-
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy Oct 2020Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging virus that is highly pathogenic and has caused the recent worldwide pandemic officially named...
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging virus that is highly pathogenic and has caused the recent worldwide pandemic officially named coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Currently, considerable efforts have been put into developing effective and safe drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Vaccines, such as inactivated vaccines, nucleic acid-based vaccines, and vector vaccines, have already entered clinical trials. In this review, we provide an overview of the experimental and clinical data obtained from recent SARS-CoV-2 vaccines trials, and highlight certain potential safety issues that require consideration when developing vaccines. Furthermore, we summarize several strategies utilized in the development of vaccines against other infectious viruses, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), with the aim of aiding in the design of effective therapeutic approaches against SARS-CoV-2.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2; Antibodies, Viral; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Clinical Trials as Topic; Coronavirus Infections; Gene Expression Regulation; Humans; Immunity, Innate; Immunization Schedule; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus; Pandemics; Patient Safety; Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A; Pneumonia, Viral; Protein Binding; Receptors, Virus; Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus; SARS-CoV-2; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome; Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, DNA; Vaccines, Subunit; Vaccines, Virus-Like Particle; Viral Vaccines
PubMed: 33051445
DOI: 10.1038/s41392-020-00352-y -
Parasites & Vectors Aug 2023Bovine babesiosis, caused by different Babesia spp. such as B. bovis, B. bigemina, B. divergens, and B. major, is a global disease that poses a serious threat to... (Review)
Review
Bovine babesiosis, caused by different Babesia spp. such as B. bovis, B. bigemina, B. divergens, and B. major, is a global disease that poses a serious threat to livestock production. Babesia bovis infections are associated with severe disease and increased mortality in adult cattle, making it the most virulent agent of bovine babesiosis. Babesia bovis parasites undergo asexual reproduction within bovine red blood cells, followed by sexual reproduction within their tick vectors, which transmit the parasite transovarially. Current control methods, including therapeutic drugs (i.e., imidocarb) have been found to lead to drug resistance. Moreover, changing environmental factors add complexity to efficient parasite control. Understanding the fundamental biology, host immune responses, and host-parasite interactions of Babesia parasites is critical for developing next-generation vaccines to control acute disease and parasite transmission. This systematic review analyzed available research papers on vaccine development and the associated immune responses to B. bovis. We compiled and consolidated the reported vaccine strategies, considering the study design and rationale of each study, to provide a systematic review of knowledge and insights for further research. Thirteen studies published since 2014 (inclusive) represented various vaccine strategies developed against B. bovis such as subunit, live attenuated, and viral vector vaccines. Such strategies incorporated B. bovis proteins or whole live parasites with the latter providing the most effective prophylaxis against bovine babesiosis. Incorporating novel research approaches, such as "omics" will enhance our understanding of parasite vulnerabilities.
Topics: Animals; Cattle; Babesia bovis; Babesiosis; Cattle Diseases; Babesia; Vaccines
PubMed: 37563668
DOI: 10.1186/s13071-023-05885-z -
Annals of Internal Medicine Oct 2009Neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) are stockpiled internationally for extended use in an influenza pandemic. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) are stockpiled internationally for extended use in an influenza pandemic.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of extended-duration (>4 weeks) NAI chemoprophylaxis against influenza.
DATA SOURCES
Studies published in any language through 11 June 2009 identified by searching 10 electronic databases and 3 trial registries.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind human trials of extended-duration NAI chemoprophylaxis that reported outcomes of laboratory-confirmed influenza or adverse events.
