-
BMC Public Health Dec 2020Monovalent meningococcal C conjugate vaccine (MCCV) was introduced into the routine immunization program in many countries in Europe and worldwide following the...
BACKGROUND
Monovalent meningococcal C conjugate vaccine (MCCV) was introduced into the routine immunization program in many countries in Europe and worldwide following the emergence of meningococcal serogroup C (MenC) in the late 1990s. This systematic literature review summarizes the immediate and long-term impact and effectiveness of the different MCCV vaccination schedules and strategies employed.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search for peer-reviewed, scientific publications in the databases of MEDLINE (via PubMed), LILACS, and SCIELO. We included studies from countries where MCCV have been introduced in routine vaccination programs and studies providing the impact and effectiveness of MCCV published between 1st January 2001 and 31st October 2017.
RESULTS
Forty studies were included in the review; 30 studies reporting impact and 17 reporting effectiveness covering 9 countries (UK, Spain, Italy, Canada, Brazil, Australia, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands). Following MCCV introduction, significant and immediate reduction of MenC incidence was consistently observed in vaccine eligible ages in all countries with high vaccine uptake. The reduction in non-vaccine eligible ages (especially population > 65 years) through herd protection was generally observed 3-4 years following introduction. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was mostly assessed through screening methods and ranged from 38 to 100%. The VE was generally highest during the first year after vaccination and waned over time. The VE was better maintained in countries employing catch-up campaigns in older children and adolescents, compared to routine infant only schedules.
CONCLUSIONS
MCCV were highly effective, showing a substantial and sustained decrease in MenC invasive meningococcal disease. The epidemiology of meningococcal disease is in constant transition, and some vaccination programs now include adolescents and higher valent vaccines due to the recent increase in cases caused by serogroups not covered by MCCV. Continuous monitoring of meningococcal disease is essential to understand disease evolution in the setting of different vaccination programs.
Topics: Adolescent; Aged; Australia; Belgium; Brazil; Canada; Child; Europe; Germany; Humans; Immunization Programs; Infant; Italy; Meningococcal Infections; Meningococcal Vaccines; Netherlands; Spain; Vaccination; Vaccines, Conjugate
PubMed: 33298015
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09946-1 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Aug 2021Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD), caused by Neisseria meningitidis, leads to significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. This review aimed to establish the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD), caused by Neisseria meningitidis, leads to significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. This review aimed to establish the effectiveness of meningococcal vaccines at preventing IMD and N. meningitidis pharyngeal carriage.
METHODS
A search within PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and unpublished studies up to 1 February 2020 was conducted.
RESULTS
After removal of duplicates, 8565 studies were screened and 27 studies included. Protection was provided by meningococcal C vaccines for group C IMD (odds ratio [OR], 0.13 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .07-.23]), outer membrane vesicle (OMV) vaccines against group B IMD (OR, 0.35 [95% CI, .25-.48]), and meningococcal A, C, W, Y (MenACWY) vaccines against group ACWY IMD (OR, 0.31 [95% CI, .20-.49]). A single time series analysis found a reduction following an infant 4CMenB program (incidence rate ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, .19-.36]). Multivalent MenACWY vaccines did not reduce carriage (relative risk [RR], 0.88 [95% CI, .66-1.18]), unlike monovalent C vaccines (RR, 0.50 [95% CI, .26-.97]). 4CMenB vaccine had no effect on group B carriage (RR, 1.12 [95% CI, .90-1.40]). There was also no reduction in group B carriage following MenB-FHbp vaccination (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, .53-1.79]).
CONCLUSIONS
Meningococcal conjugate C, ACWY, and OMV vaccines are effective at reducing IMD. A small number of studies demonstrate that monovalent C conjugate vaccines reduce pharyngeal N. meningitidis carriage. There is no evidence of carriage reduction for multivalent MenACWY, OMV, or recombinant MenB vaccines, which has implications for immunization strategies.
CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION
CRD42018082085 (PROSPERO).
