-
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Feb 2017Asplenic or hyposplenic (AH) individuals are particularly vulnerable to invasive infections caused by encapsulated bacteria. Such infections have often a sudden onset... (Review)
Review
Asplenic or hyposplenic (AH) individuals are particularly vulnerable to invasive infections caused by encapsulated bacteria. Such infections have often a sudden onset and a fulminant course. Infectious diseases (IDs) incidence in AH subjects can be reduced by preventive measures such as vaccination. The aim of our work is to provide updated recommendations on prevention of infectious diseases in AH adult patients, and to supply a useful and practical tool to healthcare workers for the management of these subjects, in hospital setting and in outpatients consultation. A systematic literature review on evidence based measures for the prevention of IDs in adult AH patients was performed in 2015. Updated recommendations on available vaccines were consequently provided. Vaccinations against S. pneumoniae, N. meningitidis, H. influenzae type b and influenza virus are strongly recommended and should be administered at least 2 weeks before surgery in elective cases or at least 2 weeks after the surgical intervention in emergency cases. In subjects without evidence of immunity, 2 doses of live attenuated vaccines against measles-mumps-rubella and varicella should be administered 4-8 weeks apart from each other; a booster dose of tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis vaccine should be administered also to subjects fully vaccinated, and a 3-dose primary vaccination series is recommended in AH subjects with unknown or incomplete vaccination series (as in healthy people). Evidence based prevention data support the above recommendations to reduce the risk of infection in AH individuals.
Topics: Adult; Disease Transmission, Infectious; Humans; Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes; Orthomyxoviridae; Splenic Diseases; Vaccination; Vaccines
PubMed: 27929751
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2017.1264797 -
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and... 2024Measles became a public health important disease in sub-Saharan Africa. World Health Organization recommended measles-containing vaccine dose 2 (MCV2) through routine... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Measles became a public health important disease in sub-Saharan Africa. World Health Organization recommended measles-containing vaccine dose 2 (MCV2) through routine service delivery. This study aims to determine coverage of second-dose measles vaccination uptake and its predictors among children aged 24-35 months in sub-Saharan Africa.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
We conducted an extensive search of literature as indicated in the guideline of reporting systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA). The databases used were PubMed, Google Scholar, and HINARI literature.
RESULTS
The overall uptake of the second dose of measles vaccine uptake was 41% (95% CI: 28.90-53.47). Caregiver's awareness of the importance of the second dose of measles (2.51, 95% CI 1.77, 3.25), educational status of mothers (1.30, 95% CI 1.16, 1.45), distance from vaccination site (1.22, 95% CI 1.12, 1.32), and attending four and above ANC visit (2.72, 95% CI 2.29, 3.15) were determinants for second dose measles vaccine uptake.
CONCLUSION
Coverage of the second dose of measles uptake in Sub-Saharan Africa was low (41%) which is lower than the recommendation from WHO. Therefore policymakers and stakeholders should increase mother's awareness. Also, special strategies should be developed for those who are far from the vaccination site.
ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS
ANC: Ante Natal Care; JBI: Joanna Briggs Institute; MCV1: Measles containing vaccine dose 1; MCV2: Measles containing vaccine dose 2; WHO: World Health Organization.
PubMed: 38205190
DOI: 10.1080/20523211.2023.2285507 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Feb 2021Despite the universal use of the two-dose trivalent measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in the past two decades, outbreaks of these diseases still occur in countries... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the universal use of the two-dose trivalent measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in the past two decades, outbreaks of these diseases still occur in countries with high vaccine uptake, giving rise to concerns about primary and secondary failure of MMR vaccine components. We aimed to provide seroconversion and waning rate estimates for the measles, mumps, and rubella components of MMR vaccines.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched PubMed (including MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Embase for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, or longitudinal studies reporting the immunogenicity and persistence of MMR vaccines, published in English from database inception to Dec 31, 2019. Studies were included if they investigated vaccine-induced immunity in healthy individuals who received a trivalent MMR vaccine, including different dosages and timepoints of vaccine administration. Studies featuring coadministration of MMR with other vaccines, maternal immunity to the MMR vaccine, or non-trivalent formulations of the vaccine were excluded. Pooled seroconversion and waning rates were estimated by random-effects meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019116705.
FINDINGS
We identified 3615 unique studies, 62 (1·7%) of which were eligible for analysis. Estimated overall seroconversion rates were 96·0% (95% CI 94·5-97·4; I=91·1%) for measles, 93·3% (91·1-95·2; I=94·9%) for mumps when excluding the Rubini strain, 91·1% (87·4-94·1; I=96·6%) for mumps when including the Rubini strain, and 98·3% (97·3-99·2; I=93·0%) for rubella. Estimated overall annual waning rates were 0·009 (95% CI 0·005-0·016; I=85·2%) for measles, 0·024 (0·016-0·039; I=94·7%) for mumps, and 0·012 (0·010-0·014; I=93·3%) for rubella.
INTERPRETATION
Our meta-analysis provides estimates of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which are essential to improve the accuracy of mathematical and statistical modelling to understand and predict the occurrence of future measles, mumps, and rubella outbreaks in countries with high vaccine uptake.
FUNDING
European Research Council.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Rubella
PubMed: 32888410
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30442-4 -
Vaccine Oct 2017The risk of post-vaccination adverse events (AEs) is a primary public health concern. Among the AEs, pain is a significant source of anxiety for both children and their... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The risk of post-vaccination adverse events (AEs) is a primary public health concern. Among the AEs, pain is a significant source of anxiety for both children and their parents. This review describes and assesses the intensity of pain experienced by children post-vaccination with widely used Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccines.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane to identify publications describing immediate pain at injection site (primary objective) or pain within days (secondary objective) after 2 specific MMR vaccines. Immediate pain ('acute pain' according to the Brighton Collaboration case definition) was defined as pain occurring at the time or within 5min of injection.
RESULTS
Four studies, which compared the intensity of immediate injection site pain experienced by children after MMR vaccination, were identified. Various pain assessment tools and methods were used to quantify the intensity of pain, including the median difference in Visual Analog Scale scores between vaccine groups. All four studies showed significantly less immediate pain caused by Priorix (GSK Vaccines) compared with M-M-R II (Merck & Co., Inc.).
CONCLUSIONS
To our knowledge, this review summarizes for the first time the available scientific evidence on the intensity of pain following different MMR vaccines. It highlights that MMR vaccines can differ in terms of immediate pain. Further research may be needed to better understand the underlying reason for this observation. In this context, it is very important to understand which physicochemical properties are most relevant for the immediate pain profile of a vaccine to thereby support the development of vaccines with the best possible immediate pain profile.
Topics: Humans; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Pain; Vaccination; Vaccines, Combined
PubMed: 28893478
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.08.068 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Nov 2019Vaccinating infants with a first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) before 9 months of age in high-risk settings has the potential to reduce measles-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vaccinating infants with a first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) before 9 months of age in high-risk settings has the potential to reduce measles-related morbidity and mortality. However, there is concern that early vaccination might blunt the immune response to subsequent measles vaccine doses. We systematically reviewed the available evidence on the effect of MCV1 administration to infants younger than 9 months on their immune responses to subsequent MCV doses.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, outbreak investigations, and cohort and case-control studies without restriction on publication dates, in which MCV1 was administered to infants younger than 9 months. We did the literature search on June 2, 2015, and updated it on Jan 14, 2019. We included studies reporting data on strength or duration of humoral and cellular immune responses, and on vaccine efficacy or vaccine effectiveness after two-dose or three-dose MCV schedules. Our outcome measures were proportion of seropositive infants, geometric mean titre, vaccine efficacy, vaccine effectiveness, antibody avidity index, and T-cell stimulation index. We used random-effects meta-analysis to derive pooled estimates of the outcomes, where appropriate. We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.
FINDINGS
Our search retrieved 1156 records and 85 were excluded due to duplication. 1071 records were screened for eligibility, of which 351 were eligible for full-text screening and 21 were eligible for inclusion in the review. From 13 studies, the pooled proportion of infants seropositive after two MCV doses, with MCV1 administered before 9 months of age, was 98% (95% CI 96-99; I=79·8%, p<0·0001), which was not significantly different from seropositivity after a two-dose MCV schedule starting later (p=0·087). Only one of four studies found geometric mean titres after MCV2 administration to be significantly lower when MCV1 was administered before 9 months of age than at 9 months of age or later. There was insufficient evidence to determine an effect of age at MCV1 administration on antibody avidity. The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimate derived from two studies of a two-dose MCV schedule with MCV1 vaccination before 9 months of age was 95% (95% CI 89-100; I=12·6%, p=0·29). Seven studies reporting on measles virus-specific cellular immune responses found that T-cell responses and T-cell memory were sustained, irrespective of the age of MCV1 administration. Overall, the quality of evidence was moderate to very low.
INTERPRETATION
Our findings suggest that administering MCV1 to infants younger than 9 months followed by additional MCV doses results in high seropositivity, vaccine effectiveness, and T-cell responses, which are independent of the age at MCV1, supporting the vaccination of very young infants in high-risk settings. However, we also found some evidence that MCV1 administered to infants younger than 9 months resulted in lower antibody titres after one or two subsequent doses of MCV than when measles vaccination is started at age 9 months or older. The clinical and public-health relevance of this immunity blunting effect are uncertain.
FUNDING
WHO.
Topics: Age Factors; Antibodies, Viral; Female; Humans; Immunity, Cellular; Immunity, Humoral; Immunization Schedule; Infant; Male; Measles; Measles Vaccine; Measles virus; T-Lymphocytes; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31548081
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30396-2 -
Cureus Jul 2019Although measles was eradicated in the United States in 2000, there has been an increasing number of cases. As of April 4, 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and... (Review)
Review
Although measles was eradicated in the United States in 2000, there has been an increasing number of cases. As of April 4, 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 465 cases of measles as compared to 372 in 2018. Pockets of unvaccinated communities and travelers bringing measles from countries with large outbreaks are attributed to the rise in cases in the United States. With the increasing anti-vaccine sentiment, it's imperative to take preventative measures to avoid the proliferation of deadly diseases. The objective of this study was to determine effective techniques to decrease vaccine refusal and increase the childhood vaccination rate. To this effect, a systematic review of English peer-reviewed articles published in the years 2000 to 2019 using Arizona State University's online database was conducted. The titles, abstracts, and discussions for each journal article were screened for methods that promote vaccination. Any articles that included vaccine development, promoting vaccination coverage rate in developing countries, pregnant women, healthcare workers, and animals, and promoting the uptake of vaccines that aren't part of CDC's seven-vaccine series were excluded. A total of nine journal articles were identified, including five systematic reviews, one case study, a randomized controlled trial, a literature review, and a quasi-experimental study. The methods discovered pertained to three themes: technological, mass marketing or campaigning, and direct communication. The Guide to Tailored Immunization Programme (TIP) in conjunction with visually enhanced educational materials and storytelling articles were found to be effective tools in encouraging vaccination coverage. The basis of any strategy is determining the perspective and needs of the target population and tailoring the approaches to match them to alleviate barriers that hinder vaccination uptake. The use of technology perpetuates the efficacy of social marketing strategies, further promoting vaccines and their benefits.
PubMed: 31516778
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.5067 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Jul 2016Low measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) immunization levels in European children highlight the importance of identifying determinants of parental vaccine uptake to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Low measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) immunization levels in European children highlight the importance of identifying determinants of parental vaccine uptake to implement policies for increasing vaccine compliance. The aim of this paper is to identify the main factors associated with partial and full MMR vaccination uptake in European parents, and combine the different studies to obtain overall quantitative measures. This activity is included within the ESCULAPIO project, funded by the Italian Ministry of Health. ORs and CIs were extracted, sources of heterogeneity explored and publication bias assessed. Forty-five papers were retrieved for the qualitative study, 26 of which were included in the meta-analysis. The following factors were associated with lower MMR vaccine uptake: misleading knowledge, beliefs and perceptions on vaccines (OR 0.57, CI 0.37-0.87); negative attitudes and behaviors toward vaccination (OR 0.71, CI 0.52-0.98); demographic characteristics, such as different ethnicity in Southern populations (OR 0.44, CI 0.31-0.61), higher child's age (OR 0.80, CI 0.76-0.85); low socio-economic status (OR 0.64, CI 0.51-0.80), especially low income (OR 0.39, CI 0.25-0.60) and education (OR 0.64, CI 0.48-0.84), high number of children (OR 0.54, CI 0.42-0.69), irregular marital status (OR 0.80, CI 0.66-0.96). The factors explaining heterogeneity were country location, administration modality, collection setting and responses reported on MMR alone or in combination. Findings from this study suggest policy makers to focus communication strategies on providing better knowledge, correct beliefs and perceptions on vaccines, and improving attitudes and behaviors in parents; and to target policies to people of ethnic minority from Southern Europe, low educated and deprived, with higher number of children and non-married marital status.
