-
Vaccine: X Dec 2022In the pre-vaccination era, all adults acquired immunity status due to natural infections during childhood and adolescence, whereas universal mass vaccination has...
INTRODUCTION
In the pre-vaccination era, all adults acquired immunity status due to natural infections during childhood and adolescence, whereas universal mass vaccination has changed the seroepidemiology of rubella among adults, showing lack of immunity in some subgroups. National and international guidelines recommend evaluating all healthcare workers (HCWs) for their immune status to rubella and possibly vaccinating those who are seronegative. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the susceptibility rate to rubella among HCWs in Italy and to explore possible options for the management of those found to be susceptible.
METHODS
Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis, selected from scientific papers available in the MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar (till page 10) databases between January 1, 2015 and November 30, 2021. The following terms were used for the search strategy: (sero* OR seroprevalence OR prevalence OR susceptibilit* OR immunit* OR immunogenict*) AND (healthcare worker* OR health personnel OR physician* OR nurse OR student*) AND (rubella OR german measles OR TORCH) AND (Italy).
RESULTS
The prevalence of rubella-susceptible HCWs was 9.0 % (95 %CI: 6.4-12.1 %). In a comparison of female vs. male serosusceptible HCWs, the RR was 0.67 (95 %CI = 0.51-0.88). Occupational medicine examinations for rubella screening with possible subsequent vaccination of seronegatives and exclusion of susceptible HCWs from high-risk settings were common management strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
HCWs susceptible to rubella are an important epidemiological concern in Italy, and efforts to identify and actively offer the vaccine to this population should be increased.
PubMed: 36032697
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvacx.2022.100195 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Sep 2022Understanding why some migrants in Europe are at risk of underimmunisation and show lower vaccination uptake for routine and COVID-19 vaccines is critical if we are to... (Review)
Review
Understanding why some migrants in Europe are at risk of underimmunisation and show lower vaccination uptake for routine and COVID-19 vaccines is critical if we are to address vaccination inequities and meet the goals of WHO's new Immunisation Agenda 2030. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020219214) exploring barriers and facilitators of vaccine uptake (categorised using the 5As taxonomy: access, awareness, affordability, acceptance, activation) and sociodemographic determinants of undervaccination among migrants in the EU and European Economic Area, the UK, and Switzerland. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from 2000 to 2021 for primary research, with no restrictions on language. 5259 data sources were screened, with 67 studies included from 16 countries, representing 366 529 migrants. We identified multiple access barriers-including language, literacy, and communication barriers, practical and legal barriers to accessing and delivering vaccination services, and service barriers such as lack of specific guidelines and knowledge of health-care professionals-for key vaccines including measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, human papillomavirus, influenza, polio, and COVID-19 vaccines. Acceptance barriers were mostly reported in eastern European and Muslim migrants for human papillomavirus, measles, and influenza vaccines. We identified 23 significant determinants of undervaccination in migrants (p<0·05), including African origin, recent migration, and being a refugee or asylum seeker. We did not identify a strong overall association with gender or age. Tailored vaccination messaging, community outreach, and behavioural nudges facilitated uptake. Migrants' barriers to accessing health care are already well documented, and this Review confirms their role in limiting vaccine uptake. These findings hold immediate relevance to strengthening vaccination programmes in high-income countries, including for COVID-19, and suggest that tailored, culturally sensitive, and evidence-informed strategies, unambiguous public health messaging, and health system strengthening are needed to address access and acceptance barriers to vaccination in migrants and create opportunities and pathways for offering catch-up vaccinations to migrants.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Europe; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Measles; Transients and Migrants; Vaccination; Vaccines
PubMed: 35429463
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00066-4 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2016To identify and characterise non-specific immunological effects after routine childhood vaccines against BCG, measles, diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify and characterise non-specific immunological effects after routine childhood vaccines against BCG, measles, diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus.
DESIGN
Systematic review of randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies.
