-
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Jan 2012Burkholderia pseudomallei is a Category B select agent and the cause of melioidosis. Research funding for vaccine development has largely considered protection within... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Burkholderia pseudomallei is a Category B select agent and the cause of melioidosis. Research funding for vaccine development has largely considered protection within the biothreat context, but the resulting vaccines could be applicable to populations who are at risk of naturally acquired melioidosis. Here, we discuss target populations for vaccination, consider the cost-benefit of different vaccination strategies and review potential vaccine candidates.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Melioidosis is highly endemic in Thailand and northern Australia, where a biodefense vaccine might be adopted for public health purposes. A cost-effectiveness analysis model was developed, which showed that a vaccine could be a cost-effective intervention in Thailand, particularly if used in high-risk populations such as diabetics. Cost-effectiveness was observed in a model in which only partial immunity was assumed. The review systematically summarized all melioidosis vaccine candidates and studies in animal models that had evaluated their protectiveness. Possible candidates included live attenuated, whole cell killed, sub-unit, plasmid DNA and dendritic cell vaccines. Live attenuated vaccines were not considered favorably because of possible reversion to virulence and hypothetical risk of latent infection, while the other candidates need further development and evaluation. Melioidosis is acquired by skin inoculation, inhalation and ingestion, but routes of animal inoculation in most published studies to date do not reflect all of this. We found a lack of studies using diabetic models, which will be central to any evaluation of a melioidosis vaccine for natural infection since diabetes is the most important risk factor.
CONCLUSION
Vaccines could represent one strand of a public health initiative to reduce the global incidence of melioidosis.
Topics: Animals; Australia; Bacterial Vaccines; Biological Warfare Agents; Bioterrorism; Burkholderia pseudomallei; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease Models, Animal; Humans; Melioidosis; Public Health; Thailand
PubMed: 22303489
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001488 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Apr 2022The immunogenicity of vaccines in children with juvenile autoimmune rheumatic diseases (JARDs) can be reduced, there are additional safety concerns around vaccination,... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The immunogenicity of vaccines in children with juvenile autoimmune rheumatic diseases (JARDs) can be reduced, there are additional safety concerns around vaccination, and there is a potential for worsening in disease activity. In this systematic review, we summarise studies that investigated the immunogenicity and safety of routine vaccines in children and adolescents with JARD on immunosuppressive treatment. We identified 37 studies investigating 2571 children and adolescents with JARD on immunosuppressive treatment and 4895 control children. Of the 56 geometric mean antibody titres measured, 19 (34%) were lower, six (11%) higher, and 31 (55%) similar; of the 39 seroprotection rates measured, 10 (26%) were lower, two (5%) higher, and 27 (69%) similar; and of the 27 seroconversion rates measured, nine (33%) were lower, two (8%) higher, and 16 (59%) similar in children with JARD on immunosuppressive treatment compared with control children. However, many of the studies were underpowered, and not designed to show non-inferiority between children with JARD and controls. Subgroup analysis for different types of immunosuppressive treatments was not feasible, as most studies did not report results by treatment. Severe adverse events were reported in 38 children (33 with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, four with systemic lupus erythematosus, and one in a healthy child); most of them were likely not related to the vaccination (e.g. elective hospitalisation or surgery). A worsening in disease activity was reported in 44 (2%) children with JARD; again, many of them were likely not related to the vaccination. There were no safety concerns with live attenuated vaccines; however, only few studies reported results for this.
CONCLUSION
Vaccination in children with JARD on immunosuppressive treatment is safe and should be promoted, especially since these children are at increased risk for infection. The importance for the completion of vaccination schedules should be stressed. Strategies to compensate for the lower vaccine responses, which are found in approximately one-third of these children, include measuring antibody levels to determine the optimal timing for the administration of additional booster doses.