Topics: Humans; Infant; Meningococcal Infections; Meningococcal Vaccines; Neisseria meningitidis; Neisseria meningitidis, Serogroup B; Vaccines, Conjugate
PubMed: 33212510
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1733 -
Journal of American College Health : J... 2022To identify predictors of meningococcal vaccine uptake among university and college students, the most common carriers of meningococcal disease. University or college... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To identify predictors of meningococcal vaccine uptake among university and college students, the most common carriers of meningococcal disease. University or college students aged 18 to 25 years. Multiple databases, citations, and gray literature were systematically searched in April 2017 and January 2019, for articles reporting rates and predictors of vaccine uptake. Included studies underwent quality appraisal, and, where suitable, meta-analyses were performed. Twenty-one articles, covering 18 studies from six countries, were included. They were mostly cross-sectional surveys of routine vaccination. Meta-analyses were conducted on six predictors. Higher vaccination uptake was associated with being a first year student, an undergraduate student, not being an international student, perceiving meningococcal disease as a risk, and being female. Identified key predictors correspond with previous studies and other vaccines. The findings should inform the delivery and communication of meningococcal vaccination to university and college students.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Meningococcal Infections; Meningococcal Vaccines; Students; Universities; Vaccination
PubMed: 33048644
DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2020.1819292 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Nov 2020This study is aimed to review the published evidence on safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines when co-administered with meningococcal vaccines in...
This study is aimed to review the published evidence on safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines when co-administered with meningococcal vaccines in infants. A systematic literature search was performed in four databases containing peer-reviewed articles and conference abstracts. In total, twelve articles were included in the review; 11 provided information on safety and five on the immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccines following co-administration. No paper was found on efficacy. Additional routine vaccines were administered in all studies. The safety analysis was mainly focused on fever, vomiting, diarrhea, intussusception, and changes in eating habits. Overall, safety profiles and immune responses associated with rotavirus vaccination were comparable between infants co-administered with rotavirus and meningococcal vaccines and infants receiving rotavirus vaccines without meningococcal vaccines. Although data are limited, co-administration of rotavirus and meningococcal vaccines does not appear to interfere with the safety or immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccines.
Topics: Antibodies, Bacterial; Humans; Infant; Meningococcal Vaccines; Rotavirus Vaccines; Vaccination
PubMed: 32298219
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1739485 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Adolescent vaccination has received increased attention since the Global Vaccine Action Plan's call to extend the benefits of immunisation more equitably beyond... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Adolescent vaccination has received increased attention since the Global Vaccine Action Plan's call to extend the benefits of immunisation more equitably beyond childhood. In recent years, many programmes have been launched to increase the uptake of different vaccines in adolescent populations; however, vaccination coverage among adolescents remains suboptimal. Therefore, understanding and evaluating the various interventions that can be used to improve adolescent vaccination is crucial.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of interventions to improve vaccine uptake among adolescents.
