-
Vaccine Mar 2022Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is a notifiable disease in Germany and other European countries. Due to the high lethality of the disease and the risk of long-term... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is a notifiable disease in Germany and other European countries. Due to the high lethality of the disease and the risk of long-term consequences, IMD prevention is of high public health relevance despite the low number of cases in the population. This study aims to describe key epidemiological and economic parameters of IMD in Germany to support national decision-making processes for implementing enhanced prevention measures.
METHODS
Based on a systematic literature review in PubMed and EMBASE, all publications on the burden of disease and costs of IMD published up to May 2020 were evaluated. Additionally, notification data were used to report the annual case numbers and incidence of IMD in Germany until the end of 2019.
RESULTS
Thirty-six studies were included, of which 35 reported data on the epidemiological burden of disease and three reported data on economic aspects of IMD. The type of reported endpoints and results on the incidence of IMD differed widely by reporting year, population, and data source used. Most of the data are reported without specific information about a serogroup. Data on the economic burden of disease and healthcare resource use are scarce. Based on mandatory notification data, a decrease in the incidence of notified IMD cases has been observed since 2004. Currently, the nationwide annual incidence in Germany is at 0.3 cases per 100,000 persons and has gradually decreased. While the overall decline is mainly attributable to MenB, cases with MenY and MenW are the only ones that have increased on a low level in recent years.
CONCLUSION
While IMD is a rare disease, high direct and indirect costs illustrate the relevance of the disease for patients, caregivers, as well as for the health care system. Future research should concentrate on quantifying the long-term economic burden and indirect costs of meningococcal disease. Integrated IMD surveillance with isolate characterisation remains crucial to inform public health policies.
Topics: Financial Stress; Germany; Humans; Incidence; Meningococcal Infections; Meningococcal Vaccines; Neisseria meningitidis; Serogroup
PubMed: 35227520
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.02.043 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Oct 2021Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) represents a global health burden. However, its epidemiology in the Eastern Mediterranean (EM) and North Africa (NA) regions is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) represents a global health burden. However, its epidemiology in the Eastern Mediterranean (EM) and North Africa (NA) regions is currently not well understood. This review had four key objectives: to describe asymptomatic meningococcal carriage, IMD epidemiology (e.g. serogroup prevalence, case-fatality rates [CFRs]), IMD presentation and management (e.g. clinical diagnosis, antibiotic treatments) and economic impact and evaluation (including health technology assessment [HTA] recommendations) in EM and NA.
METHODS
A systematic literature search (MEDLINE and EMBASE) was conducted (January 2000 to February 2021). Search strings included meningococcal disease and the regions/countries of interest. Identified publications were screened sequentially by title/abstract, followed by screening of the full-text article; articles were also assessed on methodological quality. Literature reviews, genetic sequencing or diagnostic accuracy studies, or other non-pertinent publication type were excluded. An additional grey literature search (non-peer-reviewed sources; start date January 2000) was conducted to the end of April 2019.
RESULTS
Of the 1745 publications identified, 79 were eligible for the final analysis (n = 61 for EM and n = 19 for NA; one study was relevant to both). Asymptomatic meningococcal carriage rates were 0-33% in risk groups (e.g. military personnel, pilgrims) in EM (no data in NA). In terms of epidemiology, serogroups A, B and W were most prevalent in EM compared with serogroups B and C in NA. IMD incidence was 0-20.5/100,000 in EM and 0.1-3.75/100,000 in NA (reported by 7/15 countries in EM and 3/5 countries in NA). CFRs were heterogenous across the EM, ranging from 0 to 57.9%, but were generally lower than 50%. Limited NA data showed a CFR of 0-50%. Data were also limited in terms of IMD presentation and management, particularly relating to clinical diagnosis/antibiotic treatment. No economic evaluation or HTA studies were found.
CONCLUSIONS
High-risk groups remain a significant reservoir of asymptomatic meningococcal carriage. It is probable that inadequacies in national surveillance systems have contributed to the gaps identified. There is consequently a pressing need to improve national surveillance systems in order to estimate the true burden of IMD and guide appropriate prevention and control programmes in these regions.