WHAT IS KNOWN
• Children with juvenile autoimmune rheumatic diseases (JARDs) are at higher risk for infections, due to their underlying disease and their immunosuppressive treatment. • In children with JARD, the immunogenicity of vaccines might be reduced, and concerns about safety or the potential for worsening in disease activity after vaccination exist.
WHAT IS NEW
• Our systematic review shows that vaccines in children with JARDs on immunosuppressive treatment are safe and immunogenic. • There are several limitations of the currently published studies, including random timing of measuring vaccine responses and age differences between children with JARD and control groups. Many of the studies were underpowered, and not designed to show non-inferiority between children with JARD and controls.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Immunosuppressive Agents; Rheumatic Diseases; Vaccination; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 34936010
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-021-04283-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2007Two typhoid vaccines are commercially available, Ty21a (oral) and Vi polysaccharide (parenteral), but neither is used routinely. Other vaccines, such as a new modified,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Two typhoid vaccines are commercially available, Ty21a (oral) and Vi polysaccharide (parenteral), but neither is used routinely. Other vaccines, such as a new modified, conjugated Vi vaccine called Vi-rEPA, are in development.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate vaccines for preventing typhoid fever.
SEARCH STRATEGY
In December 2006, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and mRCT. We also searched relevant conference proceedings up to 2004 and scanned the reference lists of all included trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing typhoid fever vaccines with other typhoid fever vaccines or an inactive agent (placebo or vaccine for a different disease).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently applied inclusion criteria and extracted data. We computed vaccine efficacy per year of follow up and cumulative three-year efficacy, stratifying for vaccine type and dose. We calculated relative risks (RR) and efficacy (1-RR as a percentage) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Of the 17 included RCTs, 10 evaluated efficacy (Ty21a: 5 trials; Vi polysaccharide: 4 trials, Vi-rEPA: 1 trial), and 11 reported on adverse events.Ty21a vaccine (3 doses). According to one trial (20,543 participants), this vaccine provided statistically significant protection in each of the first three years (one: 35%, 95% CI 8% to 54%; two: 58%, 95% CI 40% to 71%; three: 46%, 95% CI -6% to 72%), and the cumulative efficacy for 2.5 to 3 years was 48% (95% CI 34% to 58%). Four cluster-RCTs that did not adjust for clustering were not included in the meta-analyses. Compared with placebo, this vaccine was not associated with an increased rate of fever, vomiting, diarrhoea, nausea or abdominal pain, headache, or rash.Vi polysaccharide vaccine (1 dose). This vaccine provided protection in year one (68%, 95% CI 50% to 80%; 99,979 participants, 3 trials) and year two (60%, 95% CI 31% to 76%; 142,555 participants, 2 trials), but not in year three (11,384 participants, 1 trial). The three-year cumulative efficacy was 55% (95% CI 30% to 70%; 11,384 participants, 1 trial). Compared with placebo, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of fever or erythema, but local swelling was more common with the vaccine.Vi-rEPA vaccine (2 doses). In one trial of 12,008 participants, this vaccine provided protection in year one (94%, 95% CI 75% to 99%) and year two (87%, 95% CI 56% to 96%). Cumulative efficacy at 46 months (3.8 years) was 89% (95% CI 76% to 97%). No swelling or erythema occurred in the vaccine or placebo group; fever was more frequent in the vaccine group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The licensed Ty21a and Vi polysaccharide vaccines are efficacious. The new and unlicensed Vi-rEPA vaccine is as efficacious and may confer longer immunity.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salmonella typhi; Typhoid Fever; Typhoid-Paratyphoid Vaccines; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 17636661
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001261.pub2 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 2015Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV), a leading cause of Japanese encephalitis (JE) in children and adults, is a major public health problem in Asian countries. This study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV), a leading cause of Japanese encephalitis (JE) in children and adults, is a major public health problem in Asian countries. This study reports a meta-analysis of the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines used to protect infants or children from JE. Three types of JE vaccine were examined, namely, Japanese encephalitis live-attenuated vaccine (JEV-L), Japanese encephalitis inactivated vaccine (Vero cell) (JEV-I(Vero)), and Japanese encephalitis inactivated vaccine (primary hamster kidney cell) (JEV-I(PHK)). These vaccines are used to