SEARCH METHODS
In October 2018, we searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and eight other databases. In addition, we searched two clinical trials platforms, electronic databases of grey literature, and reference lists of relevant articles. For related systematic reviews, we searched four databases. Furthermore, in May 2019, we performed a citation search of five other websites.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies of adolescents (girls or boys aged 10 to 19 years) eligible for World Health Organization-recommended vaccines and their parents or healthcare providers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened records, reviewed full-text articles to identify potentially eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by consensus. For each included study, we calculated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) where appropriate. We pooled study results using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies (eight individually randomised trials, four cluster randomised trials, three non-randomised trials, and one controlled before-after study). Twelve studies were conducted in the USA, while there was one study each from: Australia, Sweden, Tanzania, and the UK. Ten studies had unclear or high risk of bias. We categorised interventions as recipient-oriented, provider-oriented, or health systems-oriented. The interventions targeted adolescent boys or girls or both (seven studies), parents (four studies), and providers (two studies). Five studies had mixed participants that included adolescents and parents, adolescents and healthcare providers, and parents and healthcare providers. The outcomes included uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) (11 studies); hepatitis B (three studies); and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (Tdap), meningococcal, HPV, and influenza (three studies) vaccines among adolescents. Health education improves HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 1054 participants; high-certainty evidence). In addition, one large study provided evidence that a complex multi-component health education intervention probably results in little to no difference in hepatitis B vaccine uptake compared to simplified information leaflets on the vaccine (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99; 17,411 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Financial incentives may improve HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.99; 1 study, 500 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain whether combining health education and financial incentives has an effect on hepatitis B vaccine uptake, compared to usual practice (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.00; 1 study, 104 participants; very low certainty evidence). Mandatory vaccination probably leads to a large increase in hepatitis B vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 3.92, 95% CI 3.65 to 4.20; 1 study, 6462 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Provider prompts probably make little or no difference compared to usual practice, on completion of Tdap (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.80; 2 studies, 3296 participants), meningococcal (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.79; 2 studies, 3219 participants), HPV (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.81; 2 studies, 859 participants), and influenza (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.34; 2 studies, 1439 participants) vaccination schedules (moderate-certainty evidence). Provider education with performance feedback may increase the proportion of adolescents who are offered and accept HPV vaccination by clinicians, compared to usual practice. Compared to adolescents visiting non-participating clinicians (in the usual practice group), the adolescents visiting clinicians in the intervention group were more likely to receive the first dose of HPV during preventive visits (5.7 percentage points increase) and during acute visits (0.7 percentage points for the first and 5.6 percentage points for the second doses of HPV) (227 clinicians and more than 200,000 children; low-certainty evidence). A class-based school vaccination strategy probably leads to slightly higher HPV vaccine uptake than an age-based school vaccination strategy (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.13; 1 study, 5537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A multi-component provider intervention (including an education session, repeated contacts, individualised feedback, and incentives) probably improves uptake of HPV vaccine compared to usual practice (moderate-certainty evidence). A multi-component intervention targeting providers and parents involving social marketing and health education may improve HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.59; 1 study, 25,869 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Various strategies have been evaluated to improve adolescent vaccination including health education, financial incentives, mandatory vaccination, and class-based school vaccine delivery. However, most of the evidence is of low to moderate certainty. This implies that while this research provides some indication of the likely effect of these interventions, the likelihood that the effects will be substantially different is high. Therefore, additional research is needed to further enhance adolescent immunisation strategies, especially in low- and middle-income countries where there are limited adolescent vaccination programmes. In addition, it is critical to understand the factors that influence hesitancy, acceptance, and demand for adolescent vaccination in different settings. This is the topic of an ongoing Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis, which may help to explain why and how some interventions were more effective than others in increasing adolescent HPV vaccination coverage.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Controlled Before-After Studies; Health Education; Health Personnel; Humans; Parents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vaccination
PubMed: 31978259
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011895.pub2 -
Vaccines Dec 2019The growing number of available vaccines that can be potentially co-administered makes the assessment of the safety of vaccine co-administration increasingly relevant... (Review)
Review
The growing number of available vaccines that can be potentially co-administered makes the assessment of the safety of vaccine co-administration increasingly relevant but complex. We aimed to synthesize the available scientific evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children by performing a systematic literature review of studies assessing the safety of vaccine co-administrations in children between 1999 and 2019, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Fifty studies compared co-administered vaccines versus the same vaccines administered separately. The most frequently studied vaccines included quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate (MenACWY) vaccine, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis (DTaP) or tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed, hepatitis B, inactivated poliovirus and type b conjugate (DTaP-HepB-IPV/Hib) vaccine, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and pneumococcal conjugate 7-valent (PCV7) or 13-valent (PCV13) vaccines. Of this, 16% (n = 8) of the studies reported significantly more adverse events following immunization (AEFI) while in 10% (n = 5) significantly fewer adverse events were found in the co-administration groups. Statistically significant differences between co-administration and separate administration were found for 16 adverse events, for 11 different vaccine co-administrations. In general, studies briefly described safety and one-third of studies lacked any statistical assessment of AEFI. Overall, the evidence on the safety of vaccine co-administrations compared to separate vaccine administrations is inconclusive and there is a paucity of large post-licensure studies addressing this issue.