DATA SOURCES
Embase, PubMed, Cochrane library, and Trip searched between 1947 and January 2014. Publications submitted by a panel of experts in the specialty were also included.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
All human studies reporting non-specific immunological effects after vaccination with standard childhood immunisations. Studies using recombinant vaccines, no vaccine at all, or reporting only vaccine specific outcomes were excluded. The primary aim was to systematically identify, assemble, and review all available studies and data on the possible non-specific or heterologous immunological effects of BCG; measles; mumps, measles, and rubella (MMR); diphtheria; tetanus; and pertussis vaccines.
RESULTS
The initial search yielded 11 168 references; 77 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria for data analysis. In most included studies (48%) BCG was the vaccine intervention. The final time point of outcome measurement was primarily performed (70%) between one and 12 months after vaccination. There was a high risk of bias in the included studies, with no single study rated low risk across all assessment criteria. A total of 143 different immunological variables were reported, which, in conjunction with differences in measurement units and summary statistics, created a high number of combinations thus precluding any meta-analysis. Studies that compared BCG vaccinated with unvaccinated groups showed a trend towards increased IFN-γ production in vitro in the vaccinated groups. Increases were also observed for IFN-γ measured after BCG vaccination in response to in vitro stimulation with microbial antigens from Candida albicans, tetanus toxoid, Staphylococcus aureas, lipopolysaccharide, and hepatitis B. Cohort studies of measles vaccination showed an increase in lymphoproliferation to microbial antigens from tetanus toxoid and C albicans Increases in immunogenicity to heterologous antigens were noted after diphtheria-tetanus (herpes simplex virus and polio antibody titres) and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (pneumococcus serotype 14 and polio neutralising responses) vaccination.
CONCLUSIONS
The papers reporting non-specific immunological effects had heterogeneous study designs and could not be conventionally meta-analysed, providing a low level of evidence quality. Some studies, such as BCG vaccine studies examining in vitro IFN-γ responses and measles vaccine studies examining lymphoproliferation to microbial antigen stimulation, showed a consistent direction of effect suggestive of non-specific immunological effects. The quality of the evidence, however, does not provide confidence in the nature, magnitude, or timing of non-specific immunological effects after vaccination with BCG, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, or measles containing vaccines nor the clinical importance of the findings.
Topics: BCG Vaccine; Case-Control Studies; Child, Preschool; Communicable Disease Control; Diphtheria; Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine; Female; Humans; Immunization; Infant; Male; Measles; Measles Vaccine; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tetanus; Tuberculosis; United Kingdom; Vaccination; Whooping Cough
PubMed: 27737830
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i5225 -
JID Innovations : Skin Science From... May 2024Intralesional therapies are used for recalcitrant warts, but no Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment exists nor is there consensus regarding the most... (Review)
Review
Intralesional therapies are used for recalcitrant warts, but no Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment exists nor is there consensus regarding the most efficacious therapy. Therefore, this systematic review aims to summarize efficacy and adverse events reported in 62 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intralesional therapies for cutaneous warts. The most studied intralesional therapies included measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine (n = 24 studies), purified protein derivative (PPD) (n = 19 studies), vitamin D3 (n = 15 studies), and Candida antigen (n = 14 studies). Most studies included adult and pediatric patients or adults alone, with only 4 studies on pediatric patients alone. MMR vaccine was the most studied treatment (n = 853 patients). MMR had a complete response rate of 27-90%. The next most common treatment, PPD, had a complete response rate of 45-87%. Other treatments included Candida antigen and vitamin D3, with complete response rates of 25-84% and 40-96%, respectively. The most frequent side effects were injection-site reactions and flu-like symptoms. This systematic review represents a useful summary of intralesional therapy RCTs for clinician reference. This study also highlights the lack of large multi-institutional RCTs, despite many patients being treated for this widespread problem.
PubMed: 38585192
DOI: 10.1016/j.xjidi.2024.100264 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Dec 2023Vaccination programs are instrumental in prolonging and improving people's lives by preventing diseases such as measles, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and influenza... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vaccination programs are instrumental in prolonging and improving people's lives by preventing diseases such as measles, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and influenza from escalating into fatal epidemics. Despite the significant impact of these programs, a substantial number of individuals, including 20 million infants annually, lack sufficient access to vaccines. Therefore, it is imperative to raise awareness about vaccination programs.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to investigate the potential utilization of social media, assessing its scalability and robustness in delivering accurate and reliable information to individuals who are contemplating vaccination decisions for themselves or on behalf of their children.