Topics: Africa, Northern; Humans; Incidence; Meningococcal Infections; Meningococcal Vaccines; Neisseria meningitidis; Serogroup
PubMed: 34686136
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06781-6 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Nov 2021Vaccine hesitancy has increased, which has an effect on vaccine uptake. The aim of our study was to investigate childhood vaccination coverage in Western Greece and...
Vaccine hesitancy has increased, which has an effect on vaccine uptake. The aim of our study was to investigate childhood vaccination coverage in Western Greece and identify factors affecting it. We also aimed to assess trends in childhood vaccination coverage nationwide. A cross-sectional study was conducted (2016-2019) in all the primary schools in Patras, the third largest city in the country. Data collection was undertaken using child vaccination booklets and questionnaires on socio-demographics. Multiple regression analyses were performed to evaluate relevant associations. We also performed a systematic review of published data on childhood vaccination coverage in Greece during the last two decades. Data for 1657 children was collected and 371 questionnaires were returned. High vaccination coverage (>90%) was observed for the majority of the vaccines. For the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), coverage with four doses, as recommended at the time of study, was suboptimal (39.2%). For human papillomavirus vaccines and the meningococcal serogroup B vaccine, full vaccination coverage was 2.6% and 6.5%, respectively. No association with socio-demographics was found for vaccines with high coverage. For PCV the number of doses given was related to Greek nationality (β = 0.185, < .001) and parental employment status (β = -0.115, = .043). Compared to previous studies (16 eligible), there was a trend toward higher coverage. Public health interventions should focus on increasing vaccine uptake of specific vaccines among populations with particular characteristics. A national network recording vaccine coverage is urgently required in the country to monitor vaccine uptake and assess trends over time.
Topics: Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Greece; Humans; Infant; Pneumococcal Vaccines; Schools; Vaccination; Vaccination Coverage; Vaccination Hesitancy; Vaccines, Conjugate
PubMed: 34473610
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1967040 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics May 2021Two quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MenACWY) that prevent invasive meningococcal disease caused by serogroups A, C, Y, and W have been licensed in the...
Two quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MenACWY) that prevent invasive meningococcal disease caused by serogroups A, C, Y, and W have been licensed in the U.S. in the past 10-15 years. We systematically reviewed published studies conducted in the U.S. to evaluate the real-world safety evidence of meningococcal conjugate vaccines. We performed a literature search in PubMed of publications from 01/01/2005 to 02/29/2020 and identified 18 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Populations included high-risk persons aged 2 months to 10 years, adolescents/adults aged ≥11 years, pregnant populations, and hematopoietic cell transplant recipients. We extracted information about study setting, study design, exposure, outcomes, comparison group, follow-up/look back period, study population, sample size, available demographic/indication information, results, key conclusion, and reference. These published studies found no new significant safety concerns related to MenACWY. Consideration for future research includes a post-licensure safety evaluation of a new MenACWY product approved in April 2020.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Meningococcal Infections; Meningococcal Vaccines; Neisseria meningitidis; Pregnancy; United States; Vaccines, Conjugate
PubMed: 33327853
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1829412 -
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 -
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 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Jun 2020The study aimed to assess the capacity of AEFI surveillance during vaccination campaigns with the new conjugate meningitis vaccine (MenAfrivac). A systematic review of...
The study aimed to assess the capacity of AEFI surveillance during vaccination campaigns with the new conjugate meningitis vaccine (MenAfrivac). A systematic review of studies on MenAfrivac™ published in English during 2001-2016 was done.AEFIs incidence (I) was estimated and compared between MenAfrivac™ clinical trials and immunization campaigns using incidence difference (Id). Nine studies were included with an overall local AEFI I of 11,496/100,000 doses administered per week in clinical trials and 0.72/100,000 doses in immunization campaigns. An Id of 11,497.92 [11,497.91-11,497.93] and 17,243.20 [17,241.80-17,245.90] per 100,000 doses administered per week for overall local and systemic AEFI, respectively, were observed with highest from clinical trials. The incidence of AEFIs after MenAfrivac™ vaccination was far lower in campaigns than in clinical trial studies. Current capacity of AEFI surveillance during vaccination campaigns requires extensive re-assessment of its structure and capacity.
Topics: Immunization Programs; Meningococcal Vaccines; Neisseria meningitidis; Vaccination; Vaccines, Conjugate
PubMed: 31403358
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2019.1652041