-
Canada Communicable Disease Report =... Sep 2020Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all individuals six months of age and older, including those with HIV infection. Prior to this statement, the National...
BACKGROUND
Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all individuals six months of age and older, including those with HIV infection. Prior to this statement, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) stated that live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) was contraindicated for all individuals with HIV infection. The objective of this article is to update NACI's guidance on the use of LAIV for HIV-infected individuals.
METHODS
A systematic literature review of the use of LAIV in individuals with HIV was undertaken. The Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System was searched for reports of adverse events following vaccination with LAIV in HIV-infected individuals. NACI approved the revised recommendations.
RESULTS
NACI concluded that LAIV is immunogenic in children with HIV, and available data suggest that it is safe, although data were insufficient to detect possible uncommon adverse effects. LAIV may be considered as an option for vaccination of children 2-17 years old who meet the following criteria: 1) receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy for at least four months; 2) CD4 count of 500/µL or greater if age 2-5 years, or of 200/µL or greater if age 6-17 years; and 3) HIV plasma RNA less than 10,000 copies/mL. LAIV remains contraindicated for adults with HIV because of insufficient data. Intramuscular influenza vaccination is considered the standard for children living with HIV by NACI and the Canadian Paediatric & Perinatal HIV/AIDS Research Group, particularly for those without HIV viral load suppression (i.e. plasma HIV RNA is 40 copies/mL or greater). However, if intramuscular (IM) vaccination is not accepted by the patient or substitute decision-maker, LAIV would be reasonable for children meeting the criteria listed above.
CONCLUSION
LAIV may be considered as an option for annual vaccination of selected children with HIV.
PubMed: 33104088
DOI: 10.14745/ccdr.v46i09a08 -
GeroScience Dec 2023This systematic review aims to summarize the impact of vaccination against influenza, shingles, and pneumococcus on the incidence on the risk of cardiovascular events in... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aims to summarize the impact of vaccination against influenza, shingles, and pneumococcus on the incidence on the risk of cardiovascular events in the elderly. This protocol was developed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We conducted a literature search and identified all relevant articles published regarding the matter up to September 2022. We retrieved 38 studies (influenza vaccine = 33, pneumococcal vaccine = 5, and zoster vaccine = 2). A total of 28 and 2 studies have shown that influenza and pneumococcal vaccines significantly lower the risk of cardiovascular disease in the elderly. Also, repeated influenza vaccination shows a consistent and dose-dependent protective effect against acute coronary syndromes and stroke. Moreover, dual influenza and pneumococcal vaccination was associated with lower risks of some cardiovascular events (stroke, congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, and myocardial infarction). However, the impact of PCV13 on cardiovascular events has not been studied, nor has the currently recommended vaccination schedule (PCV13 + PPV23). As for herpes zoster vaccination, only the protective effect against stroke has been studied with the live attenuated herpes zoster vaccine, but no studies have been conducted with the recombinant subunit herpes zoster vaccine. This review outlines the benefits of the vaccines mentioned above beyond their preventive action on infectious diseases. It is intended for health professionals who wish to inform and advise their elderly patients.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Herpes Zoster Vaccine; Influenza, Human; Incidence; Herpes Zoster; Vaccination; Pneumococcal Vaccines; Stroke
PubMed: 37269492
DOI: 10.1007/s11357-023-00807-4 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Jan 2012Burkholderia pseudomallei is a Category B select agent and the cause of melioidosis. Research funding for vaccine development has largely considered protection within... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Burkholderia pseudomallei is a Category B select agent and the cause of melioidosis. Research funding for vaccine development has largely considered protection within the biothreat context, but the resulting vaccines could be applicable to populations who are at risk of naturally acquired melioidosis. Here, we discuss target populations for vaccination, consider the cost-benefit of different vaccination strategies and review potential vaccine candidates.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Melioidosis is highly endemic in Thailand and northern Australia, where a biodefense vaccine might be adopted for public health purposes. A cost-effectiveness analysis model was developed, which showed that a vaccine could be a cost-effective intervention in Thailand, particularly if used in high-risk populations such as diabetics. Cost-effectiveness was observed in a model in which only partial immunity was assumed. The review systematically summarized all melioidosis vaccine candidates and studies in animal models that had evaluated their protectiveness. Possible candidates included live attenuated, whole cell killed, sub-unit, plasmid DNA and dendritic cell vaccines. Live attenuated vaccines were not considered favorably because of possible reversion to virulence and hypothetical risk of latent infection, while the other candidates need further development and evaluation. Melioidosis is acquired by skin inoculation, inhalation and ingestion, but routes of animal inoculation in most published studies to date do not reflect all of this. We found a lack of studies using diabetic models, which will be central to any evaluation of a melioidosis vaccine for natural infection since diabetes is the most important risk factor.