induce fundamental immunity against JE; however, few studies have compared their immunogenicity and safety in infants and young children less than 2 years of age. Data were obtained by searching 5 databases: Web of Science, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the China Wanfang database, and the Cochrane database. Fifteen articles were identified and scored using the Jadad score for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Random effect models were used to calculate the pooled seroconversion rate and adverse reaction rate when tests for heterogeneity were significant. The results showed that the pooled seroconversion rate for JEV-I(PHK) (62.23%) was lower than that for JEV-I(Vero) (86.49%) and JEV-L (83.52%), and that the pooled adverse reaction rate for JEV-L (18.09%) was higher than that for JEV-I(PHK) (10.08%) and JEV-I(Vero) (12.49%). The pooled relative risk was then calculated to compare the seroconversion and adverse reaction rates. The results showed that JEV-I(Vero) and JEV-L were more suitable than JEV-I(PHK) for inducing fundamental immunity to JE in infants and children less than 2 years of age.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Asia; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Encephalitis, Japanese; Humans; Japanese Encephalitis Vaccines; Pacific Islands; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, Inactivated
PubMed: 25915588
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1011996 -
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy Oct 2020Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging virus that is highly pathogenic and has caused the recent worldwide pandemic officially named...
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging virus that is highly pathogenic and has caused the recent worldwide pandemic officially named coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Currently, considerable efforts have been put into developing effective and safe drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Vaccines, such as inactivated vaccines, nucleic acid-based vaccines, and vector vaccines, have already entered clinical trials. In this review, we provide an overview of the experimental and clinical data obtained from recent SARS-CoV-2 vaccines trials, and highlight certain potential safety issues that require consideration when developing vaccines. Furthermore, we summarize several strategies utilized in the development of vaccines against other infectious viruses, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), with the aim of aiding in the design of effective therapeutic approaches against SARS-CoV-2.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2; Antibodies, Viral; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Clinical Trials as Topic; Coronavirus Infections; Gene Expression Regulation; Humans; Immunity, Innate; Immunization Schedule; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus; Pandemics; Patient Safety; Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A; Pneumonia, Viral; Protein Binding; Receptors, Virus; Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome; Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, DNA; Vaccines, Subunit; Vaccines, Virus-Like Particle; Viral Vaccines
PubMed: 33051445
DOI: 10.1038/s41392-020-00352-y -
Pain Nov 2022Burrowing behaviour is used to assess pain-associated behaviour in laboratory rodents. To gain insight into how models of disease-associated persistent pain and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Burrowing behaviour is used to assess pain-associated behaviour in laboratory rodents. To gain insight into how models of disease-associated persistent pain and analgesics affect burrowing behaviour, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed burrowing behaviour. A systematic search in March 2020 and update in September 2020 was conducted in 4 databases. Study design characteristics and experimental data were extracted, followed by a random-effects meta-analysis. We explored the association between burrowing and monofilament-induced limb withdrawal. Dose response relationship was investigated for some analgesics. Forty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis, in which 16 model types and 14 drug classes were used. Most experiments used rat (79%) and male (72%) animals. Somatic inflammation and trauma-induced neuropathy models were associated with reduced burrowing behaviour. Analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and gabapentinoids) attenuated burrowing deficits in these models. Reporting of measures to reduce risk of bias was unclear except for randomisation which was high. There was not a correlation ( R2 = 0.1421) between burrowing and monofilament-induced limb withdrawal. Opioids, gabapentin, and naproxen showed reduced burrowing behaviour at high doses, whereas ibuprofen and celecoxib showed opposite trend. The findings indicate that burrowing could be used to assess pain-associated behaviour. We support the use of a portfolio of composite measures including spontaneous and stimulus-evoked tests. The information collected here could help in designing experiments involving burrowing assessment in models of disease-associated pain.
