-
BMC Public Health May 2024A notable research gap exists in the systematic review and meta-analysis concerning the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
A notable research gap exists in the systematic review and meta-analysis concerning the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prefusion F vaccine.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search across PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov to retrieve articles related to the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of RSV prefusion F vaccines, published through September 8, 2023. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
RESULTS
A total of 22 randomized controlled trials involving 78,990 participants were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The RSV prefusion F vaccine exhibited a vaccine effectiveness of 68% (95% CI: 59-75%) against RSV-associated acute respiratory illness, 70% (95% CI: 60-77%) against medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness, and 87% (95% CI: 71-94%) against medically attended severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness. Common reported local adverse reactions following RSV prefusion F vaccination include pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, and systemic reactions such as fatigue, headache, myalgia, arthralgia, nausea, and chills.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis suggests that vaccines using the RSV prefusion F protein as antigen exhibit appears broadly acceptable efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety in the population. In particular, it provides high protective efficiency against severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease.
Topics: Humans; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines; Vaccine Efficacy; Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38711074
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-18748-8 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica May 2024Immunocompromised individuals, primarily attributable to using immunosuppressants, face heightened COVID-19 risks. Despite the proven efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Immunocompromised individuals, primarily attributable to using immunosuppressants, face heightened COVID-19 risks. Despite the proven efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, their impact on patients with immune-mediated dermatological diseases remains unclear. This study aims to thoroughly examine vaccine immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety in immune-mediated dermatological disease patients. Clinical studies in adults that compared vaccinated immune-mediated dermatological disease patients with vaccinated healthy controls or unvaccinated immune-mediated dermatological disease patients in terms of vaccine immunogenicity, COVID-19 infection, adverse events, or exacerbation of immune-mediated dermatological diseases were searched via electronic databases. Seventeen studies (1,348,690 participants) were included. Seroconversion rates between immune-mediated dermatological disease patients and healthy controls were not different. However, among individuals aged ≤55 years, immune-mediated dermatological disease patients had lower mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels. Immunosuppressed immune-mediated dermatological disease patients also had lower titres and were less likely to achieve T-cell response. In terms of safety, the risk of adverse events was higher in atopic dermatitis patients, but those with psoriasis had a reduced risk. Additionally, immunosuppressed patients had fewer adverse events. Vaccinated immune-mediated dermatological disease patients had a lower risk of COVID-19 infection than unvaccinated patients but a higher risk than healthy controls; however, disease exacerbation may be induced. In conclusion, immune-mediated dermatological diseases showed a reduced vaccine response in our meta-analysis, yet vaccination remained effective against COVID-19 infection and well tolerated.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Vaccines; COVID-19; Skin Diseases; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Immunocompromised Host; SARS-CoV-2; Vaccine Efficacy; Middle Aged; Adult
PubMed: 38698654
DOI: 10.2340/actadv.v104.40009 -
Cureus Mar 2024Advanced pancreatic cancer is one of the prominent contributors to cancer-related mortality globally. Chemotherapy, especially gemcitabine, is generally used for the... (Review)
Review
Advanced pancreatic cancer is one of the prominent contributors to cancer-related mortality globally. Chemotherapy, especially gemcitabine, is generally used for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Despite the treatment, the fatality rate for advanced pancreatic cancer is alarmingly high. Thus, the dire need for better treatment alternatives has drawn focus to cancer vaccinations. The Wilms tumor gene (WT1), typically associated with Wilms tumor, is found to be excessively expressed in some cancers, such as pancreatic cancer. This characteristic feature is harvested to develop cancer vaccines against WT1. This review aims to systematically summarize the clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of WT1 vaccines in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. An extensive literature search was conducted on databases Medline, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar using the keywords "Advanced pancreatic cancer," "Cancer vaccines," "WT1 vaccines," and "Pulsed DC vaccines," and the results were exclusively studied to construct this review. WT1 vaccines work by introducing peptides from the WT1 protein to trigger an immune response involving cytotoxic T lymphocytes via antigen-presenting cells. Upon activation, these lymphocytes induce apoptosis in cancer cells by specifically targeting those with increased WT1 levels. WT1 vaccinations, which are usually given in addition to chemotherapy, have demonstrated clinically positive results and minimal side effects. However, there are several challenges to their widespread use, such as the immunosuppressive nature of tumors and heterogeneity in expression. Despite these limitations, the risk-benefit profile of cancer vaccines is encouraging, especially for the WT1 vaccine in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Considering the fledgling status of their development, large multicentric, variables-matched, extensive analysis across diverse demographics is considered essential.
