Efficacy and Safety of mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccines in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are highly vulnerable to severe COVID-19 infection, yet initial vaccine trials provided limited data on efficacy and safety in this immunocompromised population. Heterogeneous seroconversion rates and conflicting safety reports complicate the formulation of clear clinical guidelines. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to aggregate existing evidence to determine the precise seroconversion and safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines and identify key factors influencing immune response in SOTRs. Method(s): A comprehensive literature search was conducted identifying 125 studies evaluating WHO/FDA-authorized vaccines in SOTRs. Outcomes were the pooled seroconversion proportion and safety profile. Subgroup analyses were performed based on vaccine type, transplanted organ, number of doses, and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status, confirmed by leave-one-out sensitivity analysis and bootstrap methods. Result(s): Most studies assessed mRNA-based vaccines (123/125, 98.4%). The overall pooled seroconversion proportion across all SOTRs was significantly blunted at 0.49 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.55), demonstrating high heterogeneity (I2 = 94.2%). Seroconversion showed a clear positive dose-response relationship, increasing from 27% after one dose to 84% after four doses. Prior COVID-19 infection was the strongest predictor of a response, resulting in a pooled seroconversion of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.94; I2 = 0%). Organ-specific analyses revealed the highest response in Liver recipients (0.80) and the lowest in Lung recipients (0.29). Vaccine platform analysis showed that the highest response was with mRNA-1273 (0.55) and the lowest with CoronaVac (0.29). The safety profile was limited. Conclusion(s): SOTRs exhibit profound hypo responsiveness to COVID-19 vaccines; however, the extreme heterogeneity observed across studies necessitates a cautious interpretation of pooled seroconversion estimates. While the data indicates a significant dose-response relationship favoring an aggressive, multi-dose strategy, the apparent safety profile may reflect under-reporting and limited follow-up rather than confirmed safety equivalence. Rare but clinically critical outcomes, such as acute allograft rejection, remain inadequately characterized in the current literature. Consequently, while the prioritization of multi-dose regimens and hybrid immunity is supported to maximize protection, clinicians must recognize that individual responses remain highly variable, and the long-term immunological impact of repeated stimulation requires further standardized investigation. Copyright © 2026 by the authors.