-
Vaccine Aug 2015The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts.
METHODS
A systematic review of peer reviewed (January 2007-October 2013) and grey literature (up to October 2013) was conducted using a broad search strategy, built to capture multiple dimensions of public trust, confidence and hesitancy concerning vaccines. This search strategy was applied and adapted across several databases and organizational websites. Descriptive analyses were undertaken for 166 (peer reviewed) and 15 (grey literature) evaluation studies. In addition, the quality of evidence relating to a series of PICO (population, intervention, comparison/control, outcomes) questions defined by the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy (WG) was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria; data were analyzed using Review Manager.
RESULTS
Across the literature, few strategies to address vaccine hesitancy were found to have been evaluated for impact on either vaccination uptake and/or changes in knowledge, awareness or attitude (only 14% of peer reviewed and 25% of grey literature). The majority of evaluation studies were based in the Americas and primarily focused on influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV) and childhood vaccines. In low- and middle-income regions, the focus was on diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and polio. Across all regions, most interventions were multi-component and the majority of strategies focused on raising knowledge and awareness. Thirteen relevant studies were used for the GRADE assessment that indicated evidence of moderate quality for the use of social mobilization, mass media, communication tool-based training for health-care workers, non-financial incentives and reminder/recall-based interventions. Overall, our results showed that multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions were most effective. However, given the complexity of vaccine hesitancy and the limited evidence available on how it can be addressed, identified strategies should be carefully tailored according to the target population, their reasons for hesitancy, and the specific context.
Topics: Communication; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health Personnel; Humans; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Patient Compliance; Treatment Refusal; Vaccination; Vaccines; World Health Organization
PubMed: 25896377
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040 -
Italian Journal of Pediatrics Jul 2023Robust routine immunization schedules for pertussis-containing vaccines have been applied for years, but pertussis outbreaks remain a worldwide problem. This study aimed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Robust routine immunization schedules for pertussis-containing vaccines have been applied for years, but pertussis outbreaks remain a worldwide problem. This study aimed to investigate the association between vaccine hesitancy and pertussis in infants and children.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and China National Knowledge Internet for studies published between January 2012 and June 2022. This study included case-control and cohort studies that assessed the association between childhood/maternal vaccine hesitancy and odds ratios (ORs), risk ratios (RRs), and vaccine effectiveness (VE) related to pertussis in infants and children [Formula: see text] 9 years old. ORs/VEs with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used for appropriate pooled estimates, and heterogeneity was assessed using [Formula: see text]. Cumulative meta-analysis and subgroup analyses stratified by study characteristics were performed.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were included, with a mean quality score of 7.0 (range 6.0-9.0). Infants and children with pertussis were associated with higher vaccine hesitancy to all doses (OR = 4.12 [95% CI: 3.09-5.50]). The highest OR was between children who were unvaccinated over four doses and children who were fully vaccinated (OR = 14.26 [95%CI: 7.62-26.70]); childhood vaccine delay was not statistically significantly associated with pertussis risk (OR = 1.18 [95% CI: 0.74-1.89]). Maternal vaccine hesitancy was associated with significantly higher pertussis risk in infants aged 2 and 3 months old, with higher pertussis ORs in infants [Formula: see text] 2 months old (OR = 6.02 [95%CI: 4.31-8.50], OR = 5.14 [95%CI: 1.95-13.52] for infants [Formula: see text] 2 and [Formula: see text] 3 months old, respectively). Maternal and childhood VEs were high in reducing pertussis infection in infants and children. The administration time of maternal vaccination had little effect on VE.
CONCLUSION
Vaccine hesitancy increased pertussis risks in infants and children. Ensuring that children receive up-to-date pertussis vaccines is essential; short delays in receiving childhood vaccinations may be unimportant. Maternal vaccinations for pertussis should be encouraged.
Topics: Child; Infant; Humans; Whooping Cough; Vaccination Hesitancy; Vaccination; Immunization Schedule; Vaccines
PubMed: 37443026
DOI: 10.1186/s13052-023-01495-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Adolescent vaccination has received increased attention since the Global Vaccine Action Plan's call to extend the benefits of immunisation more equitably beyond... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Adolescent vaccination has received increased attention since the Global Vaccine Action Plan's call to extend the benefits of immunisation more equitably beyond childhood. In recent years, many programmes have been launched to increase the uptake of different vaccines in adolescent populations; however, vaccination coverage among adolescents remains suboptimal. Therefore, understanding and evaluating the various interventions that can be used to improve adolescent vaccination is crucial.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of interventions to improve vaccine uptake among adolescents.