PubMed: 38665761
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.56934 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Apr 2024Tuberculosis (TB) is a common complication associated with treatment with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. However, there is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Tuberculosis (TB) is a common complication associated with treatment with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. However, there is uncertainty about the risk of TB relapse in patients with TB and comorbidities requiring treatment with these agents.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the risk of TB relapse in patients (re-)started on TNF antagonists or JAK inhibitors.
METHODS
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Cochrane Library databases until 11 December 2023.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomized control trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case reports and case series.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients with current or previous TB who were (re-)started on TNF antagonists or JAK inhibitors.
INTERVENTIONS
(Re-)introduction of TNF antagonists and JAK inhibitors.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS
All studies meeting entry criteria were included regardless of quality.
METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
Categorical data are presented as frequencies and percentages. For non-normally distributed aggregated data, we calculated the pooled weighted median with 95% CI. For individual patient data, the median and interquartile range (IQR) were calculated.
RESULTS
Of 5018 articles screened for eligibility, 67 publications reporting on 368 TB patients who (re-)initiated treatment with TNF antagonists for underlying diseases were included. The median age was 42.5 years (95% CI: 40.4-42.5) and the proportion of female patients was 36.6% (n = 74) of patients whose sex was reported. A total of 14 patients (3.8%, 95% CI: 2.1-6.3%) developed TB relapse after a median of 8.5 months (interquartile range, 6.8-14.8 months) following (re-)initiation of anti-TNF treatment. Furthermore, among 251 articles screened for eligibility, 11 reports on TB patients who were (re-)started on JAK inhibitors for underlying diseases were identified. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 48.5-68.5 years) and 45.5% (n = 5) were female. Only one patient (9.1%; 95% CI: 0.2-41.3%) had TB reactivation 10 months after starting treatment with ruxolitinib. In addition, 94 patients who were treated with TNF antagonists and two patients temporarily treated with JAK inhibitors for the prevention or treatment of paradoxical reactions were analysed. None of the publications reported microbiological failure or worsening of TB-related symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
(Re-)initiation of TNF antagonists and JAK inhibitors may be relatively safe in patients with current or previous TB and the need for further treatment of underlying diseases.
PubMed: 38663653
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2024.04.011 -
Immunity, Inflammation and Disease Apr 2024Immunocompromised individuals have been shown to mount a reduced response to vaccination, resulting in reduced vaccine effectiveness in this cohort. Therefore, in the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Immunocompromised individuals have been shown to mount a reduced response to vaccination, resulting in reduced vaccine effectiveness in this cohort. Therefore, in the postvaccination era, immunocompromised individuals remain at high risk of breakthrough infection and COVID-19 related hospitalization and death, which persist despite vaccination efforts. There has been a marked paucity of systematic reviews evaluating existing data describing the clinical measures of efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, specifically in immunocompromised populations. In particular, there is a scarcity of comprehensive evaluations exploring breakthrough infections and severe COVID-19 in this patient population.
METHODS
To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review which aimed to provide a summary of current clinical evidence of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in the immunocompromised population. Using PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a literature search on PubMed and the Cochrane database published between January 1, 2021 to September 1, 2022.
RESULTS
Our findings demonstrated that despite vaccination, immunocompromised patients remained at high risk of new breakthrough COVID-19 infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes compared to the general population. We found increased average relative risk (RR) of breakthrough infections in the immunocompromised population, including patients with cancer (RR = 1.4), HIV (RR = 1.92), chronic kidney disease (RR = 2.26), immunodeficiency (RR = 2.55), and organ transplant recipients (RR = 6.94). These patients are also at greater risk for hospitalizations and death following COVID-19 breakthrough infection. We found that the RR of hospitalization and death in Cancer patients was 1.08 and 2.82, respectively.
CONCLUSION
This demonstrated that vaccination does not offer an adequate level of protection in these groups, necessitating further measures such as Evusheld and further boosters.