PubMed: 31906218
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines8010012 -
Vaccine Jan 2020Current vaccination coverage rates in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are lower than the region-wide rates set by the Pan American Health Organization. To improve...
Current vaccination coverage rates in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are lower than the region-wide rates set by the Pan American Health Organization. To improve vaccination uptake, it is crucial to identify barriers to vaccination. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify the key barriers to vaccination in the LAC region, and to classify and quantify factors affecting vaccination coverage using the barrier categories outlined by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) working group. We mapped knowledge gaps in the understanding of region-specific and population-specific vaccine hesitancy. Nine databases (Medline via PubMed, Web of Science, LILACS, MedCarib, SciELO, Scopus, PATH, SAGE Online and Google Scholar) were searched for articles published in English, Spanish and Portuguese up to 15 July 2017. A total of 6867 articles were identified of which 75 were included in the review. Majority of the articles were quantitative in nature and nearly half from Brazil. Many other countries in LAC have limited published evidence on barriers to vaccination. The most commonly investigated target population was parents (of children <8 years of age [yoa] and adolescents 9-10 yoa) but there was a balance in the number of publications that reported on influenza, childhood and human papillomavirus vaccination. There was limited direct evidence which reported insights on the new generation of childhood vaccines (pneumococcal or meningococcal vaccines) or studies targeting adolescents and pregnant women. Among the SAGE barrier categories, 'individual/group influences' were the most frequently reported barrier category (68%) followed by 'contextual influences' (47%). Adverse socioeconomic factors, a low level of education, lack of awareness of diseases and their vaccines, religious and cultural beliefs are commonly cited as obstacles to vaccination acceptance. Additional evidence is needed to fully understand the barriers to vaccination for different target populations, countries in the region and specific vaccine types.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Age Factors; Child; Educational Status; Female; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Latin America; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Socioeconomic Factors; Vaccination; Young Adult
PubMed: 31767469
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.088 -
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal Jan 2020Sepsis and meningitis in neonates and infants are a source of substantial morbidity, mortality and economic loss. The objective of this review is to estimate the acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sepsis and meningitis in neonates and infants are a source of substantial morbidity, mortality and economic loss. The objective of this review is to estimate the acute costs associated with treating sepsis, meningitis and meningococcal septicemia, in neonates and infants, worldwide.
METHODS
The electronic databases Medline, Embase and EconLit were searched and exported on November 24, 2018. Studies that reported an average hospitalization cost for confirmed cases of sepsis, meningitis or meningococcal septicemia were eligible for our review. Descriptive data were extracted and reported costs were inflated and converted. A narrative synthesis of the costs was conducted.
RESULTS
Our review identified 20 studies reporting costs of sepsis, meningitis and/or meningococcal septicemia. Costs ranged from $55 to $129,632 for sepsis and from $222 to $33,635 for meningitis (in 2017 US dollars). One study estimated the cost of meningococcal septicemia to be $56,286. All reported costs were estimated from the perspective of the healthcare provider or payer. Most studies were from the United States, which also had the highest costs. Only a few studies were identified for low- and middle-income countries, which reported lower costs than high-income countries for both sepsis and meningitis.
CONCLUSIONS
Sepsis and meningitis in neonates and infants are associated with substantial costs to the healthcare system and showed a marked difference across global income groups. However, more research is needed to inform costs in low- and middle-income settings and to understand the economic costs borne by families and wider society.
