-
European Respiratory Review : An... Dec 2022Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) significantly impacts the health of older and high-risk adults (those with comorbidities). We aimed to synthesise the evidence on RSV... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) significantly impacts the health of older and high-risk adults (those with comorbidities). We aimed to synthesise the evidence on RSV disease burden and RSV-related healthcare utilisation in both populations.
METHODS
We searched Embase and MEDLINE for papers published between 2000 and 2019 reporting the burden and clinical presentation of symptomatic RSV infection and the associated healthcare utilisation in developed countries in adults aged ≥60 years or at high risk. We calculated pooled estimates using random-effects inverse variance-weighted meta-analysis.
RESULTS
103 out of 3429 articles met the inclusion criteria. Among older adults, RSV caused 4.66% (95% CI 3.34-6.48%) of symptomatic respiratory infections in annual studies and 7.80% (95% CI 5.77-10.45%) in seasonal studies; RSV-related case fatality proportion (CFP) was 8.18% (95% CI 5.54-11.94%). Among high-risk adults, RSV caused 7.03% (95% CI 5.18-9.48%) of symptomatic respiratory infections in annual studies, and 7.69% (95% CI 6.23-9.46%) in seasonal studies; CFP was 9.88% (95% CI 6.66-14.43%). Data paucity impaired the calculation of estimates on population incidence, clinical presentation, severe outcomes and healthcare-related utilisation.
CONCLUSIONS
Older and high-risk adults frequently experience symptomatic RSV infection, with appreciable mortality; however, detailed data are lacking. Increased surveillance and research are needed to quantify population-based disease burden and facilitate RSV treatments and vaccine development.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections; Developed Countries; Hospitalization; Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human; Respiratory Tract Infections
PubMed: 36384703
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0105-2022 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Aug 2023Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines work by preventing infections prior to natural exposure. Thus, it is likely more effective at younger ages, and it is important to... (Review)
Review
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines work by preventing infections prior to natural exposure. Thus, it is likely more effective at younger ages, and it is important to understand how effectiveness might be diminished when administered at older ages. We conducted a systematic review of HPV vaccine effectiveness studies published between 2007 and 2022 that included an analysis of effectiveness against vaccine-type HPV infections, anogenital warts, cervical abnormalities and cervical cancer by age at vaccine initiation or completion. Searching multiple databases, 21 studies were included and results were summarized descriptively. Seventeen studies found the highest vaccine effectiveness in the youngest age group. Vaccine effectiveness estimates for younger adolescents ages 9-14 years ranged from approximately 74% to 93% and from 12% to 90% for adolescents ages 15-18 years. These results demonstrate that the HPV vaccine is most effective against HPV-related disease outcomes when given at younger ages, emphasizing the importance of on-time vaccination.
Topics: Female; Adolescent; Humans; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Papillomavirus Infections; Human Papillomavirus Viruses; Vaccine Efficacy; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaccination
PubMed: 37529935
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2023.2239085 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Aug 2022The development of COVID-19 vaccines has been crucial in fighting the pandemic. However, misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines is spread on social... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The development of COVID-19 vaccines has been crucial in fighting the pandemic. However, misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines is spread on social media platforms at a rate that has made the World Health Organization coin the phrase infodemic. False claims about adverse vaccine side effects, such as vaccines being the cause of autism, were already considered a threat to global health before the outbreak of COVID-19.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to synthesize the existing research on misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines spread on social media platforms and its effects. The secondary aim was to gain insight and gather knowledge about whether misinformation about autism and COVID-19 vaccines is being spread on social media platforms.
METHODS
We performed a literature search on September 9, 2021, and searched PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We included publications in peer-reviewed journals that fulfilled the following criteria: original empirical studies, studies that assessed social media and misinformation, and studies about COVID-19 vaccines. Thematic analysis was used to identify the patterns (themes) of misinformation. Narrative qualitative synthesis was undertaken with the guidance of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 Statement and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Ratings of the certainty of evidence were based on recommendations from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group.
RESULTS
The search yielded 757 records, with 45 articles selected for this review. We identified 3 main themes of misinformation: medical misinformation, vaccine development, and conspiracies. Twitter was the most studied social media platform, followed by Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. A vast majority of studies were from industrialized Western countries. We identified 19 studies in which the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy was measured or discussed. These studies implied that the misinformation spread on social media had a negative effect on vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Only 1 study contained misinformation about autism as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccines.
