-
Dermatology Online Journal Mar 2020New treatment options for warts include intralesional wart injection with agents such as vitamin D, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine antigen, Bacillus...
BACKGROUND
New treatment options for warts include intralesional wart injection with agents such as vitamin D, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine antigen, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) antigen, and candida antigen but there have been limited studies to compare their efficacies.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of injectable agents used for the treatment of warts.
METHODS
A PubMed search included terms "intralesional wart therapy," "wart injection" and "verruca injection." Articles reviewed were published over 10 years.
RESULTS
A total of 43 articles were reviewed; 30 covered studies with more than 10 participants and 13 were case reports, case series, and reviews. In comparison studies intralesional agents have equal or superior efficacy (66%-94.9%) compared to first-line salicylic acid or cryotherapy (65.5-76.5%). One advantage of intralesional injections is the rate of complete resolution of distant warts.
LIMITATIONS
Each study varied in their agents, treatment interval, and treatment dose, making comparisons difficult.
CONCLUSIONS
Intralesional wart injections are safe, affordable, and efficacious treatments for warts. Physicians should consider intralesional injections for patients with refractory warts, multiple warts, or warts in sensitive areas.
Topics: Aminolevulinic Acid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antiviral Agents; BCG Vaccine; Bacterial Vaccines; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Interferon-alpha; Mycobacterium; Tuberculin; Vitamin D; Warts
PubMed: 32609439
DOI: No ID Found -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Feb 2021Despite the universal use of the two-dose trivalent measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in the past two decades, outbreaks of these diseases still occur in countries... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the universal use of the two-dose trivalent measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in the past two decades, outbreaks of these diseases still occur in countries with high vaccine uptake, giving rise to concerns about primary and secondary failure of MMR vaccine components. We aimed to provide seroconversion and waning rate estimates for the measles, mumps, and rubella components of MMR vaccines.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched PubMed (including MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Embase for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, or longitudinal studies reporting the immunogenicity and persistence of MMR vaccines, published in English from database inception to Dec 31, 2019. Studies were included if they investigated vaccine-induced immunity in healthy individuals who received a trivalent MMR vaccine, including different dosages and timepoints of vaccine administration. Studies featuring coadministration of MMR with other vaccines, maternal immunity to the MMR vaccine, or non-trivalent formulations of the vaccine were excluded. Pooled seroconversion and waning rates were estimated by random-effects meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019116705.
FINDINGS
We identified 3615 unique studies, 62 (1·7%) of which were eligible for analysis. Estimated overall seroconversion rates were 96·0% (95% CI 94·5-97·4; I=91·1%) for measles, 93·3% (91·1-95·2; I=94·9%) for mumps when excluding the Rubini strain, 91·1% (87·4-94·1; I=96·6%) for mumps when including the Rubini strain, and 98·3% (97·3-99·2; I=93·0%) for rubella. Estimated overall annual waning rates were 0·009 (95% CI 0·005-0·016; I=85·2%) for measles, 0·024 (0·016-0·039; I=94·7%) for mumps, and 0·012 (0·010-0·014; I=93·3%) for rubella.
INTERPRETATION
Our meta-analysis provides estimates of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which are essential to improve the accuracy of mathematical and statistical modelling to understand and predict the occurrence of future measles, mumps, and rubella outbreaks in countries with high vaccine uptake.
FUNDING
European Research Council.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Rubella
PubMed: 32888410
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30442-4 -
PharmacoEconomics May 2023Economic evaluations of vaccines should accurately represent all relevant economic and health consequences of vaccination, including losses due to adverse events...
Accounting for Adverse Events Following Immunization in Economic Evaluation: Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Pediatric Vaccines Against Pneumococcus, Rotavirus, Human Papillomavirus, Meningococcus and Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Varicella.
OBJECTIVES
Economic evaluations of vaccines should accurately represent all relevant economic and health consequences of vaccination, including losses due to adverse events following immunization (AEFI). We investigated to what extent economic evaluations of pediatric vaccines account for AEFI, which methods are used to do so and whether inclusion of AEFI is associated with study characteristics and the vaccine's safety profile.
