-
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Jan 2012No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza.
METHODS
We searched Medline for randomised controlled trials assessing a relative reduction in influenza risk of all circulating influenza viruses during individual seasons after vaccination (efficacy) and observational studies meeting inclusion criteria (effectiveness). Eligible articles were published between Jan 1, 1967, and Feb 15, 2011, and used RT-PCR or culture for confirmation of influenza. We excluded some studies on the basis of study design and vaccine characteristics. We estimated random-effects pooled efficacy for trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) when data were available for statistical analysis (eg, at least three studies that assessed comparable age groups).
FINDINGS
We screened 5707 articles and identified 31 eligible studies (17 randomised controlled trials and 14 observational studies). Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 59% [95% CI 51-67] in adults aged 18-65 years). No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 2-17 years or adults aged 65 years or older. Efficacy of LAIV was shown in nine (75%) of the 12 seasons analysed in ten randomised controlled trials (pooled efficacy 83% [69-91]) in children aged 6 months to 7 years. No such trials met inclusion criteria for children aged 8-17 years. Vaccine effectiveness was variable for seasonal influenza: six (35%) of 17 analyses in nine studies showed significant protection against medically attended influenza in the outpatient or inpatient setting. Median monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in five observational studies was 69% (range 60-93).
INTERPRETATION
Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality.
FUNDING
Alfred P Sloan Foundation.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Alphainfluenzavirus; Betainfluenzavirus; Middle Aged; Pandemics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seasons; Vaccines, Inactivated; Young Adult
PubMed: 22032844
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70295-X -
Arthritis Care & Research Mar 2023To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
OBJECTIVE
To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
METHODS
This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.
RESULTS
This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.
CONCLUSION
Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.
Topics: Child; Humans; United States; Rheumatology; Antirheumatic Agents; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Vaccination; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 36597813
DOI: 10.1002/acr.25045 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness, safety, and long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the trivalent vaccine, containing measles, rubella, mumps strains (MMR), or concurrent administration of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine (MMR+V), or tetravalent vaccine containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella strains (MMRV), given to children aged up to 15 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 5), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 2 May 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (2 May 2019), and ClinicalTrials.gov (2 May 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (PCS/RCS), case-control studies (CCS), interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, case cross-over (CCO) studies, case-only ecological method (COEM) studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies, person-time cohort (PTC) studies, and case-coverage design/screening methods (CCD/SM) studies, assessing any combined MMR or MMRV / MMR+V vaccine given in any dose, preparation or time schedule compared with no intervention or placebo, on healthy children up to 15 years of age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We grouped studies for quantitative analysis according to study design, vaccine type (MMR, MMRV, MMR+V), virus strain, and study settings. Outcomes of interest were cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, and harms. Certainty of evidence of was rated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 138 studies (23,480,668 participants). Fifty-one studies (10,248,159 children) assessed vaccine effectiveness and 87 studies (13,232,509 children) assessed the association between vaccines and a variety of harms. We included 74 new studies to this 2019 version of the review. Effectiveness Vaccine effectiveness in preventing measles was 95% after one dose (relative risk (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 7 cohort studies; 12,039 children; moderate certainty evidence) and 96% after two doses (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; 5 cohort studies; 21,604 children; moderate certainty evidence). The effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts or preventing transmission to others the children were in contact with after one dose was 81% (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89; 3 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence), after two doses 85% (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.75; 3 cohort studies; 378 children; low certainty evidence), and after three doses was 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23; 2 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness (at least one dose) in preventing measles after exposure (post-exposure prophylaxis) was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50; 2 cohort studies; 283 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR vaccine in preventing mumps was 72% after one dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; 6 cohort studies; 9915 children; moderate certainty evidence), 86% after two doses (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.35; 5 cohort studies; 7792 children; moderate certainty evidence). Effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49; 3 cohort studies; 1036 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against rubella is 89% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 1 cohort study; 1621 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against varicella (any severity) after two doses in children aged 11 to 22 months is 95% in a 10 years follow-up (rate ratio (rr) 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; 1 RCT; 2279 children; high certainty evidence). Safety There is evidence supporting an association between aseptic meningitis and MMR vaccines containing Urabe and Leningrad-Zagreb mumps strains, but no evidence supporting this association for MMR vaccines containing Jeryl Lynn