-
Journal of Public Health (Oxford,... Dec 2015Controversy has surrounded MMR vaccination in the aftermath of Wakefield's 1998 paper suggesting links between MMR and the development of pervasive developmental... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Controversy has surrounded MMR vaccination in the aftermath of Wakefield's 1998 paper suggesting links between MMR and the development of pervasive developmental disorder in children. The paper sparked off media debate and contributed to a lack of parental trust in health-care providers and reduction in MMR uptake. This review aims to identify and evaluate research on the subject, with a view to present the reasons behind, and influences on parental decision-making in relation to MMR.
METHODS
Systematic search strategy identified 14 relevant papers on which thematic analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Themes identified were categorized as follows: perceptions of risk; roles and responsibility; experience and knowledge. There were limited changes in parental decision-making factors over the time period despite an increase in uptake. Many studies fail to differentiate between accepters and rejecters, making it difficult to draw out clear conclusions.
CONCLUSION
Policymakers need to adapt information provided to address these concerns. Future research should focus more on distinguishing between accepters and rejecters to determine which factors can alter outcome.
Topics: Decision Making; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Parents; Patient Acceptance of Health Care
PubMed: 25297657
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdu075 -
JPMA. the Journal of the Pakistan... Jun 2019Measles is still common in many developing countries, and its outbreaks have been on the rise since 2009 even though the disease is almost entirely preventable through...
OBJECTIVE
Measles is still common in many developing countries, and its outbreaks have been on the rise since 2009 even though the disease is almost entirely preventable through safe and effective vaccination. This paper aims to provide evidence about the systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of measles treatment in different regions worldwide.
METHODS
The methodical search began on 10th January 2019 to look for all articles on the cost-effectiveness of measles treatment published from January 2019 to April 2019 in SCOPUS, Pubmed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and Cochrane (www.cochrane.org).We summarised the articles by using a data table to extract all information using health economic evaluation methods.
RESULTS
We identified 14 articles from the 69 total articles searched. These articles showed favourable costeffectiveness or cost-benefit ratios in high- and middle-income countries based on data organised by World Bank Income Level in 2018: the United States, Canada, Japan, India and Zambia. However, research is still limited in lowincome countries and thus the effectiveness of vaccination programmes cannot be conclusively identified.
CONCLUSIONS
This review shows the overview of the research in health economic evaluations of measles in different places, years and using different methods of intervention. Overall, it evaluates the cost-effectiveness of measles treatment.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Immunization Programs; Measles; Measles Vaccine; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine
PubMed: 31369545
DOI: No ID Found -
Vaccine Mar 2017Live vaccines are generally contraindicated on immunosuppressive therapy due to safety concerns. However, data are limited to corroborate this practice. (Review)
Review
Safety of live vaccinations on immunosuppressive therapy in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, solid organ transplantation or after bone-marrow transplantation - A systematic review of randomized trials, observational studies and case reports.
BACKGROUND
Live vaccines are generally contraindicated on immunosuppressive therapy due to safety concerns. However, data are limited to corroborate this practice.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the safety of live vaccinations in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) or solid organ transplantation (SOT) on immunosuppressive treatment and in patients after bone-marrow transplantation (BMT).
DATA SOURCES
A search was conducted in electronic databases (Cochrane, Pubmed, Embase) and additional literature was identified by targeted searches.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomized trials, observational studies and case reports.
POPULATION
Patients with IMID or SOT on immunosuppressive treatment and BMT patients <2years after transplantation.
INTERVENTION/VACCINATIONS LOOKED AT
Live vaccinations: mumps, measles, rubella (MMR), yellow fever (YF), varicella vaccine (VV), herpes zoster (HZ), oral typhoid, oral polio, rotavirus, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), smallpox.
DATA EXTRACTION
One author performed the data extraction using predefined data fields. It was cross-checked by two other authors.
RESULTS
7305 articles were identified and 64 articles were included: 40 on IMID, 16 on SOT and 8 on BMT patients. In most studies, the administration of live vaccines was safe. However, some serious vaccine-related adverse events occurred. 32 participants developed an infection with the vaccine strain; in most cases the infection was mild. However, in two patients fatal infections were reported: a patient with RA/SLE overlap who started MTX/dexamethasone treatment four days after the YFV developed a yellow fever vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease (YEL-AVD) and died. The particular vaccine lot was found to be associated with a more than 20 times risk of YEL-AVD. One infant whose mother was under infliximab treatment during pregnancy received the BCG vaccine at the age of three months and developed disseminated BCG infection and died. An immunogenicity assessment was performed in 43 studies. In most cases the patients developed satisfactory seroprotection rates. In the IMID group, YFV and VV demonstrated high seroconversion rates. MTX and tumor necrosis factor inhibitory therapy appeared to reduce immune responses to VV and HZ vaccine, but not to MMR and YF-revaccination. Seroconversion in SOT and BMT patients showed mostly higher rates for rubella than for measles, mumps and varicella.
LIMITATIONS
Risk of bias was high in the majority of studies since 39 of them were observational and 17 were case series/case reports. Only eight studies were randomized trials. BMT patient numbers included in this review were low.
CONCLUSIONS
Although live vaccinations were safe and sufficiently immunogenic in most studies, some serious reactions and vaccine-related infections were reported in immunosuppressed IMID and SOT patients. Apart from mild vaccine-related infections MMR and VV vaccines were safe when administered less than two years after BMT.
IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS
Until further data are available, live vaccinations under most immunosuppressive treatments should only be administered after a careful risk benefit assessment of medications and dosages.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Bone Marrow Transplantation; Chickenpox; Chickenpox Vaccine; Female; Humans; Immune System Diseases; Immunosuppressive Agents; Infant; Inflammation; Male; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Observational Studies as Topic; Organ Transplantation; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rubella; Vaccination; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, Combined; Yellow Fever; Yellow Fever Vaccine
PubMed: 28162821
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.01.048 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research May 2023Vaccination is the most effective strategy to prevent infectious diseases, yet vaccination coverage has not reached the target level. To promote vaccination uptake,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vaccination is the most effective strategy to prevent infectious diseases, yet vaccination coverage has not reached the target level. To promote vaccination uptake, digital health interventions (DHIs) have been used in various vaccination programs.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness analyses of DHIs for the improvement of the uptake of vaccination programs.
METHODS
A literature review was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), APA PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL Ultimate (EBSCOhost), Center for Review and Dissemination, and Institute for IEEE Xplore up to October 2022. Health economic evaluations that met the following inclusion criteria were included: (1) adult or pediatric vaccination programs; (2) interventions delivered through digital technology; (3) full-scale health economic analyses including cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, or cost-consequence analyses; and (4) evaluations conducted by model-based or trial-based analyses. The quality of each included study was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).