METHODS
A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Trials, Database of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of the University of York, EconPapers, Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation, Tufts New England Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Tufts New England Global Health CEA, International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment Database) was performed for economic evaluations published between 2014 and 29 April 2021 (date of search) pertaining to the five groups of pediatric vaccines licensed in Europe and the United States since 1998: the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, the meningococcal vaccines (MCV), the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) combination vaccines, the pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and the rotavirus vaccines (RV). Rates of accounting for AEFI were calculated, stratified by study characteristics (e.g., region, publication year, journal impact factor, level of industry involvement) and triangulated with the vaccine's safety profile (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] recommendations and information on safety-related product label changes). The studies accounting for AEFI were analyzed in terms of the methods used to account for both cost and effect implications of AEFI.
RESULTS
We identified 112 economic evaluations, of which 28 (25%) accounted for AEFI. This proportion was significantly higher for MMRV (80%, four out of five evaluations), MCV (61%, 11 out of 18 evaluations) and RV (60%, nine out of 15 evaluations) compared to HPV (6%, three out of 53 evaluations) and PCV (5%, one out of 21 evaluations). No other study characteristics were associated with a study's likelihood of accounting for AEFI. Vaccines for which AEFI were more frequently accounted for also had a higher frequency of label changes and a higher level of attention to AEFI in ACIP recommendations. Nine studies accounted for both the cost and health implications of AEFI, 18 studies considered only costs and one only health outcomes. While the cost impact was usually estimated based on routine billing data, the adverse health impact of AEFI was usually estimated based on assumptions.
DISCUSSION
Although (mild) AEFI were demonstrated for all five studied vaccines, only a quarter of reviewed studies accounted for these, mostly in an incomplete and inaccurate manner. We provide guidance on which methods to use to better quantify the impact of AEFI on both costs and health outcomes. Policymakers should be aware that the impact of AEFI on cost-effectiveness is likely to be underestimated in the majority of economic evaluations.
Topics: Child; Humans; Chickenpox; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Streptococcus pneumoniae; Human Papillomavirus Viruses; Rotavirus; Neisseria meningitidis; Mumps; Papillomavirus Infections; Vaccination; Immunization; Measles; Rotavirus Vaccines; Rubella
PubMed: 36809673
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01252-z -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Oct 2022Transplacental passage of certain biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs leads to detectable levels in the neonate, which may impact on the safety of live vaccines....
OBJECTIVES
Transplacental passage of certain biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs leads to detectable levels in the neonate, which may impact on the safety of live vaccines. Guidelines advise delaying live vaccine administration in biologic-exposed infants until they are 7 months old.
METHODS
A systematic review of Embase, Medline and Cochrane identified live vaccine outcomes in infants exposed to biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in utero.
RESULTS
Studies included 276 in utero exposures to adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, tocilizumab and ustekinumab. Live vaccine exposures at <12 months of age included Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) (n = 215), rotavirus (n = 46), and measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) (n = 12). We identified no reactions following MMR, seven mild reactions to rotavirus vaccination and eight reactions to BCG, including one death. All infants with an adverse reaction to BCG had been exposed to infliximab in utero, and six had received BCG in the first month of life. A freedom of information request to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency revealed four fatal disseminated BCG infections in infants exposed to TNF inhibitors in utero, including infliximab, adalimumab and one unspecified TNF inhibitor.
