-
Vaccines Nov 2023Delivering vaccines in humanitarian response requires rigourous and continuous analysis of evidence. This systematic review mapped the normative landscape of vaccination... (Review)
Review
Delivering vaccines in humanitarian response requires rigourous and continuous analysis of evidence. This systematic review mapped the normative landscape of vaccination guidance on vaccine-preventable diseases in crisis-affected settings. Guidance published between 2000 and 2022 was searched for, in English and French, on websites of humanitarian actors, Google, and Bing. Peer-reviewed database searches were performed in Global Health and Embase. Reference lists of all included documents were screened. We disseminated an online survey to professionals working in vaccination delivery in humanitarian contexts. There was a total of 48 eligible guidance documents, including technical guidance ( = 17), descriptive guidance ( = 16), operational guidance ( = 11), evidence reviews ( = 3), and ethical guidance ( = 1). Most were World Health Organization documents ( = 21) targeting children under 5 years of age. Critical appraisal revealed insufficient inclusion of affected populations and limited rigour in guideline development. We found limited information on vaccines including, yellow fever, cholera, meningococcal, hepatitis A, and varicella, as well as human papilloma virus (HPV). There is a plethora of vaccination guidance for vaccine-preventable diseases in humanitarian contexts. However, gaps remain in the critical and systematic inclusion of evidence, inclusion of the concept of "zero-dose" children and affected populations, ethical guidance, and specific recommendations for HPV and non-universally recommended vaccines, which must be addressed.
PubMed: 38140148
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11121743 -
Infectious Diseases and Therapy Oct 2023Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) due to serogroup W meningococci (MenW) is consistently reported with atypical clinical manifestations, including gastrointestinal... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) due to serogroup W meningococci (MenW) is consistently reported with atypical clinical manifestations, including gastrointestinal symptoms, bacteremic pneumonia, and septic arthritis. We undertook a systematic review of the literature for a comprehensive assessment of the clinical presentation of IMD caused by MenW.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to June 2022 using a combination of MeSH terms and free text for articles that reported symptoms and signs of MenW IMD, and associated manifestations.
RESULTS
The most commonly reported symptoms identified included: fever (range 36-100% of cases), nausea and/or vomiting (range 38-47%), vomiting (range 14-68%), cough (range 7-57%), sore throat (range 13-34%), headache (range 7-50%), diarrhea (range 8-47%), altered consciousness/mental status (range 7-38%), stiff neck (range 7-54%), and nausea (range 7-20%). Sepsis (range 15-83% of cases) was the most commonly reported manifestation followed by meningitis (range 5-72%), sepsis and meningitis (range 6-74%), bacteremic pneumonia (range 4-24%), arthritis (range 1-15%), and other manifestations (e.g., pharyngitis/epiglottitis/supraglottitis/tonsillitis/conjunctivitis; range 1-24%). The case fatality rates ranged from 8-40%, and among the survivors 4-14% had long-term sequelae.
CONCLUSIONS
Clinicians need to be aware of the nonspecific symptoms and signs of IMD, as well as of the atypical manifestations in regions where MenW is known to circulate to ensure timely diagnoses and treatment.
PubMed: 37751017
DOI: 10.1007/s40121-023-00869-z -
Vaccine Jul 2023Real-world studies on vaccine effects are diverse in terms of objectives, study setting and design, data type and scope, and analysis methods. In this review, we... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Real-world studies on vaccine effects are diverse in terms of objectives, study setting and design, data type and scope, and analysis methods. In this review, we describe and discuss four-component meningococcal serogroup B vaccine (4CMenB vaccine, Bexsero) real-world studies with the aim of synthesizing their findings with application of standard methods.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review of all real-world studies on 4CMenB vaccine effects on meningococcal serogroup B disease, with no restriction for population age, vaccination schedule and/or type of vaccine effect evaluated (vaccine effectiveness [VE] and vaccine impact [VI] outcomes) published since its licensure in 2013 (from January 2014 until July 2021) in PubMed, Cochrane and the grey literature. We then aimed to synthesize the findings of the identified studies through application of standard synthesis methods.
RESULTS
According to reported criteria we retrieved five studies presenting estimates on 4CMenB vaccine effectiveness and impact. These studies showed great diversity in population, vaccination schedule and analysis methods mainly due to diversity in vaccine strategies and recommendations in the study settings. Directed by this diversity, no quantitative pooling methods to synthesize findings could be applied; instead we descriptively assessed study methods. We report VE estimates ranging from 59% to 94% and VI estimates ranging from 31% to 75%, representing diverse age groups, vaccination schedules and analysis methods.
CONCLUSION
Both vaccine outcomes showed real-life effectiveness of 4CMenB vaccine despite differences in study methodologies and vaccination strategies. Based on appraisal of study methods, we highlighted the need for an adapted tool which facilitates synthesis of heterogenic real-world vaccine studies when quantitative pooling methods are not applicable.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Meningococcal Vaccines; Meningococcal Infections; Serogroup; Neisseria meningitidis, Serogroup B
PubMed: 37321895
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.05.025 -
PLOS Global Public Health 2022Adolescence presents a key opportunity to build vaccine-related health literacy and promote vaccine confidence and uptake. Although adolescents are central to...