Topics: Analgesics; Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Behavior, Animal; Celecoxib; Disease Models, Animal; Gabapentin; Ibuprofen; Male; Naproxen; Pain; Rats; Rodentia
PubMed: 35353780
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002632 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2004Rotaviruses cause viral gastroenteritis and result in more deaths from diarrhoea in children under 5 years of age than any other single agent, particularly in low- and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Rotaviruses cause viral gastroenteritis and result in more deaths from diarrhoea in children under 5 years of age than any other single agent, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
OBJECTIVES
To assess rotavirus vaccines in relation to preventing rotavirus diarrhoea, death, and adverse events.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group's trial register (October 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2003), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2003), LILACS (1982 to October 2003), Biological Abstracts (January 1982 to October 2003), reference lists of articles, and contacted researchers and rotavirus vaccine manufacturers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing rotavirus vaccines to placebo, no intervention, or other rotavirus vaccines in children and adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodological quality, and contacted trial authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-four trials provided information on efficacy and safety of three main types of rotavirus vaccine (bovine, human, and rhesus) for 21,070 children. Different levels of efficacy were demonstrated with different vaccines varying from 22 to 89% to prevent one episode of rotavirus diarrhoea, 11 to 44% to prevent one episode of all-cause diarrhoea, and 43 to 90% to prevent one episode of severe rotavirus diarrhoea. Rhesus vaccine demonstrated a similar efficacy against one episode of rotavirus diarrhoea (37 and 44% respectively), and one episode of all-cause diarrhoea (around 15%) for trials performed in high and middle-income countries. Results on mortality and safety of the vaccines were scarce and incomplete. We noticed important heterogeneity among the pooled studies and were unable to discard a biased estimation of effect.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence shows that rhesus rotavirus vaccines (particularly RRV-TV) and the human rotavirus vaccine 89-12 are efficacious in preventing diarrhoea caused by rotavirus and all-cause diarrhoea. Evidence about safety, and about mortality or prevention of severe outcomes, is scarce and inconclusive. Bovine rotavirus vaccines were also efficacious, but safety data are not available. Trials of new rotavirus vaccines will hopefully improve the evidence base. Randomized controlled trials should be performed simultaneously in high-, middle-, and low-income countries.
Topics: Adult; Cause of Death; Child; Diarrhea; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 14973994
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002848.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2009Viral respiratory tract infections in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) have a deteriorating effect on their lung function and disease progression. Annual influenza... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Viral respiratory tract infections in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) have a deteriorating effect on their lung function and disease progression. Annual influenza vaccination is therefore commonly recommended for people with CF.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccination for people with CF.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also contacted the companies which market the influenza vaccines used in the trials to obtain further information about randomised controlled trials.Date of the most recent search of the Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 05 March 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised and quasi-randomised trials (published or unpublished) comparing any influenza vaccine with a placebo or with another type of influenza vaccine.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Additional information was obtained by contacting the investigators when it was indicated.