CONCLUSION
Most evidence for a clinically harmful effect was for early administration of the BCG vaccine to infants exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors with high transplacental transfer rates.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antirheumatic Agents; BCG Vaccine; Etanercept; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infliximab; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 35258557
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac141 -
Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex... Aug 2022Vaccines are essential for children to defend against infection. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are emerging contaminants with the characteristics of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Vaccines are essential for children to defend against infection. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are emerging contaminants with the characteristics of persistence and bioaccumulation. PFAS exposure can affect the function of the nervous, endocrine, and immune system of animals and humans. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiological studies investigating potential relationships between PFAS exposure and vaccine antibody levels, and assessed whether PFAS would affect vaccine response in healthy children. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to February 2022. We chose studies that measured serum vaccines antibodies and PFAS concentrations of the participants. Essential information, including mean difference of percentage change, regression coefficient, odds ratio, Spearman correlation coefficient, and 95% confidence intervals, were extracted from the selected studies to conduct descriptive analysis and meta-analysis where appropriate. The qualities of these studies were evaluated as well. Finally, nine epidemiological studies about children met our inclusion criteria. A high degree of heterogeneity is observed in terms of breastfeeding time, confounder control, and detection method. Exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid is negatively associated with tetanus antibody level in children without heterogeneity by Cochran's Q test (p = 0.26; p = 0.55), and exposure to perfluorohexane sulfonate is negatively associated with tetanus antibody level but with heterogeneity (p = 0.04). This comprehensive review suggests that PFAS can have adverse health effects on children by hindering the production of vaccine antibodies. There are some consistent and negative associations between children exposure to certain PFAS and tetanus antibody level. The association of the other four vaccines (measles, rubella, mumps, and influenza) with PFAS remains uncertain, because very few studies are available. Further studies are needed to validate the possible associations.
Topics: Alkanesulfonic Acids; Antibodies, Viral; Environmental Pollutants; Epidemiologic Studies; Fluorocarbons; Humans; Tetanus
PubMed: 35568291
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119442 -
Cureus Mar 2024Acute pancreatitis, marked by sudden inflammation of the pancreas, presents a complex spectrum of causative factors including gallstone obstruction, alcohol abuse, and... (Review)
Review
Acute pancreatitis, marked by sudden inflammation of the pancreas, presents a complex spectrum of causative factors including gallstone obstruction, alcohol abuse, and viral infections. Recent studies have illuminated the emergence of vaccine-induced acute pancreatitis, notably associated with COVID-19 vaccinations, presenting diverse mechanisms ranging from direct viral-mediated injury to autoimmune reactions. Understanding this link is pivotal for public health, yet challenges persist in identifying and managing cases post-vaccination. Comprehensive literature reviews employing the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement outline the potential pathways and mechanisms leading to vaccine-induced pancreatitis, emphasizing the need for deeper investigations into underlying health conditions and modifications to vaccine components. Notably, the rare occurrences of vaccine-induced pancreatitis extend beyond COVID-19 vaccines, with reports also documenting associations with measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), human papillomavirus (HPV), and other viral vaccinations. Mechanistically, hypotheses such as molecular mimicry and immunologic injury have been proposed, necessitating ongoing vigilance and exploration. Regulatory agencies play a crucial role in monitoring and communicating vaccine safety concerns, emphasizing transparency to address potential risks and maintain public trust. Understanding and communicating these rare adverse events with transparency remain integral for informed vaccination policies and to allay concerns surrounding vaccine safety.
PubMed: 38571842
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.55426 -
Environment International Feb 2023Epidemiologic studies of serum per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and antibody response to vaccines have suggested an adverse association, but the consistency... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epidemiologic studies of serum per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and antibody response to vaccines have suggested an adverse association, but the consistency and magnitude of this association remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this systematic review was to determine the size of the association between a doubling in perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) serum concentration and difference in log antibody concentration following a vaccine, with a focus on five PFAS: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA).
DATA SOURCE
We conducted online searches of PubMed and Web of Science through May 17, 2022 and identified 14 eligible reports published from 2012 to 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS
We included studies conducted in humans, including mother-child pairs, which examined serum PFAS concentration in relation to serum concentration of antibody to a specific antigen following a vaccine.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
We used the risk of bias assessment for non-randomized studies of exposure and certainty assessment method proposed by Morgan et al. (2019). Using a multilevel meta-regression model, we quantitatively synthesized the data.