Adolescence presents a key opportunity to build vaccine-related health literacy and promote vaccine confidence and uptake. Although adolescents are central to vaccination programs, their views around vaccines are frequently underrepresented in qualitative literature. We reviewed qualitative studies to systematically identify and summarize existing evidence on adolescents' own understanding of vaccines and experiences with vaccine decision-making, including self-consent when applicable. CINAHL; Embase; Ovid Medline; and Psych Info database searches were last updated on May 28, 2022. Data pertaining to general study characteristics, participant demographics, and qualitative content were extracted independently by two reviewers and analyzed using textual narrative synthesis. Out of 3559 individual records, 59 studies were included. The majority of the studies were conducted in high-income countries and 75% focused on human papilloma virus vaccines, with the remaining studies looking at COVID-19, meningococcal, hepatitis B and influenza vaccines or adolescent experiences with vaccines in general. Adolescent self-consent was explored in 7 studies. Perspectives from sexual and gender minorities were lacking across studies. Adolescents often had limited understanding of different vaccines and commonly perceived vaccine information to be directed towards their parents rather than themselves. Many adolescents felt school-based vaccine education and information available through healthcare providers were insufficient to make informed decisions about vaccines. While adolescents described obtaining vaccine information from traditional and online media, face-to-face interactions and opinions from trusted adults remained important. Adolescents generally relied on their parents for vaccine-decision making, even when self-consent was an option. A notable exception to this included marginalized adolescents who could not rely on parents for health-related advice. Qualitative literature about adolescent vaccines would be enriched by studies examining vaccines other than the HPV vaccine, studies examining adolescent vaccine programs in low and middle-income countries, and by deliberately eliciting vaccine experiences of adolescent with diverse sexual orientation and gender identities.
PubMed: 36962668
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001109 -
Vaccines Jan 2023Vaccines remain a fundamental intervention for preventing illness and death. In the United States, suboptimal vaccine uptake in adolescents and young adults has been... (Review)
Review
The Impact of Social Determinants of Health on Meningococcal Vaccination Awareness, Delivery, and Coverage in Adolescents and Young Adults in the United States: A Systematic Review.
Vaccines remain a fundamental intervention for preventing illness and death. In the United States, suboptimal vaccine uptake in adolescents and young adults has been observed for meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY) and serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccines, particularly among marginalized communities, despite current recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. A systematic literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, Cochrane, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases to identify both drivers of, and barriers to, MenACWY and MenB vaccine uptake in adolescents and young adults. A total of 34 of 46 eligible studies that presented outcomes stratified by race/ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status were selected for review. Results showed MenACWY and MenB vaccination coverage in adolescents and young adults is impacted by racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities. Gaps also exist in insurance for, or access to, these vaccines in adolescents and young adults. Moreover, there was variability in the understanding and implementation of the shared decision-making recommendations for the MenB vaccine. Disease awareness campaigns, increased clarity in accessing all meningococcal vaccines, and further research on the relationships between measures of marginalization and its impact on vaccine coverage in adolescents and young adults are needed to reduce the incidence of severe infections.
PubMed: 36851134
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11020256 -
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 -
Vaccines Jan 2023Over the last decades, different quadrivalent antimeningococcal vaccine formulations (diphteria toxoid conjugate, MenACWY-D; tetanus toxoid conjugate, MenACWY-TT; CRM... (Review)
Review
Over the last decades, different quadrivalent antimeningococcal vaccine formulations (diphteria toxoid conjugate, MenACWY-D; tetanus toxoid conjugate, MenACWY-TT; CRM protein conjugate, MenACWY-CRM) have been developed. However, their availability varies, both in terms of authorized formulations and of inclusion in vaccination schedules. Furthermore, several countries include only the monovalent meningococcal C (MenC) vaccine in their immunization programmes. Finally, there is currently no updated systematic review that directly compares the MenACWY formulations. Thus, we summarized the evidence on efficacy and safety through four parallel, independent systematic literature reviews with meta-analysis which included randomized controlled trials comparing the abovementioned vaccines. A total of 16 studies have been included. In terms of efficacy, MenACWY-TT outperformed MenACWY-D and MenACWY-CRM for A, W-135, and Y serogroups, while no significant difference was found for serogroup C. Furthermore, we did not find significant differences in efficacy between MenC and MenACWY-TT. Regarding the safety, we were able to perform a quantitative analysis only between MenACWY-TT and MenC, finding no significant differences. Similarly, among the different MenACWY formulations no relevant differences were identified. These findings suggest that MenACWY-TT could be preferable to other formulations to improve current vaccination programs and to better develop future immunization policies.
PubMed: 36680022
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11010178 -
Expert Review of Vaccines Nov 2022Immunization is the best strategy to protect individuals from invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). To support decision-making around immunization, this paper considers...
INTRODUCTION
Immunization is the best strategy to protect individuals from invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). To support decision-making around immunization, this paper considers what has led four countries and regions of two more to introduce the quadrivalent MenACWY vaccine in toddlers (ages 12-24 months).
