-
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Sep 2022Understanding why some migrants in Europe are at risk of underimmunisation and show lower vaccination uptake for routine and COVID-19 vaccines is critical if we are to... (Review)
Review
Understanding why some migrants in Europe are at risk of underimmunisation and show lower vaccination uptake for routine and COVID-19 vaccines is critical if we are to address vaccination inequities and meet the goals of WHO's new Immunisation Agenda 2030. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020219214) exploring barriers and facilitators of vaccine uptake (categorised using the 5As taxonomy: access, awareness, affordability, acceptance, activation) and sociodemographic determinants of undervaccination among migrants in the EU and European Economic Area, the UK, and Switzerland. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from 2000 to 2021 for primary research, with no restrictions on language. 5259 data sources were screened, with 67 studies included from 16 countries, representing 366 529 migrants. We identified multiple access barriers-including language, literacy, and communication barriers, practical and legal barriers to accessing and delivering vaccination services, and service barriers such as lack of specific guidelines and knowledge of health-care professionals-for key vaccines including measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, human papillomavirus, influenza, polio, and COVID-19 vaccines. Acceptance barriers were mostly reported in eastern European and Muslim migrants for human papillomavirus, measles, and influenza vaccines. We identified 23 significant determinants of undervaccination in migrants (p<0·05), including African origin, recent migration, and being a refugee or asylum seeker. We did not identify a strong overall association with gender or age. Tailored vaccination messaging, community outreach, and behavioural nudges facilitated uptake. Migrants' barriers to accessing health care are already well documented, and this Review confirms their role in limiting vaccine uptake. These findings hold immediate relevance to strengthening vaccination programmes in high-income countries, including for COVID-19, and suggest that tailored, culturally sensitive, and evidence-informed strategies, unambiguous public health messaging, and health system strengthening are needed to address access and acceptance barriers to vaccination in migrants and create opportunities and pathways for offering catch-up vaccinations to migrants.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Europe; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Measles; Transients and Migrants; Vaccination; Vaccines
PubMed: 35429463
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00066-4 -
Vaccine Apr 2022Vaccinations are essential for preventing infectious diseases in children with chronic diseases as they have increased risk of infection from frequent use of biologics.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
Vaccinations are essential for preventing infectious diseases in children with chronic diseases as they have increased risk of infection from frequent use of biologics. Response to immunizations in this group is not well known.
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review was performed to evaluate three primary outcomes: efficacy; immunogenicity; and safety of vaccines in children with chronic conditions treated with biologics.
METHODS
The protocol for our systematic review and meta-analysis was registered and published with PROSPERO. We searched electronic bibliographic databases for studies published from 2009 to 2019, focusing on vaccinations in children with chronic conditions treated with biologics.
RESULTS
We retrieved 532 records. Thirty-one full-text articles were selected, and 14 were included in the meta-analysis. No significant publication bias was found.
EFFICACY
limited data are available regarding the efficacy of vaccination, as most studies have focused on immunogenicity as surrogate outcome for efficacy. Immunogenicity: patients receiving anti-TNF-alpha therapy had a statistically significant risk of poor seroconversion (p = 0.028) and seroprotection by the serotype B influenza vaccine [inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) p = 0.013; juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) p = 0.004]. We found adequate responses with H1N1 and H3N2 serotypes. Few studies existed for pneumococcal, hepatitis A virus, hepatitis B virus, varicella-zoster virus, Measles Mumps Rubella virus, and multiple vaccine administration.
SAFETY
vaccine administration was not associated with serious side effects, but JIA patients on anti-TNF alpha therapy had a statistically significant risk of presenting with myalgia or arthralgia postinfluenza vaccine (p = 0.014).
CONCLUSIONS
More evidence concerning efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of vaccinations is needed to guide physicians in the vaccine decision process for this pediatric population.
Topics: Biological Products; Child; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Pneumococcal Vaccines; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors
PubMed: 35370019
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.03.041 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) Oct 2022Transplacental passage of certain biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs leads to detectable levels in the neonate, which may impact on the safety of live vaccines....
OBJECTIVES
Transplacental passage of certain biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs leads to detectable levels in the neonate, which may impact on the safety of live vaccines. Guidelines advise delaying live vaccine administration in biologic-exposed infants until they are 7 months old.
METHODS
A systematic review of Embase, Medline and Cochrane identified live vaccine outcomes in infants exposed to biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in utero.
RESULTS
Studies included 276 in utero exposures to adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, tocilizumab and ustekinumab. Live vaccine exposures at <12 months of age included Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) (n = 215), rotavirus (n = 46), and measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) (n = 12). We identified no reactions following MMR, seven mild reactions to rotavirus vaccination and eight reactions to BCG, including one death. All infants with an adverse reaction to BCG had been exposed to infliximab in utero, and six had received BCG in the first month of life. A freedom of information request to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency revealed four fatal disseminated BCG infections in infants exposed to TNF inhibitors in utero, including infliximab, adalimumab and one unspecified TNF inhibitor.