mumps strains (rr 1.30, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.56; low certainty evidence). The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR/MMR+V/MMRV vaccines (Jeryl Lynn strain) and febrile seizures. Febrile seizures normally occur in 2% to 4% of healthy children at least once before the age of 5. The attributable risk febrile seizures vaccine-induced is estimated to be from 1 per 1700 to 1 per 1150 administered doses. The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (ITP). However, the risk of ITP after vaccination is smaller than after natural infection with these viruses. Natural infection of ITP occur in 5 cases per 100,000 (1 case per 20,000) per year. The attributable risk is estimated about 1 case of ITP per 40,000 administered MMR doses. There is no evidence of an association between MMR immunisation and encephalitis or encephalopathy (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.61; 2 observational studies; 1,071,088 children; low certainty evidence), and autistic spectrum disorders (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 2 observational studies; 1,194,764 children; moderate certainty). There is insufficient evidence to determine the association between MMR immunisation and inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.16; 3 observational studies; 409 cases and 1416 controls; moderate certainty evidence). Additionally, there is no evidence supporting an association between MMR immunisation and cognitive delay, type 1 diabetes, asthma, dermatitis/eczema, hay fever, leukaemia, multiple sclerosis, gait disturbance, and bacterial or viral infections.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR/MMRV vaccines support their use for mass immunisation. Campaigns aimed at global eradication should assess epidemiological and socioeconomic situations of the countries as well as the capacity to achieve high vaccination coverage. More evidence is needed to assess whether the protective effect of MMR/MMRV could wane with time since immunisation.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Autistic Disorder; Chickenpox Vaccine; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical Trials as Topic; Crohn Disease; Epidemiologic Studies; Humans; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Purpura, Thrombocytopenic; Rubella; Seizures, Febrile; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 32309885
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub4 -
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) Mar 2023To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
OBJECTIVE
To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
METHODS
This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.
RESULTS
This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.
CONCLUSION
Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.
Topics: Child; Humans; United States; Rheumatology; Antirheumatic Agents; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Vaccination
PubMed: 36597810
DOI: 10.1002/art.42386 -
American Journal of Transplantation :... Nov 2023This study aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the immunogenicity, safety, and effectiveness of live-attenuated varicella vaccine in solid organ transplant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the immunogenicity, safety, and effectiveness of live-attenuated varicella vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients. Medline and EMBASE were searched using predefined search terms to identify relevant studies. The included articles reported varicella vaccine administration in the posttransplant period in children and adults. A pooled proportion of transplant recipients who seroconverted and who developed vaccine-strain varicella and varicella disease was generated. Eighteen articles (14 observational studies and 4 case reports) were included, reporting on 711 transplant recipients who received the varicella vaccine. The pooled proportion was 88.2% (95% confidence interval 78.0%-96.0%, 13 studies) for vaccinees who seroconverted, 0% (0%-1.2%, 13 studies) for vaccine-strain varicella, and 0.8% (0%-4.9%, 9 studies) for varicella disease. Most studies followed clinical guidelines for administering live-attenuated vaccines, with criteria that could include being at least 1 year posttransplant, 2 months postrejection episode, and on low-dose immunosuppressive medications. Varicella vaccination in transplant recipients was overall safe in the included studies, with few cases of vaccine-strain-induced varicella or vaccine failure, and although it was immunogenic, the proportion of recipients who seroconverted was lower than that seen in the general population. Our data support varicella vaccination in select pediatric solid organ transplant recipients.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Chickenpox; Transplant Recipients; Chickenpox Vaccine; Viral Vaccines; Vaccines, Attenuated; Organ Transplantation
PubMed: 37321454
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajt.2023.06.008 -
Vaccines Sep 2021Although influenza is a major public health concern, little is known about the use of spray live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) among adults. For this reason, we... (Review)
Review
Although influenza is a major public health concern, little is known about the use of spray live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) among adults. For this reason, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of LAIV, especially in adults with/without clinical conditions and children <2 years, with the final aim of possibly extending the clinical indications. PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus were the two databases consulted through February 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. A critical appraisal was conducted. Analyses were performed by using ProMeta3 software. Twenty-two studies were included, showing that LAIV was associated with a higher probability of seroconversion when compared with a placebo and considering the A/H1N1 serotype (pooled OR = 2.26 (95% CI = 1.12-4.54), -value = 0.022; based on 488 participants, without heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%)). The meta-analysis also confirmed no significant association with systemic adverse events. Only rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and sore throat were significantly associated with LAIV compared to the placebo. Despite limited available evidence, LAIV has proved to be a safe and effective flu vaccination, also due to its very low invasiveness, and our review's results can be considered a starting point for guiding future research and shaping forthcoming vaccination campaigns.