CONCLUSIONS
To prevent these misconceptions from taking hold, health authorities should openly address and discuss these false claims with both cultural and religious awareness in mind. Our review showed that there is a need to examine the effect of social media misinformation on vaccine hesitancy with a more robust experimental design. Furthermore, this review also demonstrated that more studies are needed from the Global South and on social media platforms other than the major platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021277524; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021277524.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.31219/osf.io/tyevj.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Communication; Humans; Pandemics; Social Media; Vaccines
PubMed: 35816685
DOI: 10.2196/37367 -
Vaccine Aug 2015The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts.
METHODS
A systematic review of peer reviewed (January 2007-October 2013) and grey literature (up to October 2013) was conducted using a broad search strategy, built to capture multiple dimensions of public trust, confidence and hesitancy concerning vaccines. This search strategy was applied and adapted across several databases and organizational websites. Descriptive analyses were undertaken for 166 (peer reviewed) and 15 (grey literature) evaluation studies. In addition, the quality of evidence relating to a series of PICO (population, intervention, comparison/control, outcomes) questions defined by the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy (WG) was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria; data were analyzed using Review Manager.
RESULTS
Across the literature, few strategies to address vaccine hesitancy were found to have been evaluated for impact on either vaccination uptake and/or changes in knowledge, awareness or attitude (only 14% of peer reviewed and 25% of grey literature). The majority of evaluation studies were based in the Americas and primarily focused on influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV) and childhood vaccines. In low- and middle-income regions, the focus was on diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and polio. Across all regions, most interventions were multi-component and the majority of strategies focused on raising knowledge and awareness. Thirteen relevant studies were used for the GRADE assessment that indicated evidence of moderate quality for the use of social mobilization, mass media, communication tool-based training for health-care workers, non-financial incentives and reminder/recall-based interventions. Overall, our results showed that multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions were most effective. However, given the complexity of vaccine hesitancy and the limited evidence available on how it can be addressed, identified strategies should be carefully tailored according to the target population, their reasons for hesitancy, and the specific context.
Topics: Communication; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health Personnel; Humans; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Patient Compliance; Treatment Refusal; Vaccination; Vaccines; World Health Organization
PubMed: 25896377
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Aug 2019Dengue is an arbovirus that has rapidly spread worldwide, and the incidence of dengue has greatly increased in recent decades. The actual numbers of dengue cases are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dengue is an arbovirus that has rapidly spread worldwide, and the incidence of dengue has greatly increased in recent decades. The actual numbers of dengue cases are underreported, and many cases are not classified correctly. Recent estimates indicate that 390 million dengue infections occur per year (95% CI, 284-528 million), of which 96 million (67-136 million) are symptomatic infections of any severity. One of the goals of the World Health Organization is to reduce dengue mortality by 50% by the year 2020. The use of a vaccine can be an important strategy to achieve this goal. Vaccines for dengue are in various stages of development; in Brazil, only one commercial formulation is available (CYD-TDV), which was developed by Sanofi Pasteur.
METHODS
To evaluate the efficacy of Dengue vaccine, a systematic review with a meta-analysis was conducted using randomized controlled clinical trials published between 2000 and 2017 that were identified in the MEDLINE databases via PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The selection was performed by two reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.
RESULTS
Seven clinical trials were included, with a total of 36,371 participants (66,511 person-years) between the ages of 2 and 45 years. The meta-analysis using the random-effects model estimated the efficacy of the vaccine at 44%, with a range from 25 to 59% and high heterogeneity (I = 80.1%). The serotype-stratified meta-analysis was homogeneous, except for serotype 2, with the heterogeneity of 64.5%. Most of the vaccinated individuals had previous immunity for at least one serotype, which generated safety concerns in individuals without previous immunity.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with other commercially available vaccines, the dengue vaccine showed poor efficacy.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Brazil; Child; Child, Preschool; Dengue; Dengue Vaccines; Humans; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serogroup
PubMed: 31455279
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-4369-5 -
Reviews in Medical Virology May 2019Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection does not usually produce symptoms when it causes primary infection, reinfection, or reactivation because these three types of infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection does not usually produce symptoms when it causes primary infection, reinfection, or reactivation because these three types of infection are all controlled by the normal immune system. However, CMV becomes an important pathogen in individuals whose immune system is immature or compromised, such as the unborn child. Several vaccines against CMV are currently in clinical trials that aim to induce immunity in seronegative individuals and/or to boost the immunity of those with prior natural infection (seropositives). To facilitate estimation of the burden of disease and the need for vaccines that induce de novo immune responses or that boost pre-existing immunity to CMV, we conducted a systematic survey of the published literature to describe the global seroprevalence of CMV IgG antibodies. We estimated a global CMV seroprevalence of 83% (95%UI: 78-88) in the general population, 86% (95%UI: 83-89) in women of childbearing age, and 86% (95%UI: 82-89) in donors of blood or organs. For each of these three groups, the highest seroprevalence was seen in the World Health Organisation (WHO) Eastern Mediterranean region 90% (95%UI: 85-94) and the lowest in WHO European region 66% (95%UI: 56-74). These estimates of the worldwide CMV distribution will help develop national and regional burden of disease models and inform future vaccine development efforts.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Cytomegalovirus; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Global Health; Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Seroepidemiologic Studies
PubMed: 30706584
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2034 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021There is a significant research gap in meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. This study analyzed the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There is a significant research gap in meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. This study analyzed the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Published phase I, phase II, and phase III trials analyzing safety and immunogenicity and phase III randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines were included. We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and The Lancet for published articles evaluating the relative reduction in COVID-19 risk after vaccination. Selected literatures were published between December 15, 2019 and May 15, 2021 on the safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines. This meta-analysis included studies that confirmed cases of COVID-19 using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. This study detected 8,926 eligible research articles published on COVID-19 vaccines. Of these, 25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among the selected articles, 19 randomized clinical trials, 2 non-randomized clinical trials, and 3 observational studies were analyzed. Seven (28%) studies were included in the meta-analysis. The efficacy of the adenovirus vector vaccine was 73% (95% CI = 69-77) and that of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was 85% (95% CI = 82-88) in participants aged ≥18 years. There are no reports of clinical trials in participants aged under 16 years. The production of neutralizing antibodies against receptor-binding domains (RBDs) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in >90% of the vaccinated samples was reported within 0-30 days of the first or the second dose of the vaccine. Pain at the injection site was the most common local symptom in people receiving mRNA vaccines (29%-85% of participants). Fever (0.2%-95%) was the most prevalent in people receiving adenovirus vector vaccines, and fatigue (8.4%-55%) was the most common side effect in people receiving the mRNA vaccines. Studies suggest that mRNA vaccines and adenovirus vector vaccines can provide moderate to high protection against COVID-19 infection in people over 18 years. Evidence of the long-term protection of the vaccines in people aged under 16 years against the multiple variants of COVID-19 are limited. This study will provide an integrated evaluation on the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antibodies, Neutralizing; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Injections, Intramuscular; Middle Aged; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Young Adult
PubMed: 34707602
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.714170 -
Vaccine Sep 2022Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were first licensed as a three-dose series. Two doses are now widely recommended in some age groups; there are data suggesting high... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were first licensed as a three-dose series. Two doses are now widely recommended in some age groups; there are data suggesting high efficacy with one dose. We updated a systematic literature review of HPV vaccine effectiveness by number of doses in observational studies.
METHODS
We searched Medline and Embase databases from January 1, 2007, through September 29, 2021. Data were extracted and summarized in a narrative synthesis. We also conducted quality assessments for bias due to selection, information, and confounding.
RESULTS
Overall, 35 studies were included; all except one were conducted within the context of a recommended three-dose schedule. Evaluations were in countries that used bivalent HPV vaccine (seven), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (27) or both (one). Nine evaluated effectiveness against HPV infection, ten anogenital warts, and 16 cervical abnormalities. All studies were judged to have moderate or serious risk of bias. The biases rated as serious would likely result in lower effectiveness with fewer doses. Investigators attempted to control for or stratify by potentially important variables, such as age at vaccination. Eight studies evaluated impact of buffer periods (lag time) for case counting and 10 evaluated different intervals between doses for two-dose vaccine recipients. Studies that stratified by vaccination age found higher effectiveness with younger age at vaccination, although differences were not all formally tested. Most studies found highest estimates of effectiveness with three doses; significant effectiveness was found among 28/29 studies that evaluated three doses, 19/29 that evaluated two doses, and 18/30 that evaluated one dose. Some studies that adjusted or stratified analyses by age at vaccination found similar effectiveness with three, two and one doses.
CONCLUSION
Observational studies of HPV vaccine effectiveness have many biases. Studies examining persons vaccinated prior to sexual activity and using methods to reduce sources of bias are needed for valid effectiveness estimates.