CONCLUSION
Most evidence for a clinically harmful effect was for early administration of the BCG vaccine to infants exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors with high transplacental transfer rates.
Topics: Adalimumab; Antirheumatic Agents; BCG Vaccine; Etanercept; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infliximab; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors; Ustekinumab
PubMed: 35258557
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac141 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness, safety, and long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the trivalent vaccine, containing measles, rubella, mumps strains (MMR), or concurrent administration of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine (MMR+V), or tetravalent vaccine containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella strains (MMRV), given to children aged up to 15 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 5), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 2 May 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (2 May 2019), and ClinicalTrials.gov (2 May 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (PCS/RCS), case-control studies (CCS), interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, case cross-over (CCO) studies, case-only ecological method (COEM) studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies, person-time cohort (PTC) studies, and case-coverage design/screening methods (CCD/SM) studies, assessing any combined MMR or MMRV / MMR+V vaccine given in any dose, preparation or time schedule compared with no intervention or placebo, on healthy children up to 15 years of age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We grouped studies for quantitative analysis according to study design, vaccine type (MMR, MMRV, MMR+V), virus strain, and study settings. Outcomes of interest were cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, and harms. Certainty of evidence of was rated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 138 studies (23,480,668 participants). Fifty-one studies (10,248,159 children) assessed vaccine effectiveness and 87 studies (13,232,509 children) assessed the association between vaccines and a variety of harms. We included 74 new studies to this 2019 version of the review. Effectiveness Vaccine effectiveness in preventing measles was 95% after one dose (relative risk (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 7 cohort studies; 12,039 children; moderate certainty evidence) and 96% after two doses (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; 5 cohort studies; 21,604 children; moderate certainty evidence). The effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts or preventing transmission to others the children were in contact with after one dose was 81% (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89; 3 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence), after two doses 85% (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.75; 3 cohort studies; 378 children; low certainty evidence), and after three doses was 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23; 2 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness (at least one dose) in preventing measles after exposure (post-exposure prophylaxis) was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50; 2 cohort studies; 283 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR vaccine in preventing mumps was 72% after one dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; 6 cohort studies; 9915 children; moderate certainty evidence), 86% after two doses (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.35; 5 cohort studies; 7792 children; moderate certainty evidence). Effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49; 3 cohort studies; 1036 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against rubella, using a vaccine with the BRD2 strain which is only used in China, is 89% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 1 cohort study; 1621 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against varicella (any severity) after two doses in children aged 11 to 22 months is 95% in a 10 years follow-up (rate ratio (rr) 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; 1 RCT; 2279 children; high certainty evidence). Safety There is evidence supporting an association between aseptic meningitis and MMR vaccines containing Urabe and Leningrad-Zagreb mumps strains, but no evidence supporting this association for MMR vaccines containing Jeryl Lynn mumps strains (rr 1.30, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.56; low certainty evidence). The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR/MMR+V/MMRV vaccines (Jeryl Lynn strain) and febrile seizures. Febrile seizures normally occur in 2% to 4% of healthy children at least once before the age of 5. The attributable risk febrile seizures vaccine-induced is estimated to be from 1 per 1700 to 1 per 1150 administered doses. The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (ITP). However, the risk of ITP after vaccination is smaller than after natural infection with these viruses. Natural infection of ITP occur in 5 cases per 100,000 (1 case per 20,000) per year. The attributable risk is estimated about 1 case of ITP per 40,000 administered MMR doses. There is no evidence of an association between MMR immunisation and encephalitis or encephalopathy (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.61; 2 observational studies; 1,071,088 children; low certainty evidence), and autistic spectrum disorders (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 2 observational studies; 1,194,764 children; moderate certainty). There is insufficient evidence to determine the association between MMR immunisation and inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.16; 3 observational studies; 409 cases and 1416 controls; moderate certainty evidence). Additionally, there is no evidence supporting an association between MMR immunisation and cognitive delay, type 1 diabetes, asthma, dermatitis/eczema, hay fever, leukaemia, multiple sclerosis, gait disturbance, and bacterial or viral infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR/MMRV vaccines support their use for mass immunisation. Campaigns aimed at global eradication should assess epidemiological and socioeconomic situations of the countries as well as the capacity to achieve high vaccination coverage. More evidence is needed to assess whether the protective effect of MMR/MMRV could wane with time since immunisation.