PubMed: 34579235
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9090998 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jan 2023Recent insights supporting the safety of live-attenuated vaccines and novel studies on the immunogenicity of vaccinations in the era of biological disease-modifying...
OBJECTIVES
Recent insights supporting the safety of live-attenuated vaccines and novel studies on the immunogenicity of vaccinations in the era of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in paediatric patients with autoimmune/inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pedAIIRD) necessitated updating the EULAR recommendations.
METHODS
Recommendations were developed using the EULAR standard operating procedures. Two international expert committees were formed to update the vaccination recommendations for both paediatric and adult patients with AIIRD. After a systematic literature review, separate recommendations were formulated for paediatric and adult patients. For pedAIIRD, six overarching principles and seven recommendations were formulated and provided with the level of evidence, strength of recommendation and Task Force level of agreement.
RESULTS
In general, the National Immunisation Programmes (NIP) should be followed and assessed yearly by the treating specialist. If possible, vaccinations should be administered prior to immunosuppressive drugs, but necessary treatment should never be postponed. Non-live vaccines can be safely given to immunosuppressed pedAIIRD patients. Mainly, seroprotection is preserved in patients receiving vaccinations on immunosuppression, except for high-dose glucocorticoids and B-cell depleting therapies. Live-attenuated vaccines should be avoided in immunosuppressed patients. However, it is safe to administer the measles-mumps-rubella booster and varicella zoster virus vaccine to immunosuppressed patients under specific conditions. In addition to the NIP, the non-live seasonal influenza vaccination should be strongly considered for immunosuppressed pedAIIRD patients.
CONCLUSIONS
These recommendations are intended for paediatricians, paediatric rheumatologists, national immunisation agencies, general practitioners, patients and national rheumatology societies to attain safe and effective vaccination and optimal infection prevention in immunocompromised pedAIIRD patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Vaccines, Attenuated; Rheumatic Diseases; Vaccination; Immunosuppressive Agents; Antirheumatic Agents; Autoimmune Diseases
PubMed: 35725297
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2022-222574 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Herpes zoster, commonly known as shingles, is a neurocutaneous disease caused by the reactivation of the virus that causes varicella (chickenpox). After resolution of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Herpes zoster, commonly known as shingles, is a neurocutaneous disease caused by the reactivation of the virus that causes varicella (chickenpox). After resolution of the varicella episode, the virus can remain latent in the sensitive dorsal ganglia of the spine. Years later, with declining immunity, the varicella zoster virus (VZV) can reactivate and cause herpes zoster, an extremely painful condition that can last many weeks or months and significantly compromise the quality of life of the affected person. The natural process of ageing is associated with a reduction in cellular immunity, and this predisposes older adults to herpes zoster. Vaccination with an attenuated form of the VZV activates specific T-cell production avoiding viral reactivation. Two types of herpes zoster vaccines are currently available. One of them is the single-dose live attenuated zoster vaccine (LZV), which contains the same live attenuated virus used in the chickenpox vaccine, but it has over 14-fold more plaque-forming units of the attenuated virus per dose. The other is the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) which does not contain the live attenuated virus, but rather a small fraction of the virus that cannot replicate but can boost immunogenicity. The recommended schedule for the RZV is two doses two months apart. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010, and updated in 2012, 2016, and 2019.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vaccination for preventing herpes zoster in older adults.