CONCLUSION
Vaccines could represent one strand of a public health initiative to reduce the global incidence of melioidosis.
Topics: Animals; Australia; Bacterial Vaccines; Biological Warfare Agents; Bioterrorism; Burkholderia pseudomallei; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease Models, Animal; Humans; Melioidosis; Public Health; Thailand
PubMed: 22303489
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001488 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 2015Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV), a leading cause of Japanese encephalitis (JE) in children and adults, is a major public health problem in Asian countries. This study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV), a leading cause of Japanese encephalitis (JE) in children and adults, is a major public health problem in Asian countries. This study reports a meta-analysis of the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines used to protect infants or children from JE. Three types of JE vaccine were examined, namely, Japanese encephalitis live-attenuated vaccine (JEV-L), Japanese encephalitis inactivated vaccine (Vero cell) (JEV-I(Vero)), and Japanese encephalitis inactivated vaccine (primary hamster kidney cell) (JEV-I(PHK)). These vaccines are used to induce fundamental immunity against JE; however, few studies have compared their immunogenicity and safety in infants and young children less than 2 years of age. Data were obtained by searching 5 databases: Web of Science, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the China Wanfang database, and the Cochrane database. Fifteen articles were identified and scored using the Jadad score for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Random effect models were used to calculate the pooled seroconversion rate and adverse reaction rate when tests for heterogeneity were significant. The results showed that the pooled seroconversion rate for JEV-I(PHK) (62.23%) was lower than that for JEV-I(Vero) (86.49%) and JEV-L (83.52%), and that the pooled adverse reaction rate for JEV-L (18.09%) was higher than that for JEV-I(PHK) (10.08%) and JEV-I(Vero) (12.49%). The pooled relative risk was then calculated to compare the seroconversion and adverse reaction rates. The results showed that JEV-I(Vero) and JEV-L were more suitable than JEV-I(PHK) for inducing fundamental immunity to JE in infants and children less than 2 years of age.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Asia; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Encephalitis, Japanese; Humans; Japanese Encephalitis Vaccines; Pacific Islands; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, Inactivated
PubMed: 25915588
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1011996 -
Viruses Dec 2022Defective interfering particles (DIPs) are particles containing defective viral genomes (DVGs) generated during viral replication. DIPs have been found in various RNA... (Review)
Review
Defective interfering particles (DIPs) are particles containing defective viral genomes (DVGs) generated during viral replication. DIPs have been found in various RNA viruses, especially in influenza viruses. Evidence indicates that DIPs interfere with the replication and encapsulation of wild-type viruses, namely standard viruses (STVs) that contain full-length viral genomes. DIPs may also activate the innate immune response by stimulating interferon synthesis. In this review, the underlying generation mechanisms and characteristics of influenza virus DIPs are summarized. We also discuss the potential impact of DIPs on the immunogenicity of live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) and development of influenza vaccines based on NS1 gene-defective DIPs. Finally, we review the antiviral strategies based on influenza virus DIPs that have been used against both influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2. This review provides systematic insights into the theory and application of influenza virus DIPs.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; Influenza Vaccines; Defective Interfering Viruses; Defective Viruses; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Orthomyxoviridae; Virus Replication
PubMed: 36560777
DOI: 10.3390/v14122773 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Apr 2022The immunogenicity of vaccines in children with juvenile autoimmune rheumatic diseases (JARDs) can be reduced, there are additional safety concerns around vaccination,... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The immunogenicity of vaccines in children with juvenile autoimmune rheumatic diseases (JARDs) can be reduced, there are additional safety concerns around vaccination, and there is a potential for worsening in disease activity. In this systematic review, we summarise studies that investigated the immunogenicity and safety of routine vaccines in children and adolescents with JARD on immunosuppressive treatment. We identified 37 studies investigating 2571 children and adolescents with JARD on immunosuppressive treatment and 4895 control children. Of the 56 geometric mean antibody titres measured, 19 (34%) were lower, six (11%) higher, and 31 (55%) similar; of the 39 seroprotection rates measured, 10 (26%) were lower, two (5%) higher, and 27 (69%) similar; and of the 27 seroconversion rates measured, nine (33%) were lower, two (8%) higher, and 16 (59%) similar in children with JARD on immunosuppressive treatment compared with control children. However, many of the studies were underpowered, and not designed to show non-inferiority between children with JARD and controls. Subgroup analysis for different types of immunosuppressive treatments was not feasible, as most studies did not report results by treatment. Severe adverse events were reported in 38 children (33 with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, four with systemic lupus erythematosus, and one in a healthy child); most of them were likely not related to the vaccination (e.g. elective hospitalisation or surgery). A worsening in disease activity was reported in 44 (2%) children with JARD; again, many of them were likely not related to the vaccination. There were no safety concerns with live attenuated vaccines; however, only few studies reported results for this.