Topics: Humans; Breakthrough Infections; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Hospitalization; Immunocompromised Host; Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Vaccination; Vaccine Efficacy
PubMed: 38661301
DOI: 10.1002/iid3.1259 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2024Omicron (B.1.1.529), a variant of SARS-CoV-2, has emerged as a dominant strain in COVID-19 pandemic. This development has raised concerns about the effectiveness of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Omicron (B.1.1.529), a variant of SARS-CoV-2, has emerged as a dominant strain in COVID-19 pandemic. This development has raised concerns about the effectiveness of vaccination to Omicron, particularly in the context of children and adolescents. Our study evaluated the efficacy of different COVID-19 vaccination regimens in children and adolescents during the Omicron epidemic phase.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Embase electronic databases for studies published through March 2023 on the association between COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents at the Omicron variant period. The effectiveness outcomes included mild COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023390481).
RESULTS
A total of 33 studies involving 16,532,536 children were included in the analysis. First, in children and adolescents aged 0-19 years, the overall VE of the COVID-19 vaccine is 45% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 40 to 50%). Subgroup analysis of VE during Omicron epidemic phase for different dosage regimens demonstrated that the VE was 50% (95% CI: 44 to 55%) for the 2-dose vaccination and 61% (95% CI: 45 to 73%) for the booster vaccination. Upon further analysis of different effectiveness outcomes during the 2-dose vaccination showed that the VE was 41% (95% CI: 35 to 47%) against mild COVID-19 and 71% (95% CI: 60 to 79%) against severe COVID-19. In addition, VE exhibited a gradual decrease over time, with the significant decline in the efficacy of Omicron for infection before and after 90 days following the 2-dose vaccination, registering 54% (95% CI: 48 to 59%) and 34% (95% CI: 21 to 56%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
During the Omicron variant epidemic, the vaccine provided protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents aged 0-19 years. Two doses of vaccination can provide effective protection severe COVID-19, with booster vaccination additionally enhancing VE.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; SARS-CoV-2; Vaccination; Vaccine Efficacy
PubMed: 38660347
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1338208 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Dec 2024Few papers focus their attention on VZV vaccination effectiveness among people living with HIV (PLWH). Flanking the live attenuated vaccine (VZL) available, a newly... (Review)
Review
Few papers focus their attention on VZV vaccination effectiveness among people living with HIV (PLWH). Flanking the live attenuated vaccine (VZL) available, a newly recombinant vaccine (RZV) was recently introduced and approved for HZ prevention among adults. PLWH represents a population on which a particular attention should be applied, in order to guarantee the vaccine efficacy and safety. We performed a literature search in USNLM, PubMed, PubMed Central, PMC and Cochrane Library. From all the publications found eligible, data were extracted and processed per population, vaccine type, immunogenicity and ADRs. The review of the 13 included studies shows that both RZV and VZL are immunogenic and have an acceptable safety profile in adults and children living with HIV. However, given the lack of research available about vaccine efficacy in preventing VZV and HZ in PLWH, additional studies need to be performed, in order to achieve a full completeness of data.
Topics: Humans; Vaccines, Attenuated; HIV Infections; Herpes Zoster Vaccine; Vaccines, Synthetic; Herpes Zoster; Vaccines, Inactivated; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Vaccine Efficacy; Herpesvirus 3, Human; Adult; Child; Vaccination; Chickenpox Vaccine
PubMed: 38650460
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2024.2341456 -
BMJ Evidence-based Medicine Apr 2024To compare the efficacy of influenza vaccines of any valency for adults 60 years and older.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy of influenza vaccines of any valency for adults 60 years and older.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, JBI Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Database, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Evidence -Based Medicine database were searched from inception to 20 June 20, 2022. Two reviewers screened, abstracted, and appraised articles (Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) 2.0 tool) independently. We assessed certainty of findings using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approaches. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), and estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for count outcomes along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals.
PARTICIPANTS
Older adults (≥60 years old) receiving an influenza vaccine licensed in Canada or the USA (vs placebo, no vaccine, or any other licensed vaccine), at any dose.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) and influenza-like illness (ILI). Secondary outcomes were the number of vascular adverse events, hospitalisation for acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI, inpatient hospitalisation, emergency room (ER) visit for ILI, outpatient visit, and mortality, among others.