Topics: Europe; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Parents; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Rubella; Vaccination
PubMed: 27163657
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2016.1151990 -
Dermatology Online Journal Mar 2020New treatment options for warts include intralesional wart injection with agents such as vitamin D, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine antigen, Bacillus...
BACKGROUND
New treatment options for warts include intralesional wart injection with agents such as vitamin D, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine antigen, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) antigen, and candida antigen but there have been limited studies to compare their efficacies.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of injectable agents used for the treatment of warts.
METHODS
A PubMed search included terms "intralesional wart therapy," "wart injection" and "verruca injection." Articles reviewed were published over 10 years.
RESULTS
A total of 43 articles were reviewed; 30 covered studies with more than 10 participants and 13 were case reports, case series, and reviews. In comparison studies intralesional agents have equal or superior efficacy (66%-94.9%) compared to first-line salicylic acid or cryotherapy (65.5-76.5%). One advantage of intralesional injections is the rate of complete resolution of distant warts.
LIMITATIONS
Each study varied in their agents, treatment interval, and treatment dose, making comparisons difficult.
CONCLUSIONS
Intralesional wart injections are safe, affordable, and efficacious treatments for warts. Physicians should consider intralesional injections for patients with refractory warts, multiple warts, or warts in sensitive areas.
Topics: Aminolevulinic Acid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antiviral Agents; BCG Vaccine; Bacterial Vaccines; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Interferon-alpha; Mycobacterium; Tuberculin; Vitamin D; Warts
PubMed: 32609439
DOI: No ID Found -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 2014A number of Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccines have been used for preventing Japanese encephalitis around the world. We here reviewed the immunogenicity and safety of... (Review)
Review
A number of Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccines have been used for preventing Japanese encephalitis around the world. We here reviewed the immunogenicity and safety of the currently available Japanese encephalitis vaccines. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and other online databases up to March 25, 2014 for studies focusing on currently used JE vaccines in any language. The primary outcomes were the seroconversion rate against JEV and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome when available. A total of 51 articles were included. Studies were grouped on the basic types of vaccines. This systematic review led to 2 aspects of the conclusions. On one hand, all the currently available JE vaccines are safe and effective. On the other hand, the overall of JE vaccine evaluation is disorganized, the large variation in study designs, vaccine types, schedules, doses, population and few hand-to-hand trails, make direct comparisons difficult. In order to make a more evidence-based decision on optimizing the JE vaccine, it is warranted to standardize the JE vaccine evaluation research.
Topics: Animals; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Japanese Encephalitis Vaccines; Vaccination
PubMed: 25668666
DOI: 10.4161/21645515.2014.980197 -
International Journal of Epidemiology Apr 2010The current strategy utilized by WHO/United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) to reach the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy 2010 measles reduction goal includes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The current strategy utilized by WHO/United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) to reach the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy 2010 measles reduction goal includes increasing coverage of measles vaccine, vitamin A treatment and supplementation in addition to offering two doses of vaccine to all children.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental (QE) studies in order to determine effect estimates of measles vaccine and vitamin A treatment for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). We utilized a standardized abstraction and grading format in order to determine effect estimates for measles mortality employing the standard Child Health Epidemiology Research Group Rules for Evidence Review.
RESULTS
We identified three measles vaccine RCTs and two QE studies with data on prevention of measles disease. A meta-analysis of these studies found that vaccination was 85% [95% confidence interval (CI) 83-87] effective in preventing measles disease, which will be used as a proxy for measles mortality in LiST for countries vaccinating before one year of age. The literature also suggests that a conservative 95% effect estimate is reasonable to employ when vaccinating at 1 year or later and 98% for two doses of vaccine based on serology reviews. We included six high-quality RCTs in the meta-analysis of vitamin A treatment of measles which found no significant reduction in measles morality. However, when stratifying by vitamin A treatment dose, at least two doses were found to reduce measles mortality by 62% (95% CI 19-82).
CONCLUSION
Measles vaccine and vitamin A treatment are effective interventions to prevent measles mortality in children.
Topics: Age Factors; Child, Preschool; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Dose-Response Relationship, Immunologic; Female; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Infant; Male; Measles; Measles Vaccine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin A; Vitamin A Deficiency
PubMed: 20348126
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyq021