-
Vaccine Mar 2019To systematically review literature on uptake and timeliness of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, measles-mumps-rubella, and/or polio-containing vaccines ininfants who were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Completeness and timeliness of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, measles-mumps-rubella, and polio vaccines in young children with chronic health conditions: A systematic review.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review literature on uptake and timeliness of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, measles-mumps-rubella, and/or polio-containing vaccines ininfants who were born preterm, with a low birth weight, and/or with chronic health conditions that were diagnosed within the first 6 months of life.
METHODS
Using a standardized search strategy developed by a medical librarian, records were extracted from MEDLINE, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and CINAHL up to May 8, 2018.
RESULTS
Out of the 1997 records that were screened, we identified 21 studies that met inclusion criteria. Eleven studies assessed vaccine coverage and/or timeliness in preterm infants, 6 in low birth weight infants, and 7 in children with chronic health conditions. Estimates of coverage in these populations were highly variable, ranging from 40% to 100% across the vaccines and population groups.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of studies reporting coverage and timeliness of routine immunizations in special populations of children.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Our review suggests a need for improved surveillance of immunization status in special populations of infants, as wellas aneed for standardization of reporting practices.
Topics: Age Factors; Child; Child, Preschool; Chronic Disease; Comorbidity; Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine; Global Health; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Premature; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Poliovirus Vaccines; Public Health Surveillance; Vaccination Coverage
PubMed: 30814030
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.02.031 -
Vaccine Oct 2016Important investments were made in countries for the polio eradication initiative. On 25 September 2015, a major milestone was achieved when Nigeria was removed from the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Important investments were made in countries for the polio eradication initiative. On 25 September 2015, a major milestone was achieved when Nigeria was removed from the list of polio-endemic countries. Routine Immunization, being a key pillar of polio eradication initiative needs to be strengthened to sustain the gains made in countries. For this, there is a huge potential on building on the use of polio infrastructure to contribute to RI strengthening.
METHODS
We reviewed estimates of immunization coverage as reported by the countries to WHO and UNICEF for three vaccines: BCG, DTP3 (third dose of diphtheria-tetanus toxoid- pertussis), and the first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1).We conducted a systematic review of best practices documents from eight countries which had significant polio eradication activities.
RESULTS
Immunization programmes have improved significantly in the African Region. Regional coverage for DTP3 vaccine increased from 51% in 1996 to 77% in 2014. DTP3 coverage increased >3 folds in DRC (18-80%) and Nigeria from 21% to 66%; and >2 folds in Angola (41-87%), Chad (24-46%), and Togo (42-87%). Coverage for BCG and MCV1 increased in all countries. Of the 47 countries in the region, 18 (38%) achieved a national coverage for DTP3 ⩾90% for 2years meeting the Global Vaccine Action (GVAP) target. A decrease was noted in the Ebola-affected countries i.e., Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.
CONCLUSIONS
PEI has been associated with increased spending on immunization and the related improvements, especially in the areas of micro planning, service delivery, program management and capacity building. Continued efforts are needed to mobilize international and domestic support to strengthen and sustain high-quality immunization services in African countries. Strengthening RI will in turn sustain the gains made to eradicate poliovirus in the region.
Topics: Africa; BCG Vaccine; Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine; Disease Eradication; Global Health; Humans; Immunization Programs; Measles Vaccine; Nigeria; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Togo; United Nations; Vaccination Coverage; World Health Organization
PubMed: 27396492
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.05.062 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Feb 2019Oral vaccines underperform in low-income and middle-income countries compared with in high-income countries. Whether interventions can improve oral vaccine performance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral vaccines underperform in low-income and middle-income countries compared with in high-income countries. Whether interventions can improve oral vaccine performance is uncertain.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions designed to increase oral vaccine efficacy or immunogenicity. We searched Ovid-MEDLINE and Embase for trials published until Oct 23, 2017. Inclusion criteria for meta-analysis were two or more studies per intervention category and available seroconversion data. We did random-effects meta-analyses to produce summary relative risk (RR) estimates. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017060608).
FINDINGS
Of 2843 studies identified, 87 were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 66 for meta-analysis. 22 different interventions were assessed for oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), oral rotavirus vaccine (RVV), oral cholera vaccine (OCV), and oral typhoid vaccines. There was generally high heterogeneity. Seroconversion to RVV was significantly increased by delaying the first RVV dose by 4 weeks (RR 1·37, 95% CI 1·16-1·62) and OPV seroconversion was increased with monovalent or bivalent OPV compared with trivalent OPV (RR 1·51, 95% CI 1·20-1·91). There was some evidence that separating RVV and OPV increased RVV seroconversion (RR 1·21, 95% CI 1·00-1·47) and that higher vaccine inoculum improved OCV seroconversion (RR 1·12, 95% CI 1·00-1·26). There was no evidence of effect for anthelmintics, antibiotics, probiotics, zinc, vitamin A, withholding breastfeeding, extra doses, or vaccine buffering.
INTERPRETATION
Most strategies did not improve oral vaccine performance. Delaying RVV and reducing OPV valence should be considered within immunisation programmes to reduce global enteric disease. New strategies to address the gap in oral vaccine efficacy are urgently required.
FUNDING
Wellcome Trust, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Medical Research Council, and WHO Polio Research Committee.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Cholera; Cholera Vaccines; Female; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Salmonella typhi; Seroconversion; Treatment Outcome; Typhoid Fever; Typhoid-Paratyphoid Vaccines; Vaccination; Vibrio cholerae; Young Adult
PubMed: 30712836
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30602-9 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 2018The emergence of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis has become an ongoing burden of poliomyelitis. During this special period from OPV to IPV-only immunization... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Immunogenicity of sequential inactivated and oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) versus inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) alone in healthy infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The emergence of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis has become an ongoing burden of poliomyelitis. During this special period from OPV to IPV-only immunization schedule, we did a meta-analysis to compare the immunogenicity of sequential IPV and OPV versus IPV alone in healthy infants.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), and the number was CRD42017054889. We performed it as described.
RESULTS
Finally, 6 articles were qualified for our review. The results showed that seroconversion rates against all 3 serotype polioviruses were non-inferior and Geometric mean antibody titers (GMTs) were superior in sequential schedules compared with IPV-only schedule. Thus, the sequential vaccination schedules could induce a stronger immunogenicity.
CONCLUSIONS
To decrease vaccine-associated and vaccine-derived poliomyelitis, it is a reasonable option to select sequential schedules during this special transition from OPV to IPV-only immunization schedule, which coincides with the current WHO recommendations.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Infant; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Inactivated; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Seroconversion; Vaccination
PubMed: 29985751
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2018.1489188 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021Viruses cause various human diseases, some of which become pandemic outbreaks. This study synthesized evidence on antiviral medicinal plants in Africa which could... (Review)
Review
Viruses cause various human diseases, some of which become pandemic outbreaks. This study synthesized evidence on antiviral medicinal plants in Africa which could potentially be further studied for viral infections including Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. PUBMED, CINAHIL, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google databases were searched through keywords; antiviral, plant, herb, and Africa were combined using "AND" and "OR". studies, studies, or clinical trials on botanical medicine used for the treatment of viruses in Africa were included. Thirty-six studies were included in the evidence synthesis. Three hundred and twenty-eight plants were screened for antiviral activities of which 127 showed noteworthy activities against 25 viral species. These, were Poliovirus (42 plants), HSV (34 plants), Coxsackievirus (16 plants), Rhinovirus (14plants), Influenza (12 plants), Astrovirus (11 plants), SARS-CoV-2 (10 plants), HIV (10 plants), Echovirus (8 plants), Parvovirus (6 plants), Semiliki forest virus (5 plants), Measles virus (5 plants), Hepatitis virus (3 plants), Canine distemper virus (3 plants), Zika virus (2 plants), Vesicular stomatitis virus T2 (2 plants). Feline herpesvirus (FHV-1), Enterovirus, Dengue virus, Ebola virus, Chikungunya virus, Yellow fever virus, Respiratory syncytial virus, Rift Valley fever virus, Human cytomegalovirus each showed sensitivities to one plant. The current study provided a list of African medicinal plants which demonstrated antiviral activities and could potentially be candidates for COVID-19 treatment. However, all studies were preliminary and screening. Further are required for plant-based management of viral diseases.
PubMed: 35002686
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.682794 -
The Journal of Infectious Diseases Sep 2014The impaired immunogenicity of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in low-income countries has been apparent since the early field trials of this vaccine. Infection with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The impaired immunogenicity of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in low-income countries has been apparent since the early field trials of this vaccine. Infection with enteropathogens at the time of vaccination may contribute to this phenomenon. However, the relative influence of these infections on OPV performance remains uncertain.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to examine the impact of concurrent enteric infections on OPV response. Using random-effects models, we assessed the effects of nonpolio enteroviruses (NPEVs) and diarrhea on the odds of seroconversion and/or vaccine virus shedding.
RESULTS
We identified 25 trials in which OPV outcomes were compared according to the presence or absence of enteric infections, the majority of which (n = 17) reported only on NPEVs. Concurrent NPEVs significantly reduced the odds of per-dose seroconversion for type 1 poliovirus (odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.84), but not type 2 (OR 0.53 [0.19-1.46]) or type 3 (OR 0.56 [0.27-1.12]). A similar reduction, significant for type 1 poliovirus (OR 0.50 [0.28-0.89]), was observed in the odds of vaccine virus shedding among NPEV-infected individuals. Concurrent diarrhea significantly inhibited per-dose seroconversion overall (OR 0.61 [0.38-0.87]).
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings are consistent with an inhibitory effect of concurrent enteric infections on OPV response.
Topics: Diarrhea; Enterovirus Infections; Humans; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Virus Shedding
PubMed: 24688069
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiu182 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2021Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune disorder of unknown etiology in most patients, in which autoantibodies target components of neuromuscular junctions and impair...
Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune disorder of unknown etiology in most patients, in which autoantibodies target components of neuromuscular junctions and impair nerve to muscle transmission. To provide a synthesis of the evidence examining infectious agents associated with the onset of MG. We hypothesized that microbes play a pathogenic role in the initiation of MG. For clinical cases, the onset of clinical signs is used as a proxy for the true onset of autoimmunity. We searched PubMed and Web of Science. Papers captured through database searching ( = 827) were assessed, yielding a total of 42 publications meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. An additional 6 papers were retrieved from the reference lists of relevant articles. For each pathogen, an integrated metric of evidence (IME) value, from minus 8 to plus 8, was computed based on study design, quality of data, confidence of infectious disease diagnosis, likelihood of a causal link between the pathogen and MG, confidence of MG diagnosis, and the number of infected patients. Negative IME values corresponded to studies providing evidence against a role for microbes as triggers of MG. One hundred and sixty-nine myasthenic patients infected with 21 different pathogens were documented. Epstein-Barr virus (median = 4.71), human papillomavirus (median = 4.35), and poliovirus (median = 4.29) demonstrated the highest IME values. The total median IME was 2.63 (mean = 2.53; range -3.79-5.25), suggesting a general lack of evidence for a causal link. There was a notable absence of mechanistic studies designed to answer this question directly. The question of the pathogenic contribution of microbes to MG remains open.
PubMed: 34194378
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.618021 -
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation... Nov 2020Sleep disturbances, especially sleep disordered breathing and sleep movement disorders, seem to be highly prevalent among aging polio survivors. They could contribute to...
BACKGROUND
Sleep disturbances, especially sleep disordered breathing and sleep movement disorders, seem to be highly prevalent among aging polio survivors. They could contribute to late functional deterioration, fatigue, poor quality of life and negative health outcomes, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.
OBJECTIVES
This review focused on current knowledge of the prevalence of sleep disorders in polio survivors, their features, predictive factors and management.
DATA SOURCES
Articles were searched in PubMed and the Cochrane Library up to March 2018.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS
Articles needed to 1) be written in English; 2) include only participants with previous poliomyelitis or post-polio syndrome diagnosis; and 3) involve any form of sleep disorders. Articles about isolated fatigue or non-specific sleep complaints as well as non-polio specific articles (neuromuscular disorders) were not included in the qualitative analysis.
RESULTS
Among 166 studies identified, 41 were included in this review. The prevalence of sleep apnea syndrome, nocturnal alveolar hypoventilation and restless legs syndrome seemed higher than in the general population (from 7.3% to 65%, 15% to 20% and 28% to 63%, respectively). This review highlights the lack of randomised studies assessing sleep disorder management in this specific population.
LIMITATIONS
Because of the small number of eligible publications, none was excluded for methodological limitations, and only a qualitative analysis was provided.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Follow-up of polio survivors should include systematic screening for sleep disorders because they are associated with adverse consequences. Sleep disorder evaluation and management should improve the long-term survival and quality of life of polio survivors. Methodologically robust clinical trials are needed, but the decreasing prevalence and large clinical spectrum of the disease may complicate the creation of comparable groups.
Topics: Aged; Aging; Fatigue; Female; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Movement Disorders; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Postpoliomyelitis Syndrome; Prevalence; Quality of Life; Restless Legs Syndrome; Sleep Apnea Syndromes; Sleep Wake Disorders; Survivors
PubMed: 31794858
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.10.007 -
BMJ Global Health Nov 2021The Global Polio Eradication Initiative uses polio supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs) as a strategy to increase vaccine coverage and cease poliovirus...
INTRODUCTION
The Global Polio Eradication Initiative uses polio supplementary immunisation activities (SIAs) as a strategy to increase vaccine coverage and cease poliovirus transmission. Impact of polio SIAs on immunisation systems is frequently debated. We reviewed the impact of polio SIAs on routine immunisation and health systems during the modern era of polio eradication.
METHODS
We searched nine databases for studies reporting on polio SIAs and immunisation coverage, financial investment, workforce and health services delivery. We conducted a narrative synthesis of evidence. Records prior to 1994, animal, modelling or case studies data were excluded.
RESULTS
20/1637 unique records were included. Data on vaccine coverage were included in 70% (14/20) studies, workforce in 65% (13/20) and health services delivery in 85% (17/20). SIAs positively contributed to vaccination uptake of non-polio vaccines in seven studies, neutral in three and negative in one. Some polio SIAs contributed to workforce strengthening through training and capacity building. Polio SIAs were accompanied with increased social mobilisation and community awareness building confidence in vaccination programmes. Included studies were programmatic in nature and contained variable data, thus could not be justly critically appraised.
CONCLUSION
Polio SIAs are successful at increasing polio vaccine coverage, but the resources and infrastructures were not always utilised for delivery of non-polio vaccines and integration into routine service delivery. We found a gap in standardised tools to evaluate SIAs, which can then inform service integration. Our study provides data to inform SIAs evaluations, and provides important considerations for COVID-19 vaccine roll-out to strengthen health systems.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020152195.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Humans; Immunization; Immunization Programs; Poliomyelitis; SARS-CoV-2; Vaccination
PubMed: 34776411
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006568 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Poliomyelitis mainly affects unvaccinated children under five years of age, causing irreversible paralysis or even death. The oral polio vaccine (OPV) contains live... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Poliomyelitis mainly affects unvaccinated children under five years of age, causing irreversible paralysis or even death. The oral polio vaccine (OPV) contains live attenuated virus, which can, in rare cases, cause a paralysis known as vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP), and also vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) due to acquired neurovirulence after prolonged duration of replication. The incidence of poliomyelitis caused by wild polio virus (WPV) has declined dramatically since the introduction of OPV and later the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), however, the cases of paralysis linked to the OPV are currently more frequent than those related to the WPV. Therefore, in 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended at least one IPV dose preceding routine immunisation with OPV to reduce VAPPs and VDPVs until polio could be eradicated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity of sequential IPV-OPV immunisation schemes compared to either OPV or IPV alone.
SEARCH METHODS
In May 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases, three trials registers and reports of adverse effects on four web sites. We also searched the references of identified studies, relevant reviews and contacted authors to identify additional references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, nationwide uncontrolled before-after studies (UBAs), interrupted time series (ITS) and controlled ITS comparing sequential IPV-OPV schedules (one or more IPV doses followed by one or more OPV doses) with IPV alone, OPV alone or non-sequential IPV-OPV combinations.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 studies: 16 RCTs involving 6407 healthy infants (age range 96 to 975 days, mean 382 days), one ITS with 28,330 infants and four nationwide studies (two ITS, two UBA). Ten RCTs were conducted in high-income countries; five in the USA, two in the UK, and one each in Chile, Israel, and Oman. The remaining six RCTs were conducted in middle-income countries; China, Bangladesh, Guatemala, India, and Thailand. We rated all included RCTs at low or unclear risk of bias for randomisation domains, most at high or unclear risk of attrition bias, and half at high or unclear risk for conflict of interests. Almost all RCTs were at low risk for the remaining domains. ITSs and UBAs were mainly considered at low risk of bias for most domains. IPV-OPV versus OPV It is uncertain if an IPV followed by OPV schedule is better than OPV alone at reducing the number of WPV cases (very low-certainty evidence); however, it may reduce VAPP cases by 54% to 100% (three nationwide studies; low-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in vaccination coverage between IPV-OPV and OPV-only schedules (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.06; 1 ITS study; low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there is little or no difference between the two schedule types for the number of serious adverse events (SAEs) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.70; 4 studies, 1948 participants; low-certainty evidence); or the number of people with protective humoral response P1 (moderate-certainty evidence), P2 (for the most studied schedule; two IPV doses followed by OPV; low-certainty evidence), and P3 (low-certainty evidence). Two IPV doses followed by bivalent OPV (IIbO) may reduce P2 neutralising antibodies compared to trivalent OPV (moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to P1 or P2 neutralising antibodies following an IIO schedule or OPV alone (low-certainty evidence). Both IIO and IIbO schedules may increase P3 neutralising antibodies compared to OPV (moderate-certainty evidence). It may also lead to lower mucosal immunity given increased faecal excretion of P1 (low-certainty evidence), P2 and P3 (moderate-certainty evidence) after OPV challenge. IPV-OPV versus IPV It is uncertain if IPV-OPV is more effective than IPV alone at reducing the number of WPV cases (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding VAPP cases. There is no clear evidence of a difference between IPV-OPV and OPV schedules for the number of people with protective humoral response (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). IPV-OPV schedules may increase mean titres of P1 neutralising antibodies compared to OPV alone (low- and moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect on P2 and P3 titres is not clear (very low- and moderate-certainty evidence). IPV-OPV probably reduces the number of people with P3 poliovirus faecal excretion after OPV challenge with IIO and IIOO sequences (moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce the number with P2 (low-certainty evidence), but not with P1 (very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the schedules in number of SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43; 2 studies, 1063 participants, low-certainty evidence). The number of persons with P2 protective humoral immunity and P2 neutralising antibodies are probably lower with most sequential schemes without P2 components (i.e. bOPV) than with trivalent OPV or IVP alone (moderate-certainty evidence). IPV (3)-OPV versus IPV (2)-OPV One study (137 participants) showed no clear evidence of a difference between three IPV doses followed by OPV and two IPV doses followed by OPV, on the number of people with P1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03), P2 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03), or P3 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05) protective humoral and intestinal immunity; all moderate-certainty evidence. This study did not report on any other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
IPV-OPV compared to OPV may reduce VAPPs without affecting vaccination coverage, safety or humoral response, except P2 with sequential schemes without P2 components, but increase poliovirus faecal excretion after OPV challenge for some polio serotypes. Compared to IPV-only schedules, IPV-OPV may have little or no difference on SAEs, probably has little or no effect on persons with protective humoral response, may increase neutralising antibodies, and probably reduces faecal excretion after OPV challenge of certain polio serotypes. Using three IPV doses as part of a IPV-OPV schedule does not appear to be better than two IPV doses for protective humoral response. Sequential schedules during the transition from OPV to IPV-only immunisation schedules seems a reasonable option aligned with current WHO recommendations. Findings could help decision-makers to optimise polio vaccination policies, reducing inequities between countries.
Topics: Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Immunity, Mucosal; Immunization Schedule; Infant; Interrupted Time Series Analysis; Male; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Inactivated; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31801180
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011260.pub2