METHODS
The protocol for this review is registered in PROSPERO (identifier CRD42022304229) and is being carried out in compliance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Comprehensive searches have been conducted in databases including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Google Scholar. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were deemed eligible for inclusion in this study. The target population encompasses the general public, including adults, children, and adolescents. The defined interventions comprise platforms facilitating 2-way communication for sharing information. These interventions were compared against traditional interventions and teaching methods, referred to as the control group. The outcomes assessed in the included studies encompassed days unvaccinated, vaccine acceptance, and the uptake of vaccines compared with baseline. The studies underwent a risk-of-bias assessment utilizing the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for RCTs, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) assessment.
RESULTS
This review included 10 studies, detailed in 12 articles published between 2012 and 2022, conducted in the United States, China, Jordan, Australia, and Israel. The studies involved platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and non-general-purpose social media. The outcomes examined in these studies focused on the uptake of vaccines compared with baseline, vaccine acceptance, and the number of days individuals remained unvaccinated. The overall sample size for this review was 26,286, with individual studies ranging from 58 to 21,592 participants. The effect direction plot derived from articles of good and fair quality indicated a nonsignificant outcome (P=.12).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest that, in a real-world scenario, an equal number of positive and negative results may be expected due to the interventions' impact on the acceptance and uptake of vaccines. Nevertheless, there is a rationale for accumulating experience to optimize the use of social media with the aim of enhancing vaccination rates. Social media can serve as a tool with the potential to disseminate information and boost vaccination rates within a population. However, relying solely on social media is not sufficient, given the complex structures at play in vaccine acceptance. Effectiveness hinges on various factors working in tandem. It is crucial that authorized personnel closely monitor and moderate discussions on social media to ensure responsible and accurate information dissemination.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Humans; Infant; Australia; Influenza Vaccines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Social Media; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Vaccination
PubMed: 38147375
DOI: 10.2196/50276 -
The Lancet. Global Health Apr 2023To understand the current measles mortality burden, and to mitigate the future burden, it is crucial to have robust estimates of measles case fatalities. Estimates of...
BACKGROUND
To understand the current measles mortality burden, and to mitigate the future burden, it is crucial to have robust estimates of measles case fatalities. Estimates of measles case-fatality ratios (CFRs) that are specific to age, location, and time are essential to capture variations in underlying population-level factors, such as vaccination coverage and measles incidence, which contribute to increases or decreases in CFRs. In this study, we updated estimates of measles CFRs by expanding upon previous systematic reviews and implementing a meta-regression model. Our objective was to use all information available to estimate measles CFRs in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) by country, age, and year.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-regression modelling study, we searched PubMed on Dec 31, 2020 for all available primary data published from Jan 1, 1980 to Dec 31, 2020, on measles cases and fatalities occurring up to Dec 31, 2019 in LMICs. We included studies that previous systematic reviews had included or which contained primary data on measles cases and deaths from hospital-based, community-based, or surveillance-based reports, including outbreak investigations. We excluded studies that were not in humans, or reported only data that were only non-primary, or on restricted populations (eg, people living with HIV), or on long-term measles mortality (eg, death from subacute sclerosing panencephalitis), and studies that did not include country-level data or relevant information on measles cases and deaths, or were for a high-income country. We extracted summary data on measles cases and measles deaths from studies that fitted our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using these data and a suite of covariates related to measles CFRs, we implemented a Bayesian meta-regression model to produce estimates of measles CFRs from 1990 to 2019 by location and age group. This study was not registered with PROSPERO or otherwise.