Topics: Chickenpox; Child; Humans; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Rubella
PubMed: 34806766
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub5 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Dec 2021Migrant populations are one of several underimmunised groups in the EU or European Economic Area (EU/EEA), yet little is known about their involvement in outbreaks of...
Migrant populations are one of several underimmunised groups in the EU or European Economic Area (EU/EEA), yet little is known about their involvement in outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. This information is vital to develop targeted strategies to improve the health of diverse migrant communities. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42019157473; Jan 1, 2000, to May 22, 2020) adhering to PRISMA guidelines, to identify studies on vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, hepatitis A, varicella, Neisseria meningitidis, and Haemophilus influenzae) involving migrants residing in the EU/EEA and Switzerland. We identified 45 studies, reporting on 47 distinct vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks across 13 countries. Most reported outbreaks involving migrants were of measles (n=24; 6496 cases), followed by varicella (n=11; 505 cases), hepatitis A (n=7; 1356 cases), rubella (n=3; 487 cases), and mumps (n=2; 293 cases). 19 (40%) outbreaks, predominantly varicella and measles, were reported in temporary refugee camps or shelters. Of 11 varicella outbreaks, nine (82%) were associated with adult migrants. Half of measles outbreaks (n=11) were associated with migrants from eastern European countries. In conclusion, migrants are involved in vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks in Europe, with adult and child refugees residing in shelters or temporary camps at particular risk, alongside specific nationality groups. Vulnerability varies by disease, setting, and demographics, highlighting the importance of tailoring catch-up vaccination interventions to specific groups in order to meet regional and global vaccination targets as recommended by the new Immunisation Agenda 2030 framework for action. A better understanding of vaccine access and intent in migrant groups and a greater focus on co-designing interventions is urgently needed, with direct implications for COVID-19 vaccine delivery.
Topics: Adult; Child; Disease Outbreaks; Europe; Humans; Immunization Programs; Refugee Camps; Refugees; Transients and Migrants; Vaccination; Vaccine-Preventable Diseases
PubMed: 34626552
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00193-6 -
International Journal of Molecular... 2021This study was performed to investigate published literature about the association between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and COVID-19. This is a systematic... (Review)
Review
This study was performed to investigate published literature about the association between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and COVID-19. This is a systematic review in which the databases of Chocrane, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science as well as reliable journals including Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Jama and also Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publications were searched.Out of 169 documents discovered during the literature review, 56 ones were somehow related to the association between MMR vaccine and COVID-19, of which 11 ones mentioned the association between these two, and 8 of them contained a hypothesis about this relationship. A quasi-trial study reported the positive effect of the MMR vaccine on reducing the severity of COVID-19 symptoms among those who received it. Also, a cross-sectional study showed an association between the level of Immunoglobulin G (IgG) mumps and COVID-19. Moreover, a genomic data analysis study also reported the effect of Rubella Immunoglobulin G (IgG) level on COVID-19. It seems that due to the similarity of respiratory diseases including measles, rubella, and mumps to COVID-19, MMR vaccine should be investigated more deeply to see if it is effective in order to deal with this novel disease.
PubMed: 34336136
DOI: No ID Found -
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal Nov 2021The safety and immunogenicity of M-M-RII (measles, mumps and rubella virus vaccine live, Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, PA)-the only combined measles, mumps and rubella...
Evaluation of the Safety and Immunogenicity of M-M-RII (Combination Measles-mumps-rubella Vaccine): Clinical Trials of Healthy Children and Adults Published Between 2010 and 2019.
BACKGROUND
The safety and immunogenicity of M-M-RII (measles, mumps and rubella virus vaccine live, Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, PA)-the only combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine licensed for use in the United States-were previously reported in pre- and postlicensure clinical trials conducted from 1988 to 2009. M-M-RII continues to be evaluated as a comparator in clinical trials of other vaccines. Here, we review safety and efficacy data from more recent clinical trials of M-M-RII.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review of trials using M-M-RII published from 2010 to 2019.
RESULTS
In the 15 studies that met the inclusion criteria, a total of 12,032 subjects were vaccinated: 7667 persons received a first dose only, 2137 participated in 2-dose studies (128 received 1 dose and 2009 received both) and 2063 received a single dose of M-M-RII as their second dose. Dose number was not specified for 165 participants, ≥6 years old, in 2 studies in which a single dose of M-M-RII was administered. Similar to previous reports, M-M-RII was well tolerated and immunogenic when administered alone or concomitantly with other routinely recommended vaccinations. The most common adverse events included transient injection site pain and fever. Serious adverse events were extremely rare, with only 4 probable or potential vaccine-related events reported among the 12,032 participating subjects.