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies enrolling a total of 179 participants with CF (143 (80%) were children aged 1 to 16 years) were included in this review. There was no study comparing a vaccine to a placebo or a whole virus vaccine to a subunit or split virus vaccine. Two studies compared an intranasal applied live vaccine to an intramuscular inactivated vaccine and the other two studies compared a split virus to a subunit vaccine and a virosome to a subunit vaccine (all intramuscular). The incidence of all reported adverse events was high depending on the type of influenza vaccine. The total adverse event rate ranged from 48 out of 201 participants (24%) for the intranasal live vaccine to 13 out of 30 participants (43%) for the split virus vaccine. With the limitation of a statistical low power there was no significant difference between the study vaccinations. None of the events were severe. All study influenza vaccinations generated a satisfactory serological antibody response. No study reported other clinically important benefits.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no evidence from randomised studies that influenza vaccine given to people with CF is of benefit to them. There remains a need for a well-constructed clinical study, that assesses the effectiveness of influenza vaccination on important clinical outcome measures.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Cystic Fibrosis; Humans; Infant; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, Inactivated
PubMed: 19821281
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001753.pub2 -
BMC Pediatrics Jan 2017RotaTeq™ (RV5; Merck & Co. Inc., USA) and Rotarix™ (RV1, GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium) vaccines, developed to prevent rotavirus diarrhea in children under five years... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
RotaTeq™ (RV5; Merck & Co. Inc., USA) and Rotarix™ (RV1, GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium) vaccines, developed to prevent rotavirus diarrhea in children under five years old, were both introduced into national immunization programs in 2006. As many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have included either RV5 or RV1 in their routine childhood vaccination programs, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze efficacy, safety and effectiveness data from the region.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, Scielo, Lilacs and the Cochrane Central Register, for controlled efficacy, safety and effectiveness studies published between January 2000 until December 2011, on RV5 and RV1 across Latin America (where both vaccines are available since 2006). The primary outcome measures were: rotavirus-related gastroenteritis of any severity; rotavirus emergency department visits and hospitalization; and severe adverse events.
RESULTS
The results of the meta-analysis for efficacy show that RV1 reduced the risk of any-severity rotavirus-related gastroenteritis by 65% (relative risk (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25; 0.50), and of severe gastroenteritis by 82% (RR 0.18, 95%CI 0.12; 0.26) versus placebo. In trials, both vaccines significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization and emergency visits by 85% (RR 0.15, 95%CI 0.09; 0.25) for RV1 and by 90% (RR 0.099, 95%CI 0.012; 0.77) for RV5. Vaccination with RV5 or RV1 did not increase the risk of death, intussusception, or other severe adverse events which were previously associated with the first licensed rotavirus vaccine. Real-world effectiveness studies showed that both vaccines reduced rotavirus hospitalization in the region by around 45-50% for RV5 (for 1 to 3 doses, respectively), and, by around 50-80% for RV1 (for 1 to 2 doses, respectively). For RV1, effectiveness against hospitalization was highest (around 80-96%) for children vaccinated before 12 months of age, compared with 5-60% effectiveness in older children. Both vaccines were most effective in preventing more severe gastroenteritis (70% for RV5 and 80-90% for RV1) and severe gastroenteritis (50% for RV5 and 70-80% for RV1).
CONCLUSION
This systematic literature review confirms rotavirus vaccination has been proven effective and well tolerated in protecting children in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Topics: Caribbean Region; Humans; Latin America; Models, Statistical; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Treatment Outcome; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 28086819
DOI: 10.1186/s12887-016-0771-y -
Viruses Dec 2022Defective interfering particles (DIPs) are particles containing defective viral genomes (DVGs) generated during viral replication. DIPs have been found in various RNA... (Review)
Review
Defective interfering particles (DIPs) are particles containing defective viral genomes (DVGs) generated during viral replication. DIPs have been found in various RNA viruses, especially in influenza viruses. Evidence indicates that DIPs interfere with the replication and encapsulation of wild-type viruses, namely standard viruses (STVs) that contain full-length viral genomes. DIPs may also activate the innate immune response by stimulating interferon synthesis. In this review, the underlying generation mechanisms and characteristics of influenza virus DIPs are summarized. We also discuss the potential impact of DIPs on the immunogenicity of live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) and development of influenza vaccines based on NS1 gene-defective DIPs. Finally, we review the antiviral strategies based on influenza virus DIPs that have been used against both influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2. This review provides systematic insights into the theory and application of influenza virus DIPs.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; Influenza Vaccines; Defective Interfering Viruses; Defective Viruses; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Orthomyxoviridae; Virus Replication
PubMed: 36560777
DOI: 10.3390/v14122773