AREAS COVERED
A narrative literature review was conducted to identify countries that have introduced a MenACWY vaccination program for toddlers. Information from peer-reviewed publications, reports, and policy documents for each identified country was extracted. Australia, Chile, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and regions of Italy and Spain have introduced the MenACWY vaccine in their toddler programs, driven by the rising incidence of MenW and MenY and the vaccine's ability to provide protection against other serogroups. Australia and the Netherlands considered the economic impacts of implementing a MenACWY toddler vaccination program. Vaccination uptake and effects are reported for three countries; however, in two, isolating the vaccine's effect from the collateral effect of COVID-related measures is difficult.
EXPERT OPINION
Increased convergence of vaccination policies and programs is needed internationally, as IMD recognizes no borders.Vaccination is the best defense against meningitis, a deadly disease. While someone of any age can contract it, children 0-24 months of age are disproportionately affected. The increasing number of cases of meningitis has led four countries plus regions of two more to introduce into their vaccination schedules for toddlers (ages 12-24 months) a vaccine that protects against four different serogroups rather than one serogroup alone. This paper considers what has driven that shift.
Topics: Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; COVID-19; Meningococcal Infections; Meningococcal Vaccines; Policy; Vaccines, Conjugate
PubMed: 36222056
DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2022.2128771 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Nov 2022Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) caused by () continues to be a global public health concern. Understanding the prevalence of serogroups in IMD is critical for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) caused by () continues to be a global public health concern. Understanding the prevalence of serogroups in IMD is critical for developing strategies for meningococcal vaccination. We used the keywords "cerebrospinal meningitis", "meningococcal", "'', "meningococcal meningitis", "serogroup'' and "China'' to search five databases, including PubMed, CNKI, CBM (Chinese BioMedical Literature Database), WanFang and VIP from 2010 to 2020. The age distributions, proportions of serogroups and serogroup changes in IMD were analyzed. A total of 14 studies were included according to PRISMA guidelines. In China, from 2010 to 2020, the highest proportion of in IMD was NmC, with 49.7% (95% CI: 35.8%-63.5%), followed by NmB with 30.2% (95%CI:17.3%-43.0%) and NmW with 23.8% (95%CI: 7.0-40.7%). Before 2014, NmC was the major circulating serogroup, with 59.6% (95% CI: 43.8%-75.4%), followed by NmW with 24.4% (95% CI: 5.9%-42.9%). After 2015, IMD cases caused by NmB were increasing, the proportion of NmB reached to 52.4% (95% CI: 31.8%-73.1%). The age groups of children from 0 to 5 years and from 6 to 10 years represented, respectively, 29.6% (95% CI: 16.8%-42.4%) and 28.9% (95% CI: 12.1%-45.8%) of all IMD cases were reported. In China, NmB, NmC and NmW were the major serogroups causing IMD between 2010 and 2020. Since 2015, the proportion of NmB increased rapidly. The current serogroup distribution in China highlights the need of replacing the meningococcal polysaccharide vaccines that are being used in the National Immunization Program with more appropriate vaccines.
Topics: Child; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Child, Preschool; Neisseria meningitidis; Serogroup; Prevalence; Meningococcal Infections; Meningococcal Vaccines; Meningitis, Meningococcal; China
PubMed: 35687866
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2022.2071077 -
BMC Public Health May 2022Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is uncommon, life-threatening, with many diverse sequelae. The aims were to: 1) comprehensively characterise the sequelae; 2) have a...
BACKGROUND
Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is uncommon, life-threatening, with many diverse sequelae. The aims were to: 1) comprehensively characterise the sequelae; 2) have a systematic application for sequelae impact in economic evaluation (EE).
METHODS
Sequelae categorised as physical/neurological or psychological/behavioural were identified from a systematic review of IMD observational studies (OS) and EEs in high-income countries (published 2001-2020). A comprehensive map and EE-relevant list, respectively, included physical/neurological sequelae reported in ≥2OS and ≥ 2OS + 2EE (≥1OS and ≥ 1OS + 1EE for psychological/behavioural). Sequelae proportions were selected from the highest quality studies reporting most sequelae. Three medical experts independently evaluated the clinical impact of findings.
RESULTS
Sixty-Six OS and 34 EE reported IMD sequelae. The comprehensive map included 44 sequelae (30 physical/neurological, 14 psychological/behavioural), of which 18 (14 physical/neurological and 4 psychological/behavioural) were EE-relevant. Experts validated the study and identified gaps due to limited evidence, underreporting of psychological/behavioural sequelae in survivors/their families, and occurrence of multiple sequelae in the acute phase and long-term.
CONCLUSIONS
The considerable burden of IMD sequelae on survivors and their families is potentially underestimated in EE, due to underreporting and poorly-defined subtle sequelae. When assessing IMD burden and potential interventions e.g., vaccination, sequelae range and duration, underreporting, and indirect burden on dependents should be considered.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease Progression; Economics, Medical; Humans; Meningococcal Infections; Survivors
PubMed: 35641955
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13342-2