CONCLUSIONS
In trials published from 2010 to 2019, M-M-RII continued to be safe and immunogenic in all age groups studied. These data, along with the results of earlier trials, indicate that the performance of the vaccine has been consistent across more than 30 years of postlicensure studies.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Research Report; Rubella; Vaccination; Vaccines, Combined
PubMed: 34310506
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0000000000003273 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Dec 2022M-M-R® (M-M-R II) is routinely used in many countries at 12-15 months with a second dose at 4 to 6 years of age. However, the vaccine may need to be administered at...
M-M-R® (M-M-R II) is routinely used in many countries at 12-15 months with a second dose at 4 to 6 years of age. However, the vaccine may need to be administered at other ages due to delays in the immunization schedule or in certain situations such as outbreaks or international travel. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of M-M-R II among 6- to 11-month-olds and persons ≥7 years of age. A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in 2019 including Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. Only one study reported seroconversion rates after one dose in infants at 9 months of age: 87.4% (measles), 92.3% (mumps), and 91.2% (rubella); no safety data were reported. Seven studies reported immunogenicity and safety data for M-M-R II at ≥7 years of age. Seroconversion rates ranged from 96%-100% (measles), 65%-100% (mumps), and 91%-100% (rubella). Rates of selected adverse events ranged from 5.2%-8.7% for fever (≥38°C or ≥38.1°C), 2%-33.3% for injection site reactions, and 0.4% for measles/rubella-like rash (one study). No efficacy studies were found. This literature review identified RCTs with evidence to support that M-M-R II is immunogenic and well tolerated in individuals ≥7 years of age.
Topics: Aged, 80 and over; Antibodies, Viral; Antigens, Viral; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Rubella; Vaccines, Combined
PubMed: 34128759
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1933874 -
Vaccine Jun 2021Understanding the safety of vaccines is critical to inform decisions about vaccination. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the safety of vaccines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Understanding the safety of vaccines is critical to inform decisions about vaccination. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the safety of vaccines recommended for children, adults, and pregnant women in the United States.
METHODS
We searched the literature in November 2020 to update a 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality review by integrating newly available data. Studies of vaccines that used a comparator and reported the presence or absence of key adverse events were eligible. Adhering to Evidence-based Practice Center methodology, we assessed the strength of evidence (SoE) for all evidence statements. The systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020180089).
RESULTS
Of 56,603 reviewed citations, 338 studies reported in 518 publications met inclusion criteria. For children, SoE was high for no increased risk of autism following measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. SoE was high for increased risk of febrile seizures with MMR. There was no evidence of increased risk of intussusception with rotavirus vaccine at the latest follow-up (moderate SoE), nor of diabetes (high SoE). There was no evidence of increased risk or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for newer vaccines such as 9-valent human papillomavirus and meningococcal B vaccines. For adults, there was no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for the new adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine and recombinant adjuvanted zoster vaccine. We found no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) for key adverse events among pregnant women following tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, including stillbirth (moderate SoE).
CONCLUSIONS
Across a large body of research we found few associations of vaccines and serious key adverse events; however, rare events are challenging to study. Any adverse events should be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.
Topics: Adult; Child; Diphtheria; Female; Humans; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Pregnancy; United States; Vaccination
PubMed: 34049735
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.03.079 -
Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi = Zhongguo... May 2021Antiviral Oral Liquid is modified on the basis of Baihu Decoction in Treatise on Febrility Diseases by ZHANG Zhongjing and Qingwen Baidu Yin in Qing Dynasty, with...
Antiviral Oral Liquid is modified on the basis of Baihu Decoction in Treatise on Febrility Diseases by ZHANG Zhongjing and Qingwen Baidu Yin in Qing Dynasty, with effects in clearing toxic heat, repelling dampness and cooling blood. It is widely used in clinical treatment of common colds, influenza and upper respiratory tract infection, mumps, viral conjunctivitis and hand-foot-mouth disease, with a good clinical efficacy and safety. Based on a questionnaire survey of clinicians and a systematic review of study literatures on Antiviral Oral Liquid, the international clinical practice guidelines development method was adopted to analyze the optimal available evidences and expert experiences in the "evidence-based, consensus-based and experience-based" principles. The consensus was jointly reached by more than 30 multidisciplinary experts nationwide, including clinical experts of traditional Chinese and Western medicine in the field of respiratory diseases and infectious diseases, and methodological experts. In the study, literatures were retrieved based on clinical problems in the clinical survey as well as PICO clinical problems. The GRADE system was used for the classification and evaluation of evidence, and fully combined with clinical expert experience, so as to reach expert consensus by the nominal grouping method. This expert consensus recommended or suggested indications, usage and dosage, course of treatment, intervention time for treatment, and the safety and precautions of Antiviral Oral Liquid for treatment of influenza, and can provide reference for the rational use of this drug in clinical practice.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Consensus; Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease; Humans; Influenza, Human; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 34047134
DOI: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20200927.501