RESULTS
We included 41 RCTs and 15 companion reports comprising 8 vaccine types and 206 032 participants. Vaccines may prevent LCI compared with placebo, with high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) (NMA: 9 RCTs, 52 202 participants, OR 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.11 to 0.51), low certainty of evidence) and recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) (OR 0.25, 95%CI (0.08 to 0.73), low certainty of evidence) among the most efficacious vaccines. Standard dose trivalent IIV3 (IIV3-SD) may prevent ILI compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (meta-analysis: 2 RCTs, 854 participants, OR 0.39, 95%CI (0.15 to 1.02), low certainty of evidence). Any HD was associated with prevention of ILI compared with placebo (NMA: 9 RCTs, 65 658 participants, OR 0.38, 95%CI (0.15 to 0.93)). Adjuvanted quadrivalent IIV (IIV4-Adj) may be associated with the least vascular adverse events, but the results were very uncertain (NMA: eight 8 RCTs, 57 677 participants, IRR 0.18, 95%CI (0.07 to 0.43), very low certainty of evidence). RIV on all-cause mortality may be comparable to placebo (NMA: 20 RCTs, 140 577 participants, OR 1.01, 95%CI (0.23 to 4.49), low certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review demonstrated efficacy associated with IIV3-HD and RIV vaccines in protecting older persons against LCI. RIV vaccine may reduce all-cause mortality when compared with other vaccines, but the evidence is uncertain. Differences in efficacy between influenza vaccines remain uncertain with very low to moderate certainty of evidence.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020177357.
PubMed: 38604619
DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112767 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Dec 2024Insect vector-borne diseases (VBDs) pose significant global health challenges, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions. The WHO has launched the "Global Vector...
Insect vector-borne diseases (VBDs) pose significant global health challenges, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions. The WHO has launched the "Global Vector Control Response (GVCR) 2017-2030" to address these diseases, emphasizing a comprehensive approach to vector control. This systematic review investigates the potential of malaria and dengue vaccines in controlling mosquito-borne VBDs, aiming to alleviate disease burdens and enhance public health. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, the review incorporated 39 new studies out of 934 identified records. It encompasses various studies assessing malaria and dengue vaccines, emphasizing the significance of vaccination as a preventive measure. The findings indicate variations in vaccine efficacy, duration of protection, and safety considerations for each disease, influencing public health strategies. The review underscores the urgent need for vaccines to combat the increasing burden of VBDs like malaria and dengue, advocating for ongoing research and investment in vaccine development.
Topics: Animals; Dengue; Dengue Vaccines; Malaria; Mosquito-Borne Diseases; Public Health; Humans
PubMed: 38602074
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2024.2337985 -
One Health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Jun 2024The global spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A (H5N1) clade 2.3.4.4b virus since 2021 necessitates a re-evaluation of the role of vaccination in...
The global spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A (H5N1) clade 2.3.4.4b virus since 2021 necessitates a re-evaluation of the role of vaccination in controlling HPAI outbreaks among poultry, which has been controversial because of the concern of silent spread with viral mutation and spillover to human. We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed all existing data from experimental challenge trials to assess the efficacy of HPAI vaccines against mortality in specific pathogen free (SPF) chickens, with evaluation of the certainty of evidence (CoE) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Out of 223 screened publications, 46 trials met our eligibility criteria. Inactivated vaccines showed an efficacy of 95% (risk ratio [RR] = 5% [95% CI: 1% to 17%], = 0%, CoE high) against homologous strains and an efficacy of 78% (RR = 22% [95% CI: 14% to 37%], = 18%, CoE high) against heterologous strains (test for subgroup difference = 0.02). Live recombinant vaccines exhibited the highest efficacy at 97% (RR = 3% [95% CI: 1% to 13%], = 0%, CoE high). Inactivated recombinant vaccines had an overall efficacy of 90% (RR = 10% [95% CI: 6% to 16%], = 47%, CoE high). Commercial vaccines showed an overall efficacy of 91% (RR = 9% [95% CI: 5% to 17%], = 23%, CoE high), with 96% efficacy (RR = 4% [95% CI: 1% to 21%], = 0%, CoE high) against homologous strains and 90% efficacy (RR = 10% [95% CI: 5% to 20%], = 31%, CoE moderate) against heterologous strains. Our systematic review offers an updated and unbiased assessment of vaccine efficacy against HPAI-related mortality, providing timely and crucial information for re-evaluating the role of vaccination in poultry avian influenza control policy amist the global HPAI outbreak post-2021.
PubMed: 38596323
DOI: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100714