Topics: Alphapapillomavirus; Female; Humans; Immunization Programs; Papillomavirus Infections; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaccination; Vaccine Efficacy
PubMed: 35965239
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.06.065 -
Vaccine Sep 2020Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is essential for cervical cancer prevention. However, the value of HPV vaccination in the context excisional treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is essential for cervical cancer prevention. However, the value of HPV vaccination in the context excisional treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 3) remains unclear.
METHODS
In this meta-analysis, three retrospective and three prospective studies, three post-hoc analyses of RCTs and one cancer registry study analysing the effect of pre- or post-conization vaccination (bi- or quadrivalent vaccine) against HPV were included after a systematic review of literature. Random-effect models were prepared to evaluate the influence of vaccination on recurrent CIN 2+.
RESULTS
Primary end point was CIN2+ in every study. The overall study population included 21,059 patients (3,939 vaccinations vs. 17,150 controls). The results showed a significant risk reduction for the development of new high-grade intraepithelial lesions after HPV vaccination (relative risk (RR) 0.41; 95% CI [0.27; 0.64]), independent from HPV type. Due to the heterogeneous study population multiple sub analyses regarding HPV type, age of patients, time of vaccination and follow-up were performed. Age-dependent analysis showed no differences between women under 25 years (RR 0.47 (95%-CI [0.28; 0.80]) and women of higher age (RR 0.52 (95%-CI [0.41; 0.65]). Results for HPV 16/18 positive CIN2+ showed a RR of 0.37 (95% CI [0.17; 0.80]). Overall, the number of women that would have to be vaccinated before or after conization to prevent one case of recurrent CIN 2+ (NNV) is 45.5.
CONCLUSION
Meta-analysis showed a significant risk reduction of developing recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after surgical excision and HPV vaccination compared to surgical excision only.
Topics: Adult; Conization; Female; Human papillomavirus 16; Human papillomavirus 18; Humans; Papillomavirus Infections; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaccination
PubMed: 32762871
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.07.055 -
European Journal of Medical Research Aug 2023The reactivation of herpesviruses (HHV) in COVID-19 patients is evident in the literature. Several reports have been published regarding the reactivation of these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The reactivation of herpesviruses (HHV) in COVID-19 patients is evident in the literature. Several reports have been published regarding the reactivation of these viruses (HSV, VZV, EBV, and CMV) among those who got COVID-19 vaccines. In this study, we aimed to review the current evidence to assess whether HHVs reactivation has any association with the prior administration of COVID-19 vaccines.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted on 25 September 2022 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE. We included all observational studies, case reports, and case series which reported the reactivation of human herpesviruses following administration of COVID-19 vaccines.
RESULTS
Our systematic search showed 80 articles that meet the eligibility criteria. Among the evaluated COVID-19 vaccines, most of the vaccines were mRNA based. Evidence from observational studies showed the possible relation between COVID-19 vaccine administration and VZV and HSV reactivation. The results of our proportion meta-analysis showed that the rate of VZV reactivation among those who received the COVID-19 vaccine was 14 persons per 1000 vaccinations (95% CI 2.97-32.80). Moreover, our meta-analysis for HSV reactivation showed the rate of 16 persons per 1000 vaccinations (95% CI 1.06-46.4). Furthermore, the evidence from case reports/series showed 149 cases of HHV reactivation. There were several vaccines that caused reactivation including BNT162b2 mRNA or Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 76), Oxford-AstraZeneca (n = 22), mRNA-1273 or Moderna (n = 17), Sinovac (n = 4), BBIBP-CorV or Sinopharm (n = 3), Covaxin (n = 3), Covishield (n = 3), and Johnson and Johnson (n = 1). Reactivated HHVs included varicella-zoster virus (VZV) (n = 114), cytomegalovirus (CMV) (n = 15), herpes simplex virus (HSV) (n = 14), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) (n = 6), and HHV-6 (n = 2). Most cases reported their disease after the first dose of the vaccine. Many patients reported having comorbidities, of which hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, chicken pox, and atrial fibrillation were common.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, our study showed the possible association between COVID-19 vaccination and herpesvirus reactivation. The evidence for VZV and HSV was supported by observational studies. However, regarding other herpesviruses (EBV and CMV), further research especially from observational studies and clinical trials is required to elucidate the interaction between COVID-19 vaccination and their reactivation.
Topics: Humans; BNT162 Vaccine; ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Cytomegalovirus; Cytomegalovirus Infections; Epstein-Barr Virus Infections; Herpesviridae Infections; Herpesvirus 3, Human; Herpesvirus 4, Human; Simplexvirus; Vaccination; Viruses
PubMed: 37559096
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01238-9