CONCLUSION
Vaccination in children with JARD on immunosuppressive treatment is safe and should be promoted, especially since these children are at increased risk for infection. The importance for the completion of vaccination schedules should be stressed. Strategies to compensate for the lower vaccine responses, which are found in approximately one-third of these children, include measuring antibody levels to determine the optimal timing for the administration of additional booster doses.
WHAT IS KNOWN
• Children with juvenile autoimmune rheumatic diseases (JARDs) are at higher risk for infections, due to their underlying disease and their immunosuppressive treatment. • In children with JARD, the immunogenicity of vaccines might be reduced, and concerns about safety or the potential for worsening in disease activity after vaccination exist.
WHAT IS NEW
• Our systematic review shows that vaccines in children with JARDs on immunosuppressive treatment are safe and immunogenic. • There are several limitations of the currently published studies, including random timing of measuring vaccine responses and age differences between children with JARD and control groups. Many of the studies were underpowered, and not designed to show non-inferiority between children with JARD and controls.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Immunosuppressive Agents; Rheumatic Diseases; Vaccination; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 34936010
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-021-04283-w -
Journal of Affective Disorders May 2022Mental disorders are associated with immune dysregulation as measured by serum levels of biological markers of immunity. Adults with mental disorders have also been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mental disorders are associated with immune dysregulation as measured by serum levels of biological markers of immunity. Adults with mental disorders have also been reported to have attenuated post vaccine immune response. The COVID-19 pandemic has invited the need to determine whether individuals with mental disorders exhibit differential immune response following the administration of vaccines for other infections.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycInfo was conducted from inception to May 2021 investigating vaccine response in persons with mental disorders, as measured by biological markers of immunity (i.e., antibodies, cytokines).
RESULTS
Thirteen articles were identified which evaluated vaccine efficacy in persons with mental disorders. Individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) or schizophrenia revealed attenuated immune response to vaccination, or no statistical difference compared to control subjects. Individuals with anorexia nervosa or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) displayed no attenuated post-vaccination antibody level. Individuals with insomnia displayed lower levels of antibodies after vaccination, whereas individuals with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) displayed no difference in vaccine response compared to control subjects.
LIMITATIONS
The limitations of this review include the relatively few articles included (n = 13) and small sample sizes (less than thirty subjects) in the majority of articles.
CONCLUSION
Vaccine response in adults with a mental disorder remains inconclusive. Notwithstanding the heterogeneity and relatively small number of studies, available evidence does suggest attenuated immune response across disparate vaccinations. Future research is required to confirm vaccine efficacy in persons with mental disorders, especially regarding immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination.
Topics: Adult; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Immunity; Pandemics; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Vaccination
PubMed: 35167926
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.02.025 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2013Bacillus Calmette-Guerín (BCG) is a live attenuated vaccine to prevent tuberculosis, routinely administered at birth as part of the World Health Organization global... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bacillus Calmette-Guerín (BCG) is a live attenuated vaccine to prevent tuberculosis, routinely administered at birth as part of the World Health Organization global expanded immunisation programme. Given intradermally, it can cause adverse reactions, including local, regional, distant and disseminated manifestations that may cause parental distress. Rarely, it can cause serious illness and even death. Among those patients with immunocompromised conditions, such as the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, the complication rate is even higher.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different interventions for treating BCG-induced disease in children.
SEARCH METHODS
The following databases were searched: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in The Cochrane Library (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1966 to November 2012); EMBASE (1947 to November 2012); and LILACS (1980 to November 2012). The metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the WHO trials search portal. Conference proceedings for relevant abstracts and experts were also contacted to identify studies. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical or surgical treatment modality for BCG-induced disease in children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently evaluated titles, applied inclusion criteria, and assessed the risk of bias of studies. The primary outcomes were the failure rate of therapies for all types of BCG vaccine-induced complications and the time to resolution of illness measured in months. The secondary outcomes were death from BCG vaccine-induced disease and the all-cause mortality. Risk ratios (RRs) were used as measure of effect for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Five RCTs analysing 341 children addressed the primary outcomes and were included. Four arms compared oral antibiotics to no intervention or placebo, one arm evaluated needle aspiration compared to no intervention, and another evaluated the use of locally instilled isoniazid versus oral erythromycin.Two small studies evaluated oral isoniazid; we are uncertain of whether this intervention has an effect on clinical failure (RR 1.48; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.79 to 2.78; 54 participants, two studies, very low quality evidence). Similarly, for oral erythromycin, we are uncertain if there is an effect (clinical failure RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.53; 148 participants, three studies, very low quality evidence), and for oral isoniazid plus rifampicin (clinical failure, RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.83; 35 participants, one study, very low quality evidence).In patients with lymphadenitis abscess, needle aspiration may reduce clinically persistent BCG-induced disease at 6 to 9 months of follow-up (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.55; 77 participants, one study, low quality evidence). In another study of patients with the same condition, aspiration plus local instillation of isoniazid reduces time to clinical cure compared to aspiration plus oral erythromycin (mean difference 1.49 months less; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.15 less; 27 participants, one study).No RCTs of HIV-infected infants with a BCG-induced disease evaluated the use of antibiotics or other therapies for reducing the rate of clinical failure or the time to clinical resolution. No data on mortality secondary to the interventions for treating BCG-induced disease were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is unclear if oral antibiotics (isoniazid, erythromycin, or a combination of isoniazid plus rifampicin) are effective for the resolution of BCG-induced disease. Most non-suppurated lymphadenitis will resolve without treatment in 4 to 6 months. Patients with lymphadenitis abscess might benefit from needle aspiration and possibly local instillation of isoniazid could shorten recovery time. Included studies were generally small and could be better conducted. Further research should evaluate the use of needle aspiration and local instillation of isoniazid in fluctuant nodes. Therapeutic and preventive measures in HIV-infected infants could be important given the higher risk of negative outcomes in this group.
Topics: Abscess; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Antibiotics, Antitubercular; BCG Vaccine; Child; Child, Preschool; Erythromycin; Humans; Infant; Isoniazid; Lymphadenitis; Mycobacterium bovis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rifampin; Suction
PubMed: 23440826
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008300.pub2 -
BMC Pediatrics Jan 2017RotaTeq™ (RV5; Merck & Co. Inc., USA) and Rotarix™ (RV1, GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium) vaccines, developed to prevent rotavirus diarrhea in children under five years... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
RotaTeq™ (RV5; Merck & Co. Inc., USA) and Rotarix™ (RV1, GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium) vaccines, developed to prevent rotavirus diarrhea in children under five years old, were both introduced into national immunization programs in 2006. As many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have included either RV5 or RV1 in their routine childhood vaccination programs, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze efficacy, safety and effectiveness data from the region.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, Scielo, Lilacs and the Cochrane Central Register, for controlled efficacy, safety and effectiveness studies published between January 2000 until December 2011, on RV5 and RV1 across Latin America (where both vaccines are available since 2006). The primary outcome measures were: rotavirus-related gastroenteritis of any severity; rotavirus emergency department visits and hospitalization; and severe adverse events.
RESULTS
The results of the meta-analysis for efficacy show that RV1 reduced the risk of any-severity rotavirus-related gastroenteritis by 65% (relative risk (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25; 0.50), and of severe gastroenteritis by 82% (RR 0.18, 95%CI 0.12; 0.26) versus placebo. In trials, both vaccines significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization and emergency visits by 85% (RR 0.15, 95%CI 0.09; 0.25) for RV1 and by 90% (RR 0.099, 95%CI 0.012; 0.77) for RV5. Vaccination with RV5 or RV1 did not increase the risk of death, intussusception, or other severe adverse events which were previously associated with the first licensed rotavirus vaccine. Real-world effectiveness studies showed that both vaccines reduced rotavirus hospitalization in the region by around 45-50% for RV5 (for 1 to 3 doses, respectively), and, by around 50-80% for RV1 (for 1 to 2 doses, respectively). For RV1, effectiveness against hospitalization was highest (around 80-96%) for children vaccinated before 12 months of age, compared with 5-60% effectiveness in older children. Both vaccines were most effective in preventing more severe gastroenteritis (70% for RV5 and 80-90% for RV1) and severe gastroenteritis (50% for RV5 and 70-80% for RV1).
CONCLUSION
This systematic literature review confirms rotavirus vaccination has been proven effective and well tolerated in protecting children in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Topics: Caribbean Region; Humans; Latin America; Models, Statistical; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Treatment Outcome; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 28086819
DOI: 10.1186/s12887-016-0771-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2012In many parts of the world, hepatitis A infection represents a significant cause of morbidity and socio-economic loss. Whilst hepatitis A vaccines have the potential to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In many parts of the world, hepatitis A infection represents a significant cause of morbidity and socio-economic loss. Whilst hepatitis A vaccines have the potential to prevent disease, the degree of protection afforded against clinical outcomes and within different populations remains uncertain. There are two types of hepatitis A virus (HAV) vaccine, inactivated and live attenuated. It is important to determine the efficacy and safety for both vaccine types.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical protective efficacy, sero-protective efficacy, and safety and harms of hepatitis A vaccination in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis A.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) up to November 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing HAV vaccine with placebo, no intervention, or appropriate control vaccines in participants of all ages.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two authors and verified by a third author. Where required, authors contacted investigators to obtain missing data. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically apparent hepatitis A (infectious hepatitis). The secondary outcomes were lack of sero-protective anti-HAV immunoglobulin G (IgG), and number and types of adverse events. Results were presented as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), using intention-to-treat analysis. We conducted assessment of risk of bias to evaluate the risk of systematic errors (bias) and trial sequential analyses to estimate the risk of random errors (the play of chance).
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 11 clinical studies, of which only three were considered to have low risk of bias; two were quasi-randomised studies in which we only addressed harms. Nine randomised trials with 732,380 participants addressed the primary outcome of clinically confirmed hepatitis A. Of these, four trials assessed the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (41,690 participants) and five trials assessed the live attenuated hepatitis A vaccine (690,690 participants). In the three randomised trials with low risk of bias (all assessing inactivated vaccine), clinically apparent hepatitis A occurred in 9/20,684 (0.04%) versus 92/20,746 (0.44%) participants in the HAV vaccine and control groups respectively (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30). In all nine randomised trials, clinically apparent hepatitis A occurred in 31/375,726 (0.01%) versus 505/356,654 (0.18%) participants in the HAV vaccine and control groups respectively (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.17). These results were supported by trial sequential analyses. Subgroup analyses confirmed the clinical effectiveness of both inactivated hepatitis A vaccines (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30) and live attenuated hepatitis A vaccines (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17) on clinically confirmed hepatitis A. Inactivated hepatitis A vaccines had a significant effect on reducing the lack of sero-protection (less than 20 mIU/L) (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03). No trial reported on a sero-protective threshold less than 10 mIU/L. The risk of both non-serious local and systemic adverse events was comparable to placebo for the inactivated HAV vaccines. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions on adverse events for the live attenuated HAV vaccine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Hepatitis A vaccines are effective for pre-exposure prophylaxis of hepatitis A in susceptible individuals. This review demonstrated significant protection for at least two years with the inactivated HAV vaccine and at least five years with the live attenuated HAV vaccine. There was evidence to support the safety of the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine. More high quality evidence is required to determine the safety of live attenuated vaccines.
Topics: Hepatitis A; Hepatitis A Antibodies; Hepatitis A Vaccines; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Vaccination; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, Inactivated
PubMed: 22786522
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009051.pub2