care workers and health care workers.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhuoyang Xia & Jiahao Meng & Xuanyu Wang & Pan Liu & Yumei Wu & Yilin Xiong & Baimei He & Shuguang Gao, 2025. "Efficacy of BCG vaccination against COVID-19 in health care workers and non-health care workers: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(5), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0321511
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0321511
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0321511&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0321511?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0321511. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.