DATA EXTRACTION
2 reviewers independently assessed study quality and abstracted information from eligible studies.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Of 1876 potentially relevant citations, 7 trials involving 7021 unique participants met inclusion criteria. Data were pooled by using random-effects models. Chemoprophylaxis with NAIs decreased the frequency of symptomatic influenza (relative risk [RR], 0.26 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.37]; risk difference [RD], -3.9 percentage points [CI, -5.8 to -1.9 percentage points]) but not asymptomatic influenza (RR, 1.03 [CI, 0.81 to 1.30]; RD, -0.4 percentage point [CI, -1.6 to 0.9 percentage point]). Adverse effects were not increased overall among NAI recipients (RR, 1.01 [CI, 0.94 to 1.08]; RD, 0.1 percentage point [CI, -0.2 to 0.4 percentage point]), but nausea and vomiting were more common among those who took oseltamivir (RR, 1.48 [CI, 1.86 to 2.33]; RD, 1.7 percentage points [CI, 0.6 to 2.9 percentage points]). Prevention of influenza did not statistically significantly differ between zanamivir and oseltamivir.
LIMITATIONS
All trials were industry-sponsored. No study was powered to detect rare adverse events, and none included diverse racial groups, children, immunocompromised patients, or individuals who received live attenuated influenza virus vaccine.
CONCLUSION
Extended-duration zanamivir and oseltamivir chemoprophylaxis seems to be highly efficacious for preventing symptomatic influenza among immunocompetent white and Japanese adults. Extended-duration oseltamivir is associated with increased nausea and vomiting. Safety and efficacy in several subpopulations that might receive extended-duration influenza chemoprophylaxis are unknown.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Disease Outbreaks; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Nausea; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Risk Factors; Vomiting; Zanamivir
PubMed: 19652173
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-7-200910060-00143 -
Vaccine Apr 2015Prior to the introduction of rotavirus vaccines in 2006, rotavirus was the leading cause of severe gastroenteritis among European children <5 years of age. We conducted... (Review)
Review
Prior to the introduction of rotavirus vaccines in 2006, rotavirus was the leading cause of severe gastroenteritis among European children <5 years of age. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature to examine the effectiveness and impact of rotavirus vaccines in Europe following the first eight years of routine use. Four publication databases were searched, yielding 276 unique citations from February 1st, 2006 to July 31st, 2014. Twenty four studies on effectiveness (n=9) and impact (n=15) met the inclusion criteria. Across Europe, vaccine effectiveness against rotavirus-related healthcare utilisation ranged from 68% to 98%, consistent with efficacy data from clinical trials. Reductions in rotavirus hospitalisations ranged from 65% to 84%, consistent with findings from post-marketing studies from the US and Latin America. We confirm the significant public health benefit of rotavirus vaccination in Europe and provide further evidence to support implementation of universal rotavirus vaccination in all European countries.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Europe; Gastroenteritis; Hospitalization; Humans; Latin America; Male; Product Surveillance, Postmarketing; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Time Factors; United States; Vaccination; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 25795258
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.03.016 -
Vaccine Mar 2022The benefits of vaccines have been centred on their specific effects on subsequent infections by target pathogens. Recent studies, however, have opened up new insights... (Review)
Review
The benefits of vaccines have been centred on their specific effects on subsequent infections by target pathogens. Recent studies, however, have opened up new insights into additional effects of vaccines known as non-specific effects (NSEs) or heterologous effects of vaccines. While several articles have reviewed epidemiological and immunological evidence for NSEs of vaccines in humans, similar works on veterinary vaccines are scarce. The objective of this paper was to review the findings of published studies on NSEs of vaccines developed or repurposed for use in animals. In total 8412 titles were retrieved from PubMed and CABI databases on the 30 of April 2021. After the final stage of screening, 45 eligible articles were included in the review. Data from these articles were summarised and presented here. In general, most of the vaccines studied in the reviewed articles have beneficial NSEs against multiple pathogens and disease conditions. There were, however, fewe studies reporting detrimental NSEs from both non-live and live vaccines which is in contrast to the currently existing evidence of beneficial NSEs of live vaccines and detrimental NSEs of non-live vaccines. This review may be used as a complement for future review of RCT studies of NSEs of vaccines in animals and provide a useful addition to the evolving understanding of the NSEs of vaccines.