SEARCH METHODS
In October 2018, we searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and eight other databases. In addition, we searched two clinical trials platforms, electronic databases of grey literature, and reference lists of relevant articles. For related systematic reviews, we searched four databases. Furthermore, in May 2019, we performed a citation search of five other websites.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies of adolescents (girls or boys aged 10 to 19 years) eligible for World Health Organization-recommended vaccines and their parents or healthcare providers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened records, reviewed full-text articles to identify potentially eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by consensus. For each included study, we calculated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) where appropriate. We pooled study results using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies (eight individually randomised trials, four cluster randomised trials, three non-randomised trials, and one controlled before-after study). Twelve studies were conducted in the USA, while there was one study each from: Australia, Sweden, Tanzania, and the UK. Ten studies had unclear or high risk of bias. We categorised interventions as recipient-oriented, provider-oriented, or health systems-oriented. The interventions targeted adolescent boys or girls or both (seven studies), parents (four studies), and providers (two studies). Five studies had mixed participants that included adolescents and parents, adolescents and healthcare providers, and parents and healthcare providers. The outcomes included uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) (11 studies); hepatitis B (three studies); and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (Tdap), meningococcal, HPV, and influenza (three studies) vaccines among adolescents. Health education improves HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 1054 participants; high-certainty evidence). In addition, one large study provided evidence that a complex multi-component health education intervention probably results in little to no difference in hepatitis B vaccine uptake compared to simplified information leaflets on the vaccine (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99; 17,411 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Financial incentives may improve HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.99; 1 study, 500 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain whether combining health education and financial incentives has an effect on hepatitis B vaccine uptake, compared to usual practice (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.00; 1 study, 104 participants; very low certainty evidence). Mandatory vaccination probably leads to a large increase in hepatitis B vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 3.92, 95% CI 3.65 to 4.20; 1 study, 6462 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Provider prompts probably make little or no difference compared to usual practice, on completion of Tdap (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.80; 2 studies, 3296 participants), meningococcal (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.79; 2 studies, 3219 participants), HPV (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.81; 2 studies, 859 participants), and influenza (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.34; 2 studies, 1439 participants) vaccination schedules (moderate-certainty evidence). Provider education with performance feedback may increase the proportion of adolescents who are offered and accept HPV vaccination by clinicians, compared to usual practice. Compared to adolescents visiting non-participating clinicians (in the usual practice group), the adolescents visiting clinicians in the intervention group were more likely to receive the first dose of HPV during preventive visits (5.7 percentage points increase) and during acute visits (0.7 percentage points for the first and 5.6 percentage points for the second doses of HPV) (227 clinicians and more than 200,000 children; low-certainty evidence). A class-based school vaccination strategy probably leads to slightly higher HPV vaccine uptake than an age-based school vaccination strategy (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.13; 1 study, 5537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A multi-component provider intervention (including an education session, repeated contacts, individualised feedback, and incentives) probably improves uptake of HPV vaccine compared to usual practice (moderate-certainty evidence). A multi-component intervention targeting providers and parents involving social marketing and health education may improve HPV vaccine uptake compared to usual practice (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.59; 1 study, 25,869 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Various strategies have been evaluated to improve adolescent vaccination including health education, financial incentives, mandatory vaccination, and class-based school vaccine delivery. However, most of the evidence is of low to moderate certainty. This implies that while this research provides some indication of the likely effect of these interventions, the likelihood that the effects will be substantially different is high. Therefore, additional research is needed to further enhance adolescent immunisation strategies, especially in low- and middle-income countries where there are limited adolescent vaccination programmes. In addition, it is critical to understand the factors that influence hesitancy, acceptance, and demand for adolescent vaccination in different settings. This is the topic of an ongoing Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis, which may help to explain why and how some interventions were more effective than others in increasing adolescent HPV vaccination coverage.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Controlled Before-After Studies; Health Education; Health Personnel; Humans; Parents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vaccination
PubMed: 31978259
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011895.pub2 -
Vaccine Jan 2019Coverage levels for many recommended adult vaccinations are low. The cost-effectiveness research literature on adult vaccinations has not been synthesized in recent...
BACKGROUND
Coverage levels for many recommended adult vaccinations are low. The cost-effectiveness research literature on adult vaccinations has not been synthesized in recent years, which may contribute to low awareness of the value of adult vaccinations and to their under-utilization. We assessed research literature since 1980 to summarize economic evidence for adult vaccinations included on the adult immunization schedule.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, EconLit, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to 2016 and identified economic evaluation or cost-effectiveness analysis for vaccinations targeting persons aged ≥18 years in the U.S. or Canada. After excluding records based on title and abstract reviews, the remaining publications had a full-text review from two independent reviewers, who extracted economic values that compared vaccination to "no vaccination" scenarios.
RESULTS
The systematic searches yielded 1688 publications. After removing duplicates, off-topic publications, and publications without a "no vaccination" comparison, 78 publications were included in the final analysis (influenza = 25, pneumococcal = 18, human papillomavirus = 9, herpes zoster = 7, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis = 9, hepatitis B = 9, and multiple vaccines = 1). Among outcomes assessing age-based vaccinations, the percent indicating cost-savings was 56% for influenza, 31% for pneumococcal, and 23% for tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccinations. Among age-based vaccination outcomes reporting $/QALY, the percent of outcomes indicating a cost per QALY of ≤$100,000 was 100% for influenza, 100% for pneumococcal, 69% for human papillomavirus, 71% for herpes zoster, and 50% for tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccinations.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of published studies report favorable cost-effectiveness profiles for adult vaccinations, which supports efforts to improve the implementation of adult vaccination recommendations.
Topics: Adult; Age Factors; Canada; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diphtheria; Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine; Hepatitis B; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Pneumococcal Vaccines; Pneumonia, Pneumococcal; Tetanus; United States; Vaccination
PubMed: 30527660
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.11.056 -
Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic... 2016Recent studies indicate an increased incidence of pertussis disease in recent years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the acellular vaccine for...
Recent studies indicate an increased incidence of pertussis disease in recent years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the acellular vaccine for children (as a replacement of current whole cell vaccine in the Expanded Program on Immunization) and for high-risk adults in Iran through updating current best available evidence. We performed a systematic literature review in relevant databases we focused on previously published systematic reviews to select those that address our questions. The AMSTAR (assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) tool was used for screening available reviews. Then search in databases was done until Feb 2014 to update the evidence. We pooled results using meta-analysis methods by Stata statistical package. Eleven systematic review articles were included in the initial evaluation. In the end, two systematic reviews on acellular vaccine booster doses and the acellular vaccine in children were selected as the baseline evidence. In the update phase, new clinical trials were screened, and the results were updated. Overall pooled estimate of relative efficacy of acellular to whole cell was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.55-0.81) for children immunization Pooled estimates for the efficacy of acellular versus placebo were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.60-0.80). Overall pooled estimate of efficacy of booster dose of acellular was 0.87(95% CI, 0.85-0.88) compared to placebo. In addition pooled estimate of acellular vaccine efficacy based on response to antigen was 0.78(95% CI, 0.64-0.93) in highrisk group. The results show higher performance and safety of the acellular vaccine in the prevention of pertussis in children versus the whole cell vaccine. Moreover, the efficacy of the acellular vaccine in high-risk adult groups is acceptable. This study provides evidence in favor of the introduction of an acellular vaccine to the national program of immunization. Studies on cost effectiveness and aspects of policy analysis are recommended.
PubMed: 28491826
DOI: No ID Found -
Vaccine Sep 2023Countries routinely offering acellular pertussis vaccine, where long-term protection is not sustained, have the challenge of selecting an optimal schedule to minimise... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Countries routinely offering acellular pertussis vaccine, where long-term protection is not sustained, have the challenge of selecting an optimal schedule to minimise disease among young infants. We conducted a narrative systematic review and synthesis of information to evaluate different pertussis immunisation strategies at controlling pertussis disease, hospitalisation, deaths, and vaccine effectiveness among young infants.
METHODS
We conducted a review of the literature on studies about the primary, booster, and/or maternal vaccination series and synthesised findings narratively. Countries offering the first three doses of vaccine within six-months of life and a booster on or before the second year or life were defined as accelerated primary and booster schedules, respectively. Countries offering primary and booster doses later were defined as extended primary and booster schedules. All search results were screened, and articles reviewed and reconciled, by two authors. The Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Intervention tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias.
FINDINGS
A total of 98 studies were included in the analyses and the following recurring themes were described: timing of vaccination, vaccine coverage, waning immunity/vaccine effectiveness, direct and indirect effectiveness, switching from an accelerated to extended schedule, impact of changes in testing. The risk of bias was generally low to moderate for most studies.
CONCLUSION
Comparing schedules is challenging and there was insufficient evidence to that one schedule was superior to another. Countries must select a schedule that maintains high vaccine coverage and reduced the risk of delaying the delivery vaccines to protect infants.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Whooping Cough; Vaccination; Evidence Gaps; Family; Hospitalization
PubMed: 37658001
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.08.073 -
Immunological and Clinical Benefits of Maternal Immunization Against Pertussis: A Systematic Review.Infectious Diseases and Therapy Dec 2019Infants are vulnerable to pertussis infection particularly before initiation of pertussis vaccination. Maternal pertussis vaccination during pregnancy has been... (Review)
Review
Infants are vulnerable to pertussis infection particularly before initiation of pertussis vaccination. Maternal pertussis vaccination during pregnancy has been introduced in a number of countries in order to confer on young infants indirect protection from the disease through transplacental transfer of maternal antibodies. We reviewed the evidence on the immunogenicity and efficacy of maternal pertussis vaccination during pregnancy. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ProQuest, and Science Direct was undertaken to identify studies published between January 1995 and December 2018. This review was not specific to any particular pertussis vaccine but included applicable data on available pertussis vaccines administered to pregnant women. The search identified 40 publications for inclusion in this review. Vaccination during pregnancy elicited robust maternal immune responses against all vaccine antigens and resulted in high placental transfer of pertussis antibodies to the infant that persisted well beyond delivery. Vaccination during the second or early third trimesters was considered ideal for antibody quantity and functionality. Although blunting of immune responses to some antigens in the primary immunization series was documented in neonates born to women vaccinated during pregnancy, there was no apparent adverse effect on vaccine efficacy. Multiple studies conducted in diverse settings have confirmed the effectiveness of maternal pertussis vaccination during pregnancy in preventing pertussis in infants prior to receipt of their first primary vaccine dose and beyond. These findings collectively underscore the value of maternal pertussis vaccination during pregnancy in protecting vulnerable infants too young to be vaccinated.Funding Sanofi Pasteur.Plain Language Summary Plain language summary available for this article.
PubMed: 31535327
DOI: 10.1007/s40121-019-00264-7 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... May 2016Acellular pertussis (aP) and whole-cell (wP) pertussis vaccines are presumed to have similar short-term (<3 years after completion of the primary series) efficacy.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acellular pertussis (aP) and whole-cell (wP) pertussis vaccines are presumed to have similar short-term (<3 years after completion of the primary series) efficacy. However, vaccine effect varies between individual pertussis vaccine formulations, and many originally studied formulations are now unavailable. An updated analysis of the short-term protective effect of pertussis vaccines limited to formulations currently on the market in developed countries is needed.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that evaluated pertussis vaccine efficacy or effectiveness within 3 years after completion (>3 doses) of a primary series of a currently available aP or wP vaccine formulation. The primary outcome was based on the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical case definitions for pertussis. Study quality was assessed using the approach developed by the Child Health Epidemiology Research Group. We determined overall effect sizes using random-effects meta-analyses, stratified by vaccine (aP or wP) and study (efficacy or effectiveness) type.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis of 2 aP vaccine efficacy studies (assessing the 3-component GlaxoSmithKline and 5-component Sanofi-Pasteur formulations) yielded an overall aP vaccine efficacy of 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81%-87%). Meta-analysis of 3 wP vaccine effectiveness studies (assessing the Behringwerke, Pasteur/Mérieux, and SmithKline Beecham formulations) yielded an overall wP vaccine effectiveness of 94% (95% CI, 88%-97%) (bothI(2)= 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
Although all contemporary aP and wP formulations protect against pertussis disease, in this meta-analysis the point estimate for short-term protective effect against WHO-defined pertussis in young children was lower for currently available aP vaccines than wP vaccines.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Pertussis Vaccine; Treatment Outcome; Whooping Cough
PubMed: 26908803
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciw051 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International May 2020Adequate immunity to so-called childhood diseases can lower the occupational risk of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases in persons who work in day-care centers for...
BACKGROUND
Adequate immunity to so-called childhood diseases can lower the occupational risk of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases in persons who work in day-care centers for children.
METHODS
A systematic literature survey was carried out in PubMed and Embase for the period January 2000 to February 2019. Studies on immune status and vaccination status were included. In addition, data from the first wave of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland, DEGS1) and surveillance data on notifiable infections in Germany were evaluated.
RESULTS
Six studies and the DEGS1 analysis of vaccination or immune status for varicella zoster, rubella, hepatitis A (HAV), pertussis, measles, and mumps in persons caring for children in day-care centers, most of whom are women, were included in this review. According to DEGS1, childcare workers are more commonly vaccinated against HAV and pertussis than the general female population (prevalence ratios [PR]: 1.46 [1.12; 1.90] and 1.57 [1.05; 2.36]), yet 57% had not been vaccinated against HAV and 77% had not been vaccinated against pertussis. Childcare workers were found to be less commonly vaccinated against rubella than the general female population, although the difference was not statistically significant (PR: 0.87 [0.71; 1.07]). In a Canadian study, positive HAV serology was found to be correlated with the duration of activity as a childcare worker. In the DEGS1 study, large proportions of the younger childcare workers in particular were seronegative against measles (16%), mumps (19%), and HAV (37%). Notifiable disease statistics show that those working in community facilities had a markedly higher risk of mumps, pertussis, and varicella (relative risk [RR]: 1.8-2.6) and a somewhat higher risk of rubella and HAV (RR: 1.47 and 1.21, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Childcare workers have a higher occupational risk of infection but do not always receive the appropriate vaccinations. In particular, women of child-bearing age working in day-care centers should be made more aware of the need for vaccination.
Topics: Child; Child Care; Germany; Humans; Occupational Diseases; Vaccine-Preventable Diseases
PubMed: 32843135
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0365 -
Vaccines Mar 2022Background: Vaccination is considered the most effective and economical measure for controlling infectious diseases. Although combination vaccines are widely used... (Review)
Review
Background: Vaccination is considered the most effective and economical measure for controlling infectious diseases. Although combination vaccines are widely used worldwide, whether any of the combination vaccines is superior to each separate vaccine has yet to be established. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of combination vaccines in children. Methods: A systematic search was conducted from database inception to August 20, 2021, in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus. Published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and open-label trials of immunogenicity and safety of combined vaccines were selected. The results of the studies were quantitatively synthesized. Results: Overall, 25 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicated that the combined diptheria−tetanus−acellular pertussis (DTaP)−hepatitis B virus (HBV)−Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) vaccine group had lower levels of anti-tetanus antibodies than the combined DTaP−HBV and separate Hib vaccinations group (SMD = −0.23; 95% CI: −0.42, −0.05; p = 0.013). Meanwhile, the combined DTaP−HBV−inactivated polio virus (IPV)−Hib vaccine group had higher levels of anti-pertussis (PT) and anti-filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antibodies than the combined DTaP−IPV−Hib and separate HBV vaccinations group (anti-PT: SMD = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.75; p < 0.0001; anti-FHA: SMD = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.78; p = 0.042). The levels of anti-pertactin (PRN) antibodies were lower in the combined DTaP−IPV−Hib vaccine group than in the combined DTaP−IPV and separate Hib vaccinations group (SMD = −0.13; 95% CI: −0.27, −0.00; p = 0.047). The individuals injected with the DTaP−HBV−IPV−Hib vaccine had a lower risk of pain and swelling than those injected with the combined DTaP−HBV−IPV and separate Hib vaccines (pain: RR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.91; p = 0.001; swelling: RR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.98; p = 0.020). However, the group that received the DTaP−HBV−IPV−Hib vaccine had a higher risk of fever than the group that received DTaP−HBV−IPV and separate Hib vaccinations (RR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.26; p = 0.021). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that the combined vaccines (DTaP−IPV−Hib, DTaP−HBV−Hib, DTaP−HBV−IPV−Hib) are safe, well-tolerated, and provide immunogenic alternatives to separate vaccines in children. The combined DTaP−HBV−IPV−Hib vaccine showed a higher incidence of fever, which was lower than the cumulative incidence of fever induced by all vaccines. Future studies should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using combined vaccines and compare the potency of different formulations to improve routine local or national childhood immunization programs.
PubMed: 35335107
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10030472