RESULTS
The 14 reports represented 13 unique groups of subjects; the frequency of studies of a given antibody was Tetanus (n = 7); followed by Diphtheria (6); Measles (4); Rubella (3); Haemophilus influenzae type b and Influenza A H1N1 (2 each); and Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Influenza A H2N3, Influenza B, and Mumps (1 each). There were approximately 4,830 unique participants included in the analyses across the 14 reports. The models of coefficients between antibody concentration and the five principal PFAS showed homogeneity of associations across antibody types for each principal PFAS. In the models with all antibodies treated as one type, evidence of effect modification by life stage was present for PFOA and PFOS, and for consistency, all associations were evaluated for all ages and for children. The summary associations (coefficients for difference in log[antibody concentration] per doubling of serum PFAS) with 95% confidence intervals that excluded zero ("statistical support"), and certainty of evidence ratings were as follows: for PFOA and all antibodies treated as one type in all ages, -0.06 (-0.10, -0.01; moderate) and in children, -0.10 (-0.16, -0.03; moderate); for Diphtheria in children, -0.12 (-0.23, -0.00; high); for Rubella in all ages, -0.09 (-0.17, -0.01; moderate), and for Tetanus in children, -0.12 (-0.24, -0.00; moderate). For PFOS the summary associations were, for all antibodies treated as one type in all ages, -0.06 (-0.11, -0.01; moderate) and in children, -0.10 (-0.18, -0.03; moderate); for Rubella in all ages, -0.09 (-0.15, -0.03; high) and in children, -0.12 (-0.20, -0.04; high). For PFHxS the summary associations were, for all antibodies treated as one type in all ages, -0.03 (-0.06, -0.00; moderate) and in children, -0.05 (-0.09, -0.00; low); and for Rubella in children, -0.07 (-0.11, -0.02; high). Summary associations for PFNA and PFDA did not have statistical support, but all PFAS studied tended to have an inverse association with antibody concentrations.
LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Epidemiologic data on immunosuppression and five principal PFAS suggest an association, with support across antibodies against multiple types of antigens. Data on Diphtheria, Rubella, and Tetanus were more supportive of an association than for other antibodies, and support was greater for associations with PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS, than for PFNA or PFDA. The data on any specific antibody were scarce. Confounding factors that might account for the relation were not identified. Nearly all studies evaluated were judged to have a low or moderate risk of bias.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Environmental Pollutants; Tetanus; Diphtheria; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza, Human; Fluorocarbons; Vaccines; Alkanesulfonic Acids; Alkanesulfonates; Rubella
PubMed: 36764183
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.107734 -
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 -
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 -
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal Nov 2021The safety and immunogenicity of M-M-RII (measles, mumps and rubella virus vaccine live, Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, PA)-the only combined measles, mumps and rubella...
Evaluation of the Safety and Immunogenicity of M-M-RII (Combination Measles-mumps-rubella Vaccine): Clinical Trials of Healthy Children and Adults Published Between 2010 and 2019.
BACKGROUND
The safety and immunogenicity of M-M-RII (measles, mumps and rubella virus vaccine live, Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, PA)-the only combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine licensed for use in the United States-were previously reported in pre- and postlicensure clinical trials conducted from 1988 to 2009. M-M-RII continues to be evaluated as a comparator in clinical trials of other vaccines. Here, we review safety and efficacy data from more recent clinical trials of M-M-RII.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review of trials using M-M-RII published from 2010 to 2019.
RESULTS
In the 15 studies that met the inclusion criteria, a total of 12,032 subjects were vaccinated: 7667 persons received a first dose only, 2137 participated in 2-dose studies (128 received 1 dose and 2009 received both) and 2063 received a single dose of M-M-RII as their second dose. Dose number was not specified for 165 participants, ≥6 years old, in 2 studies in which a single dose of M-M-RII was administered. Similar to previous reports, M-M-RII was well tolerated and immunogenic when administered alone or concomitantly with other routinely recommended vaccinations. The most common adverse events included transient injection site pain and fever. Serious adverse events were extremely rare, with only 4 probable or potential vaccine-related events reported among the 12,032 participating subjects.
CONCLUSIONS
In trials published from 2010 to 2019, M-M-RII continued to be safe and immunogenic in all age groups studied. These data, along with the results of earlier trials, indicate that the performance of the vaccine has been consistent across more than 30 years of postlicensure studies.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Research Report; Rubella; Vaccination; Vaccines, Combined
PubMed: 34310506
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0000000000003273