RESULTS
The systematic review included 7 studies. Four of the cost-effectiveness studies were conducted by model-based analyses, and 3 were trial-based analyses. One study reported the additional cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, whereas 6 studies reported the additional cost per individual vaccinated (or return case). The vaccines targeted the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, influenza vaccination, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, and children immunization at different ages. The DHIs were delivered by television campaign, web-based decision aid, SMS text message, telephone, and computer-generated recall letters. The studies were classified as very good (n=5) and good (n=2) qualities. One study concluded that the DHI was cost-saving, and 6 studies concluded that the DHI was cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS
This study is the first systematic review on cost-effectiveness analyses of DHIs to improve vaccination uptake. All included studies have good to very good quality on study assessment and reported the DHIs to be cost-saving or cost-effective in the improvement of vaccination uptake.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Digital Technology; Immunization; Vaccination
PubMed: 37184916
DOI: 10.2196/45493 -
Pathogens and Global Health Mar 2017The decline of immunization rates in countries of origin of migrants and refugees, along with risky conditions during the journey to Europe, may threaten migrants'... (Review)
Review
The decline of immunization rates in countries of origin of migrants and refugees, along with risky conditions during the journey to Europe, may threaten migrants' health. We performed a systematic review of the scientific literature in order to assess the frequency of vaccine preventable diseases, and vaccination coverage among migrants and refugees in Europe. To this end, Medline and Cochrane databases were considered. After the screening and the selection process, 58 papers were included in the review. We focused on the following vaccine-preventable diseases: hepatitis B, measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, poliomyelitis, pertussis, diphtheria, meningitis, and varicella. The results were presented as a qualitative synthesis. In summary, several studies highlighted that migrants and refugees have lower immunization rates compared to European-born individuals. Firstly, this is due to low vaccination coverage in the country of origin. Then, several problems may limit migrants' access to vaccination in Europe: (i) migrants are used to move around the continent, and many vaccines require multiple doses at regular times; (ii) information on the immunization status of migrants is often lacking; (iii) hosting countries face severe economic crises; (iv) migrants often refuse registration with medical authorities for fear of legal consequences and (v) the lack of coordination among public health authorities of neighboring countries may determine either duplications or lack of vaccine administration. Possible strategies to overcome these problems include tailoring immunization services on the specific needs of the target population, developing strong communication campaigns, developing vaccination registers, and promoting collaboration among public health authorities of European Countries.
Topics: Communicable Disease Control; Communicable Diseases; Europe; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Refugees; Transients and Migrants; Vaccination
PubMed: 28165878
DOI: 10.1080/20477724.2017.1281374 -
International Journal of Pediatric... Jul 2020
Review
PubMed: 32283428
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110024 -
Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi = Zhongguo... May 2021Antiviral Oral Liquid is modified on the basis of Baihu Decoction in Treatise on Febrility Diseases by ZHANG Zhongjing and Qingwen Baidu Yin in Qing Dynasty, with...
Antiviral Oral Liquid is modified on the basis of Baihu Decoction in Treatise on Febrility Diseases by ZHANG Zhongjing and Qingwen Baidu Yin in Qing Dynasty, with effects in clearing toxic heat, repelling dampness and cooling blood. It is widely used in clinical treatment of common colds, influenza and upper respiratory tract infection, mumps, viral conjunctivitis and hand-foot-mouth disease, with a good clinical efficacy and safety. Based on a questionnaire survey of clinicians and a systematic review of study literatures on Antiviral Oral Liquid, the international clinical practice guidelines development method was adopted to analyze the optimal available evidences and expert experiences in the "evidence-based, consensus-based and experience-based" principles. The consensus was jointly reached by more than 30 multidisciplinary experts nationwide, including clinical experts of traditional Chinese and Western medicine in the field of respiratory diseases and infectious diseases, and methodological experts. In the study, literatures were retrieved based on clinical problems in the clinical survey as well as PICO clinical problems. The GRADE system was used for the classification and evaluation of evidence, and fully combined with clinical expert experience, so as to reach expert consensus by the nominal grouping method. This expert consensus recommended or suggested indications, usage and dosage, course of treatment, intervention time for treatment, and the safety and precautions of Antiviral Oral Liquid for treatment of influenza, and can provide reference for the rational use of this drug in clinical practice.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Consensus; Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease; Humans; Influenza, Human; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 34047134
DOI: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20200927.501 -
Journal of Epidemiology and Global... Mar 2020Europe has experienced a major resurgence of measles in recent years, despite the availability and free access to a safe, effective, and affordable vaccination measles,...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Europe has experienced a major resurgence of measles in recent years, despite the availability and free access to a safe, effective, and affordable vaccination measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR). The main driver for this is suboptimal vaccine coverage. The three objectives of this study are to synthesize and critically assess parental attitudes and beliefs toward MMR uptake, to develop strategies and policy recommendations to effectively improve MMR vaccine uptake accordingly, and ultimately to identify areas for further research.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using primary studies from PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Scopus published between 2011 and April 2019. Inclusion criteria comprised primary studies in English conducted in Europe and studying parental attitudes and behavior regarding MMR uptake. Data were extracted using an inductive grounded theory approach.