SEARCH METHODS
For this 2022 update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1948 to October 2022), Embase (2010 to October 2022), CINAHL (1981 to October 2022), LILACS (1982 to October 2022), and three trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies involving healthy older adults (mean age 60 years or older). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing zoster vaccine (any dose and potency) versus any other type of intervention (e.g. varicella vaccine, antiviral medication), placebo, or no intervention (no vaccine). Outcomes were cumulative incidence of herpes zoster, adverse events (death, serious adverse events, systemic reactions, or local reaction occurring at any time after vaccination), and dropouts.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two new studies involving 1736 participants in this update. The review now includes a total of 26 studies involving 90,259 healthy older adults with a mean age of 63.7 years. Only three studies assessed the cumulative incidence of herpes zoster in groups that received vaccines versus placebo. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries in Europe and North America and included healthy Caucasians (understood to be white participants) aged 60 years or over with no immunosuppressive comorbidities. Two studies were conducted in Japan and one study was conducted in the Republic of Korea. Sixteen studies used LZV. Ten studies tested an RZV. The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate, which indicates that the intervention probably works. Most data for the primary outcome (cumulative incidence of herpes zoster) and secondary outcomes (adverse events and dropouts) came from studies that had a low risk of bias and included a large number of participants. The cumulative incidence of herpes zoster at up to three years of follow-up was lower in participants who received the LZV (one dose subcutaneously) than in those who received placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.56; risk difference (RD) 2%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; moderate-certainty evidence) in the largest study, which included 38,546 participants. There were no differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups for serious adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21) or deaths (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). The vaccinated group had a higher cumulative incidence of one or more adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.11; RD 23%; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.3) and injection site adverse events (RR 3.73, 95% CI 1.93 to 7.21; RD 28%; NNTH 3.6; moderate-certainty evidence) of mild to moderate intensity. These data came from four studies with 6980 participants aged 60 years or older. Two studies (29,311 participants for safety evaluation and 22,022 participants for efficacy evaluation) compared RZV (two doses intramuscularly, two months apart) versus placebo. Participants who received the new vaccine had a lower cumulative incidence of herpes zoster at 3.2 years follow-up (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.23; RD 3%; NNTB 33; moderate-certainty evidence), probably indicating a favourable profile of the intervention. There were no differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups in cumulative incidence of serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) or deaths (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; moderate-certainty evidence). The vaccinated group had a higher cumulative incidence of adverse events, any systemic symptom (RR 2.23, 95% CI 2.12 to 2.34; RD 33%; NNTH 3.0), and any local symptom (RR 6.89, 95% CI 6.37 to 7.45; RD 67%; NNTH 1.5). Although most participants reported that their symptoms were of mild to moderate intensity, the risk of dropouts (participants not returning for the second dose, two months after the first dose) was higher in the vaccine group than in the placebo group (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.39; RD 1%; NNTH 100, moderate-certainty evidence). Only one study reported funding from a non-commercial source (a university research foundation). All other included studies received funding from pharmaceutical companies. We did not conduct subgroup and sensitivity analyses AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LZV (single dose) and RZV (two doses) are probably effective in preventing shingles disease for at least three years. To date, there are no data to recommend revaccination after receiving the basic schedule for each type of vaccine. Both vaccines produce systemic and injection site adverse events of mild to moderate intensity. The conclusions did not change in relation to the previous version of the systematic review.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Middle Aged; Herpesvirus 3, Human; Herpes Zoster Vaccine; Chickenpox; Herpes Zoster; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 37781954
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008858.pub5 -
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Nov 2018Gastroenteritis caused by rotavirus accounts for considerable morbidity in young children. We aimed to assess the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the oral rotavirus... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gastroenteritis caused by rotavirus accounts for considerable morbidity in young children. We aimed to assess the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the oral rotavirus vaccine , as measured by laboratory-confirmed rotavirus infection after referral to hospital and/or emergency departments in children aged <5 years with gastroenteritis.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search for peer-reviewed studies conducted in real-life settings published between 2006 and 2016 and a meta-analysis to calculate the overall VE, which was further discriminated through stratified analyses.
RESULTS
The overall VE estimate was 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62% to 75%); stratified analyses revealed a non-negligible impact of factors such as study design and socioeconomic status. Depending on the control group, VE ranged from 63% (95% CI, 52% to 72%) to 81% (95% CI, 69% to 88%) for unmatched and matched rotavirus test-negative controls. VE varied with socioeconomic status: 81% (95% CI, 74% to 86%) in high-income countries, 54% (95% CI, 39% to 65%) in upper-middle-income countries, and 63% (95% CI, 50% to 72%) in lower-middle-income countries. Age, rotavirus strain, and disease severity were also shown to impact VE, but to a lesser extent.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis of real-world studies showed that is effective in helping to prevent hospitalizations and/or emergency department visits due to rotavirus infection.
PubMed: 30539038
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofy292 -
Indian Journal of Community Medicine :... 2021Dengue is one of the neglected tropical diseases caused by flavivirus. Live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine is launched for the age group of 9-45 years. It is given in... (Review)
Review
Dengue is one of the neglected tropical diseases caused by flavivirus. Live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine is launched for the age group of 9-45 years. It is given in three doses schedule. Eleven studies were included in meta-analysis by following PRISMA guidelines. Healthy persons in the age group of 2-45 years were included in these studies. Statistical analysis was done by "R" software. Pooled relative risk among vaccinated versus control group was calculated using random-effect model. Pooled dengue vaccine efficacy was calculated from relative risk. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using Baujat and funnel plot, respectively. Adverse effects following immunization were reviewed. Pooled vaccine efficacy is 58% (95% confidence interval 46%-67%). statistics is 81.4%.
PubMed: 34321724
DOI: 10.4103/ijcm.IJCM_608_20