Topics: Animals; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 34815120
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.11.034 -
Pain Nov 2022Burrowing behaviour is used to assess pain-associated behaviour in laboratory rodents. To gain insight into how models of disease-associated persistent pain and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Burrowing behaviour is used to assess pain-associated behaviour in laboratory rodents. To gain insight into how models of disease-associated persistent pain and analgesics affect burrowing behaviour, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed burrowing behaviour. A systematic search in March 2020 and update in September 2020 was conducted in 4 databases. Study design characteristics and experimental data were extracted, followed by a random-effects meta-analysis. We explored the association between burrowing and monofilament-induced limb withdrawal. Dose response relationship was investigated for some analgesics. Forty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis, in which 16 model types and 14 drug classes were used. Most experiments used rat (79%) and male (72%) animals. Somatic inflammation and trauma-induced neuropathy models were associated with reduced burrowing behaviour. Analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and gabapentinoids) attenuated burrowing deficits in these models. Reporting of measures to reduce risk of bias was unclear except for randomisation which was high. There was not a correlation ( R2 = 0.1421) between burrowing and monofilament-induced limb withdrawal. Opioids, gabapentin, and naproxen showed reduced burrowing behaviour at high doses, whereas ibuprofen and celecoxib showed opposite trend. The findings indicate that burrowing could be used to assess pain-associated behaviour. We support the use of a portfolio of composite measures including spontaneous and stimulus-evoked tests. The information collected here could help in designing experiments involving burrowing assessment in models of disease-associated pain.
Topics: Analgesics; Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Behavior, Animal; Celecoxib; Disease Models, Animal; Gabapentin; Ibuprofen; Male; Naproxen; Pain; Rats; Rodentia
PubMed: 35353780
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002632 -
Vaccine Dec 2012Data on duration and long-term protective effects of hepatitis A vaccines (HepA) have not been reviewed using a systematic approach. Our objective is to provide a... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Data on duration and long-term protective effects of hepatitis A vaccines (HepA) have not been reviewed using a systematic approach. Our objective is to provide a comprehensive review of evidence on the duration of protection achieved by HepA, which is needed for revising existing vaccine policies. Limitations in data availability and implications for future research in this area are discussed.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted including all studies published between 1997 and 2011 reporting on long-term protection of HepA. The outcomes considered were hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection and sero-protection measured by anti-HAV antibodies after follow-up times of over 5 years post-vaccination.
RESULTS
299 studies were identified from MEDLINE and 51 studies from EMBASE. 13 manuscripts met our inclusion criteria. The maximum observation times and reported persistence levels of sero-protective anti-HAV antibodies was 15 years for live attenuated HepA and 14 years for inactivated HepA. All data were from observational studies and showed that higher number of doses of live attenuated vaccine led to higher seropositivity and GMT, but dosage and schedule did not significantly impact the long-term protection following inactivated vaccine. Few comparisons were made between the two vaccine types indicating highest levels of antibody titers achieved by multiple doses of live attenuated vaccines 7 years post-vaccination.
CONCLUSION
Available data indicate that both inactivated and live attenuated HepA are capable of providing protection up to 15 years as defined by currently accepted, conservative correlates of protection. Further investigations are needed to continue to monitor the long-term protection afforded by these vaccines. Standardized methods are required for vaccine-follow-up studies including assessment of co-variables potentially affecting long-term protection.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Hepatitis A; Hepatitis A Antibodies; Hepatitis A Vaccines; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Middle Aged; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 22609026
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.04.104 -
Toxins Feb 2023As a tribute to Louis Pasteur on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of his birth, this article summarizes the main contributions of scientists from Pasteur Institutes... (Review)
Review
As a tribute to Louis Pasteur on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of his birth, this article summarizes the main contributions of scientists from Pasteur Institutes to the current knowledge of toxins produced by . The article therefore focuses on publications authored by researchers from Pasteur Institutes and is not intended as a systematic review of toxins. Besides identifying as the causative agent of whooping cough, Pasteurians have made several major contributions with respect to the structure-function relationship of the lipo-oligosaccharide, adenylyl cyclase toxin and pertussis toxin. In addition to contributing to the understanding of these toxins' mechanisms at the molecular and cellular levels and their role in pathogenesis, scientists at Pasteur Institutes have also exploited potential applications of the gathered knowledge of these toxins. These applications range from the development of novel tools to study protein-protein interactions over the design of novel antigen delivery tools, such as prophylactic or therapeutic vaccine candidates against cancer and viral infection, to the development of a live attenuated nasal pertussis vaccine. This scientific journey from basic science to applications in the field of human health matches perfectly with the overall scientific objectives outlined by Louis Pasteur himself.
Topics: Humans; Bordetella pertussis; Whooping Cough; Pertussis Toxin; Virulence Factors, Bordetella; Adenylate Cyclase Toxin; Pertussis Vaccine
PubMed: 36977067
DOI: 10.3390/toxins15030176 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018The consequences of influenza in children and adults are mainly absenteeism from school and work. However, the risk of complications is greatest in children and people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The consequences of influenza in children and adults are mainly absenteeism from school and work. However, the risk of complications is greatest in children and people over 65 years of age. This is an update of a review published in 2011. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 12), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016), Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy children under 16 years. Previous versions of this review included 19 cohort and 11 case-control studies. We are no longer updating the searches for these study designs but have retained the observational studies for historical purposes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the key outcomes of influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), complications (hospitalisation, ear infection), and adverse events. Due to variation in control group risks for influenza and ILI, absolute effects are reported as the median control group risk, and numbers needed to vaccinate (NNVs) are reported accordingly. For other outcomes aggregate control group risks are used.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 clinical trials (> 200,000 children). Most of the studies were conducted in children over the age of two and compared live attenuated or inactivated vaccines with placebo or no vaccine. Studies were conducted over single influenza seasons in the USA, Western Europe, Russia, and Bangladesh between 1984 and 2013. Restricting analyses to studies at low risk of bias showed that influenza and otitis media were the only outcomes where the impact of bias was negligible. Variability in study design and reporting impeded meta-analysis of harms outcomes.Live attenuated vaccinesCompared with placebo or do nothing, live attenuated influenza vaccines probably reduce the risk of influenza infection in children aged 3 to 16 years from 18% to 4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.41; 7718 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and they may reduce ILI by a smaller degree, from 17% to 12% (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.80; 124,606 children; low-certainty evidence). Seven children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 20 children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one child experiencing an ILI. Acute otitis media is probably similar following vaccine or placebo during seasonal influenza, but this result comes from a single study with particularly high rates of acute otitis media (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence). There was insufficient information available to determine the effect of vaccines on school absenteeism due to very low-certainty evidence from one study. Vaccinating children may lead to fewer parents taking time off work, although the CI includes no effect (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence). Data on the most serious consequences of influenza complications leading to hospitalisation were not available. Data from four studies measuring fever following vaccination varied considerably, from 0.16% to 15% in children who had live vaccines, while in the placebo groups the proportions ranged from 0.71% to 22% (very low-certainty evidence). Data on nausea were not reported.Inactivated vaccinesCompared with placebo or no vaccination, inactivated vaccines reduce the risk of influenza in children aged 2 to 16 years from 30% to 11% (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.48; 1628 children; high-certainty evidence), and they probably reduce ILI from 28% to 20% (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.79; 19,044 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Five children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 12 children would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. The risk of otitis media is probably similar between vaccinated children and unvaccinated children (31% versus 27%), although the CI does not exclude a meaningful increase in otitis media following vaccination (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.40; 884 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was insufficient information available to determine the effect of vaccines on school absenteeism due to very low-certainty evidence from one study. We identified no data on parental working time lost, hospitalisation, fever, or nausea.We found limited evidence on secondary cases, requirement for treatment of lower respiratory tract disease, and drug prescriptions. One brand of monovalent pandemic vaccine was associated with a sudden loss of muscle tone triggered by the experience of an intense emotion (cataplexy) and a sleep disorder (narcolepsy) in children. Evidence of serious harms (such as febrile fits) was sparse.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In children aged between 3 and 16 years, live influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza (moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce ILI (low-certainty evidence) over a single influenza season. In this population inactivated vaccines also reduce influenza (high-certainty evidence) and may reduce ILI (low-certainty evidence). For both vaccine types, the absolute reduction in influenza and ILI varied considerably across the study populations, making it difficult to predict how these findings translate to different settings. We found very few randomised controlled trials in children under two years of age. Adverse event data were not well described in the available studies. Standardised approaches to the definition, ascertainment, and reporting of adverse events are needed. Identification of all global cases of potential harms is beyond the scope of this review.
Topics: Adolescent; Case-Control Studies; Child; Child, Preschool; Cohort Studies; Conflict of Interest; Humans; Infant; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Numbers Needed To Treat; Otitis Media; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Support as Topic; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, Inactivated
PubMed: 29388195
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004879.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016Herpes zoster, also known as 'shingles', is a neurocutaneous disease characterised by the reactivation of the latent varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Herpes zoster, also known as 'shingles', is a neurocutaneous disease characterised by the reactivation of the latent varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox when immunity to VZV declines. It is an extremely painful condition that can last many weeks or months and it can significantly compromise the quality of life of affected individuals. The natural process of aging is associated with a reduction in cellular immunity and this predisposes older people to herpes zoster. Vaccination with an attenuated form of VZV activates specific T cell production avoiding viral reactivation. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a herpes zoster vaccine with an attenuated active virus for clinical use among older adults, which has been tested in large populations. A new adjuvanted recombinant VZV subunit zoster vaccine has also been tested. It consists of recombinant VZV glycoprotein E and a liposome-based AS01B adjuvant system. This new vaccine is not yet available for clinical use.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vaccination for preventing herpes zoster in older adults.
SEARCH METHODS
For this 2015 update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1948 to the 3rd week of October 2015), EMBASE (2010 to October 2015), CINAHL (1981 to October 2015) and LILACS (1982 to October 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing zoster vaccine with placebo or no vaccine, to prevent herpes zoster in older adults (mean age > 60 years).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently collected and analysed data using a data extraction form. They also performed 'Risk of bias' assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 13 studies involving 69,916 participants. The largest study included 38,546 participants. All studies were conducted in high-income countries and included only healthy Caucasian individuals ≥ 60 years of age without immunosuppressive comorbidities. Ten studies used live attenuated varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccines. Three studies tested a new type of vaccine not yet available for clinical use. We judged five of the included studies to be at low risk of bias.The incidence of herpes zoster, at up to three years of follow-up, was lower in participants who received the vaccine than in those who received a placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.56, risk difference (RD) 2%, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 50; GRADE: moderate quality evidence. The vaccinated group had a higher incidence of mild to moderate intensity adverse events. These date came from one large study that included 38,546 people aged 60 years or older.A study including 8122 participants compared the new vaccine (not yet available) to the placebo; the group that received the new vaccine had a lower incidence of herpes zoster at 3.2 years of follow-up: RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.10, RD 3%, NNTB 33; GRADE: moderate quality evidence. The vaccinated group had a higher incidence of adverse events but most them were of mild to moderate intensity.All studies received funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Herpes zoster vaccine is effective in preventing herpes zoster disease and this protection can last three years. In general, zoster vaccine is well tolerated; it produces few systemic adverse events and injection site adverse events of mild to moderate intensity.There are studies of a new vaccine (with a VZV glycoproteic fraction plus adjuvant), which is currently not yet available for clinical use.
Topics: Aged; Herpes Zoster; Herpes Zoster Vaccine; Humans; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 26937872
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008858.pub3