RESULTS
In all, 20 high-quality studies were identified. Vaccine hesitancy or refusal were mainly due to concerns about vaccine safety, effectiveness, perception of measles risk and burden, mistrust in experts, and accessibility. Factors for MMR uptake included a sense of responsibility toward child and community health, peer judgement, trust in experts and vaccine, and measles severity. Anthroposophical and Gypsy, Roma, and Traveler populations presented unique barriers such as accessibility.
CONCLUSION
A multi-interventional, evidence-based approach is vital to improve confidence, competence, and convenience of measles vaccination uptake. Healthcare professionals need an understanding of individual contextual attitudes and barriers to MMR uptake to tailor effective communication. Effective surveillance is needed to identify under-vaccinated populations for vaccination outreach programs to improve accessibility and uptake.
Topics: Europe; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Measles; Measles Vaccine; Parents; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Qualitative Research; Vaccination
PubMed: 32175710
DOI: 10.2991/jegh.k.191117.001 -
Gastroenterology Aug 2021Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations may be altered...
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations may be altered by immunosuppressive therapies or IBD itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on live vaccines.
METHODS
Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative process and voted on by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients.
RESULTS
Three good practice statements included reviewing a patient's vaccination status at diagnosis and at regular intervals, giving appropriate vaccinations as soon as possible, and not delaying urgently needed immunosuppressive therapy to provide vaccinations. There are 4 recommendations on the use of live vaccines. Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine is recommended for both adult and pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). Varicella vaccine is recommended for pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). For adults, recommendations are conditionally in favor of varicella vaccine for those not on immunosuppressive therapy, and against for those on therapy. No recommendation was made regarding the use of live vaccines in infants born to mothers using biologics because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence was insufficient.
CONCLUSIONS
Maintaining appropriate vaccination status in patients with IBD is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, live vaccines are recommended in patients not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of live vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive therapy.
Topics: Canada; Consensus; Contraindications, Drug; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gastroenterology; Humans; Immunization; Immunocompromised Host; Immunosuppressive Agents; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Opportunistic Infections; Patient Safety; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vaccine Efficacy; Vaccines, Live, Unattenuated
PubMed: 33617891
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.12.079 -
Pediatrics Aug 2014Concerns about vaccine safety have led some parents to decline recommended vaccination of their children, leading to the resurgence of diseases. Reassurance of vaccine... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Concerns about vaccine safety have led some parents to decline recommended vaccination of their children, leading to the resurgence of diseases. Reassurance of vaccine safety remains critical for population health. This study systematically reviewed the literature on the safety of routine vaccines recommended for children in the United States.
METHODS
Data sources included PubMed, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices statements, package inserts, existing reviews, manufacturer information packets, and the 2011 Institute of Medicine consensus report on vaccine safety. We augmented the Institute of Medicine report with more recent studies and increased the scope to include more vaccines. Only studies that used active surveillance and had a control mechanism were included. Formulations not used in the United States were excluded. Adverse events and patient and vaccine characteristics were abstracted. Adverse event collection and reporting was evaluated by using the McHarm scale. We were unable to pool results. Strength of evidence was rated as high, moderate, low, or insufficient.
RESULTS
Of 20 478 titles identified, 67 were included. Strength of evidence was high for measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine and febrile seizures; the varicella vaccine was associated with complications in immunodeficient individuals. There is strong evidence that MMR vaccine is not associated with autism. There is moderate evidence that rotavirus vaccines are associated with intussusception. Limitations of the study include that the majority of studies did not investigate or identify risk factors for AEs; and the severity of AEs was inconsistently reported.
CONCLUSIONS
We found evidence that some vaccines are associated with serious AEs; however, these events are extremely rare and must be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.
Topics: Chickenpox Vaccine; Child; Humans; Immunization; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Patient Safety; Population Surveillance; Rotavirus Vaccines; United States; Vaccines; Viral Hepatitis Vaccines
PubMed: 25086160
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-1079