FINDINGS
We identified 2705 records, of which 208 sources contained information on both measles cases and measles deaths in LMICS and were included in the review. Between 1990 and 2019, CFRs substantially decreased in both community-based and hospital-based settings, with consistent patterns across age groups. For people aged 0-34 years, we estimated a mean CFR for 2019 of 1·32% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 1·28-1·36) among community-based settings and 5·35% (5·08-5·64) among hospital-based settings. We estimated the 2019 CFR in community-based settings to be 3·03% (UI 2·89-3·16) for those younger than 1 year, 1·63% (1·58-1·68) for age 1-4 years, 0·84% (0·80-0·87) for age 5-9 years, and 0·67% (0·64-0·70) for age 10-14 years.
INTERPRETATION
Although CFRs have declined between 1990 and 2019, there are still large heterogeneities across locations and ages. One limitation of this systematic review is that we were unable to assess measles CFR among particular populations, such as refugees and internally displaced people. Our updated methodological framework and estimates could be used to evaluate the effect of measles control and vaccination programmes on reducing the preventable measles mortality burden.
FUNDING
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and the US National Institutes of Health.
Topics: Humans; Developing Countries; Bayes Theorem; Measles; Vaccination; Income; Global Health
PubMed: 36925172
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00043-8 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Feb 2017Healthcare Workers (HCWs) have an increased risk both to acquire and to spread vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs) both to their colleagues and, especially, to... (Review)
Review
Susceptibility to vaccine-preventable diseases and vaccination adherence among healthcare workers in Italy: A cross-sectional survey at a regional acute-care university hospital and a systematic review.
Healthcare Workers (HCWs) have an increased risk both to acquire and to spread vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs) both to their colleagues and, especially, to vulnerable patients. The prevention of occupational hazards among HCWs is based on proper adoption of the standard and additional precautions, immunizations, and secondary preventive measures, such as post-exposure prophylaxis. Moreover, HCWs are often referred to as the most trusted source of vaccine-related information for their patients. In the present article, we report the findings of a cross-sectional study investigating the compliance to vaccinations among HCWs employed at the Obstetric Unit of a regional acute-care University Hospital in Northern Italy. Furthermore, a systematic review of the literature for some VPDs (i.e., HBV, measles, rubella, varicella and influenza) was performed, over a 17-year period, in order to update the socio-demographic and professional characteristics, the susceptibility status and the vaccination rates among HCWs in Italy.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Communicable Diseases; Cross-Sectional Studies; Disease Susceptibility; Female; Guideline Adherence; Health Personnel; Hospitals, University; Humans; Italy; Male; Middle Aged; Vaccination
PubMed: 27924688
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2017.1264746 -
Indian Journal of Dermatology,... 2022Background Intralesional immunotherapy has been reported to be effective for warts and to show good safety profiles, but this has not yet been systematically studied.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background Intralesional immunotherapy has been reported to be effective for warts and to show good safety profiles, but this has not yet been systematically studied. Aims To determine the efficacy and safety of intralesional immunotherapy for treating non-genital warts. Methods We comprehensively searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from the times of their inception to January 3, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of complete response of all lesions. The distant complete response rate of warts located in an anatomically different body part and the recurrence rate were also analyzed. Results A total of 54 prospective studies was ultimately included. The immunotherapeutic agents used were Mycobacterium w vaccine, measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, purified protein derivative, Candida antigen, interferon, bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine and others. The pooled rate of complete response among all patients with non-genital warts treated using intralesional immunotherapy was 60.6% (95% confidence interval 54.8-66.5%). The pooled recurrence rate was 2.0% (95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.9%). All reported adverse events were mild and transient. Limitations The heterogeneity among studies Conclusion Intralesional immunotherapy is suggested for use in patients with multiple warts, given its promising results, good safety profile and low recurrence rate.
Topics: Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Prospective Studies; Warts; Immunotherapy; Immunologic Factors; BCG Vaccine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35962514
DOI: 10.25259/IJDVL_1369_20 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Immunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Immunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care, and large demands on primary care providers, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. One common theme across immunization programs in many nations involves the challenge of implementing a population-based approach and identifying all eligible recipients, for example the children who should receive the measles vaccine. However, this issue is gradually being addressed through the availability of immunization registries and electronic health records. A second common theme is identifying the best strategies to promote high vaccination rates. Three types of strategies have been studied: (1) patient-oriented interventions, such as patient reminder or recall, (2) provider interventions, and (3) system interventions, such as school laws. One of the most prominent intervention strategies, and perhaps best studied, involves patient reminder or recall systems. This is an update of a previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various types of patient reminder and recall interventions to improve receipt of immunizations.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2017. We also searched grey literature and trial registers to January 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating immunization-focused patient reminder or recall interventions in children, adolescents, and adults who receive immunizations in any setting. We included no-intervention control groups, standard practice activities that did not include immunization patient reminder or recall, media-based activities aimed at promoting immunizations, or simple practice-based awareness campaigns. We included receipt of any immunizations as eligible outcome measures, excluding special travel immunizations. We excluded patients who were hospitalized for the duration of the study period.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We present results for individual studies as relative rates using risk ratios, and risk differences for randomized trials, and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before-after studies. We present pooled results for randomized trials using the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
The 75 included studies involved child, adolescent, and adult participants in outpatient, community-based, primary care, and other settings in 10 countries.Patient reminder or recall interventions, including telephone and autodialer calls, letters, postcards, text messages, combination of mail or telephone, or a combination of patient reminder or recall with outreach, probably improve the proportion of participants who receive immunization (risk ratio (RR) of 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.35; risk difference of 8%) based on moderate certainty evidence from 55 studies with 138,625 participants.Three types of single-method reminders improve receipt of immunizations based on high certainty evidence: the use of postcards (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30; eight studies; 27,734 participants), text messages (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.44; six studies; 7772 participants), and autodialer (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; five studies; 11,947 participants). Two types of single-method reminders probably improve receipt of immunizations based on moderate certainty evidence: the use of telephone calls (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.54; seven studies; 9120 participants) and letters to patients (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; 27 studies; 81,100 participants).Based on high certainty evidence, reminders improve receipt of immunizations for childhood (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.29; risk difference of 8%; 23 studies; 31,099 participants) and adolescent vaccinations (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.42; risk difference of 7%; 10 studies; 30,868 participants). Reminders probably improve receipt of vaccinations for childhood influenza (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.99; risk difference of 22%; five studies; 9265 participants) and adult influenza (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.43; risk difference of 9%; 15 studies; 59,328 participants) based on moderate certainty evidence. They may improve receipt of vaccinations for adult pneumococcus, tetanus, hepatitis B, and other non-influenza vaccinations based on low certainty evidence although the confidence interval includes no effect of these interventions (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.78; four studies; 8065 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Patient reminder and recall systems, in primary care settings, are likely to be effective at improving the proportion of the target population who receive immunizations.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Correspondence as Topic; Humans; Immunization; Immunization Programs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reminder Systems; Telephone; Text Messaging
PubMed: 29342498
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003941.pub3 -
Vaccines Dec 2019The growing number of available vaccines that can be potentially co-administered makes the assessment of the safety of vaccine co-administration increasingly relevant... (Review)
Review
The growing number of available vaccines that can be potentially co-administered makes the assessment of the safety of vaccine co-administration increasingly relevant but complex. We aimed to synthesize the available scientific evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children by performing a systematic literature review of studies assessing the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children between 1999 and 2019, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Fifty studies compared co-administered vaccines versus the same vaccines administered separately. The most frequently studied vaccines included quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY) vaccine, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) or tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed, hepatitis B, inactivated poliovirus and type b conjugate (DTaP-HepB-IPV/Hib) vaccine, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and pneumococcal conjugate 7-valent (PCV7) or 13-valent (PCV13) vaccines. Of this, 16% (n = 8) of the studies reported significantly more adverse events following immunization (AEFI) while in 10% (n = 5) significantly fewer adverse events were found in the co-administration groups. Statistically significant differences between co-administration and separate administration were found for 16 adverse events, for 11 different vaccine co-administrations. In general, studies briefly described safety and one-third of studies lacked any statistical assessment of AEFI. Overall, the evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations compared to separate vaccine administrations is inconclusive and there is a paucity of large post-licensure studies addressing this issue.
PubMed: 31906218
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines8010012