Topics: Comorbidity; Cost of Illness; Female; Health Care Costs; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Meningitis; Sepsis
PubMed: 31738319
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002500 -
Journal of Travel Medicine Mar 2020Pregnant travellers and their offspring are vulnerable to severe outcomes following a wide range of infections. Vaccine-preventable diseases can have a particularly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Pregnant travellers and their offspring are vulnerable to severe outcomes following a wide range of infections. Vaccine-preventable diseases can have a particularly severe course in pregnant women, but little is known about the safety of travel vaccines in pregnant women. We performed a systematic review of all published literature concerning the safety of vaccines frequently given to travellers such as yellow fever, MMR (mumps, measles and rubella), influenza, Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis), meningococcus, hepatitis A and B, rabies, polio, typhoid fever, tick-borne encephalitis and Japanese encephalitis vaccines. We included case series, cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the meta-analysis, we included only RCTs that compared the administration of a vaccine to placebo or to no vaccine. Outcome measures included severe systemic adverse events, maternal outcomes related to the course of pregnancy, neonatal outcomes and local adverse events. We calculated the risk ratio and its 95% confidence interval as the summary measure. The safety of influenza vaccine is supported by high-quality evidence. For Tdap vaccine, no evidence of any harm was found in the meta-analysis of RCTs. A slight increase in chorioamnionitis rate was reported in 3 out of 12 observational studies. However, this small possible risk is far outweighed by a much larger benefit in terms of infant morbidity and mortality. Meningococcal vaccines are probably safe during pregnancy, as supported by RCTs comparing meningococcal vaccines to other vaccines. Data from observational studies support the safety of hepatitis A, hepatitis B and rabies vaccines, as well as that of the live attenuated yellow fever vaccine. We found little or no data about the safety of polio, typhoid, Japanese encephalitis, tick-borne encephalitis and MMR vaccines during pregnancy.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Travel Medicine; Travel-Related Illness; Vaccination; Vaccines
PubMed: 31616947
DOI: 10.1093/jtm/taz074 -
British Medical Bulletin Sep 2019Acute bacterial meningitis (ABM) in adults is associated with a mortality that may exceed 30%. Immunization programs have reduced the global burden; in the UK, declining...
BACKGROUND
Acute bacterial meningitis (ABM) in adults is associated with a mortality that may exceed 30%. Immunization programs have reduced the global burden; in the UK, declining incidence but persistently high mortality and morbidity mean that clinicians must remain vigilant.
SOURCES OF DATA
A systematic electronic literature search of PubMed was performed to identify all ABM literature published within the past 5 years.
AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND CONTROVERSY
Clinical features cannot reliably distinguish between ABM and other important infectious and non-infectious aetiologies. Prompt investigation and empirical treatment are imperative. Lumbar puncture (LP) and cerebrospinal fluid microscopy, biochemistry and culture remain the mainstay of diagnosis, but molecular techniques are increasingly useful. The 2016 UK joint specialist societies' guideline provides expert recommendations for the management of ABM, yet published data suggest clinical care delivered in the UK is frequently not adherent. Anxiety regarding risk of cerebral herniation following LP, unnecessary neuroimaging, underutilization of molecular diagnostics and suboptimal uptake of adjunctive corticosteroids compromise management.
GROWING POINTS
There is increasing recognition that current antibiotic regimens and adjunctive therapies alone are insufficient to reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with ABM.
AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH
Research should be focused on optimization of vaccines (e.g. pneumococcal conjugate vaccines with extended serotype coverage), targeting groups at risk for disease and reservoirs for transmission; improving adherence to management guidelines; development of new faster, more accurate diagnostic platforms (e.g. novel point-of-care molecular diagnostics); and development of new adjunctive therapies (aimed at the host-inflammatory response and bacterial virulence factors).
Topics: Adjuvants, Pharmaceutic; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antibodies; Bacteriological Techniques; Cerebrospinal Fluid; Community-Acquired Infections; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Meningitis, Bacterial; Meningitis, Meningococcal; Neisseria meningitidis; Neuroimaging; Pneumococcal Infections; Specimen Handling; Spinal Puncture; United Kingdom
PubMed: 31556944
DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldz023