The efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of plague vaccines: A systematic literature review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10637890 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This study is aimed to review the published evidence on safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines when co-administered with meningococcal vaccines in infants. A systematic literature search was performed in four databases containing peer-reviewed articles and conference abstracts. In total, twelve articles were included in the review; 11 provided information on safety and five on the immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccines following co-administration. No paper was found on efficacy. Additional routine vaccines were administered in all studies. The safety analysis was mainly focused on fever, vomiting, diarrhea, intussusception, and changes in eating habits. Overall, safety profiles and immune responses associated with rotavirus vaccination were comparable between infants co-administered with rotavirus and meningococcal vaccines and infants receiving rotavirus vaccines without meningococcal vaccines. Although data are limited, co-administration of rotavirus and meningococcal vaccines does not appear to interfere with the safety or immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccines.
| S-EPMC7746238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/Objectives: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is widespread and mostly causes asymptomatic infections in immunocompetent hosts, but it may lead to severe and life-threatening diseases in immunocompromised individuals, such as transplant patients and congenitally infected children, representing a significant public health concern. Although there are no licensed CMV vaccines, the development of a CMV vaccine is considered a high priority due to its potential to reduce the burden associated with CMV-related complications, and several approaches are under investigation. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the evidence on various CMV vaccines currently under clinical development. Methods: According to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024516601), a comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify all the randomized controlled trials that have evaluated the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of vaccine candidates compared to a placebo. A total of 26 studies were identified: 11 on transplant patients and 15 on healthy individuals. Results: Several vaccine candidates have shown encouraging results in terms of safety and specific immune responses, notably adjuvanted gB vaccines and DNA vaccines targeting gB and pp65. The results were divided into RCTs on healthy individuals and those on transplant recipients, because the CMV-specific immune response to a vaccine is complex and varies depending not only on the type of vaccine, but also on the immunological status of the individual. Conclusions: Challenges remain in achieving broad efficacy across diverse populations, particularly for immunocompromised patients. Thus, the present work seeks to support future decisions and guide further research in the development of an effective and widely available CMV vaccine.
| S-EPMC11768780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To identify the safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in children and adolescents. We conducted a systematic review of published studies and ongoing clinical studies related to the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine in children or adolescents (aged < 18 years). Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched on 23 July 2021. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched to identify ongoing studies. Eight published studies with a total of 2852 children and adolescents and 28 ongoing clinical studies were included. Of the eight published studies, two were RCTs, two case series, and four case reports. The investigated COVID-19 vaccines had good safety profiles in children and adolescents. Injection site pain, fatigue, headache, and chest pain were the most common adverse events. A limited number of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported. The RCTs showed that the immune response to BNT162b2 in adolescents aged 12-15 years was non-inferior to that in young people aged 16-25 years, while with 3 μg CoronaVac injection the immune response was stronger than with 1.5 μg. The efficacy of BNT162b2 was 100% (95% CI: 75.3 to 100), based on one RCT. Of the 28 ongoing clinical studies, twenty-three were interventional studies. The interventional studies were being conducted in fifteen countries, among them, China (10, 43.5%) and United States(9, 39.1%) had the highest number of ongoing trials. BNT162b2 was the most commonly studied vaccine in the ongoing trials. Two COVID-19 vaccines have potential protective effects in children and adolescents, but awareness is needed to monitor possible adverse effects after injection. Clinical studies of the COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents with longer follow-up time, larger sample size, and a greater variety of vaccines are still urgently needed.
| S-EPMC8539812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Older adults are more susceptible to severe health outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Universal vaccination has become a trend, but there are still doubts and research gaps regarding the COVID-19 vaccination in the elderly. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older people aged ≥ 55 years and their influencing factors. Methods Randomized controlled trials from inception to April 9, 2022, were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We estimated summary relative risk (RR), rates, or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects meta-analysis. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314456). Results Of the 32 eligible studies, 9, 21, and 25 were analyzed for efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively. In older adults, vaccination was efficacious against COVID-19 (79.49%, 95% CI: 60.55−89.34), with excellent seroconversion rate (92.64%, 95% CI: 86.77−96.91) and geometric mean titer (GMT) (SMD 3.56, 95% CI: 2.80−4.31) of neutralizing antibodies, and provided a significant protection rate against severe disease (87.01%, 50.80−96.57). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses consistently found vaccine types and the number of doses to be primary influencing factors for efficacy and immunogenicity. Specifically, mRNA vaccines showed the best efficacy (90.72%, 95% CI: 86.82−93.46), consistent with its highest seroconversion rate (98.52%, 95% CI: 93.45−99.98) and GMT (SMD 6.20, 95% CI: 2.02−10.39). Compared to the control groups, vaccination significantly increased the incidence of total adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.59, 95% CI: 1.38−1.83), including most local and systemic AEs, such as pain, fever, chill, etc. For inactivated and DNA vaccines, the incidence of any AEs was similar between vaccination and control groups (p > 0.1), while mRNA vaccines had the highest risk of most AEs (RR range from 1.74 to 7.22). Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines showed acceptable efficacy, immunogenicity and safety in older people, especially providing a high protection rate against severe disease. The mRNA vaccine was the most efficacious, but it is worth surveillance for some AEs it caused. Increased booster coverage in older adults is warranted, and additional studies are urgently required for longer follow-up periods and variant strains.
| S-EPMC9513208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several vaccines against chikungunya fever have been developed and tested, and one has been recently licensed. We performed a meta-analysis to estimate the immunogenicity and safety of all chikungunya vaccines that have been progressed to clinical trial evaluation (VLA1553; mRNA-1388/VAL-181388; PXVX0317/VRC-CHKVLP059-00-VP; ChAdOx1 Chik; MV-CHIK). We included trials retrieved from MedLine, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The outcomes were the rates of seroconversion/seroresponse and serious adverse events (SAEs) after the primary immunization course. We retrieved a total of 14 datasets, including >4000 participants. All candidate chikungunya vaccines were able to elicit an immunogenic response in ≥96% of vaccinated subjects, regardless of the vaccination schedule and platform used, and the seroconversion/seroresponse rates remained high 6 to 12 months after vaccination for most vaccines. Four of the five candidate vaccines showed a good overall safety profile (no data were available for ChAdOx1 Chik), with no significant increase in the risk of SAEs among the vaccinated, and a low absolute risk of product-related SAEs. Overall, the present findings support the potential use of the candidate vaccines for the prevention of chikungunya and the current indication for use in adult travelers to endemic regions of the licensed VLA 1553 vaccine. In order to extend chikungunya vaccination to a wider audience, further studies are needed on individuals from endemic countries and frail populations.
| S-EPMC11436237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is garnering increasing attention, with a growing number of subunit RSV vaccines under active clinical investigation. However, comprehensive evidence is limited.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search across PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to 12 January 2024, focusing on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).ResultsA total of 17 studies were included, encompassing assessments of efficacy (5 studies), safety (17 studies), and immunogenicity (12 studies) of RSV subunit vaccines. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for RSV-associated acute respiratory infection (RSV-ARI) with subunit vaccines was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.23-0.43), for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection (RSV-LRTI), it was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.22-0.44), and for severe RSV-LRTI (RSV-SLRTI), it was 0.13 (95% CI: 0.06-0.29). There was no significant difference in serious adverse events (SAEs) between the vaccine and placebo groups, with a pooled RR of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.98-1.14). The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) for the geometric mean titer (GMT) of neutralizing antibodies was 2.89 (95% CI: 2.43-3.35).ConclusionSubunit RSV vaccines exhibit strong efficacy, favorable safety profiles, and robust immunogenicity. Future research should focus on the cost-effectiveness of various vaccines to enhance regional and national immunization strategies.
| S-EPMC11360664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccines have been demonstrated to protect against high-risk human papillomavirus infection (HPV), including HPV-16/18, and cervical lesions among HIV negative women. However, their efficacy remains uncertain for people living with HIV (PLHIV).We systematically reviewed available evidence on HPV vaccine on immunological, virological, or other biological outcomes in PLHIV.MethodsWe searched five electronic databases (PubMed, Medline and Embase, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO clinical trial database) for longitudinal prospective studies reporting immunogenicity, virological, cytological, histological, clinical or safety endpoints following prophylactic HPV vaccination among PLHIV. We included studies published by February 11th, 2021. We summarized results, assessed study quality, and conducted meta-analysis and subgroup analyses, where possible.FindingsWe identified 43 publications stemming from 18 independent studies (Ns =18), evaluating the quadrivalent (Ns =15), bivalent (Ns =4) and nonavalent (Ns =1) vaccines. A high proportion seroconverted for the HPV vaccine types. Pooled proportion seropositive by 28 weeks following 3 doses with the bivalent, quadrivalent, and nonavalent vaccines were 0.99 (95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.00, Ns =1), 0.99 (0.98-1.00, Ns =9), and 1.00 (0.99-1.00, Ns =1) for HPV-16 and 0.99 (0.96-1.00, Ns =1), 0.94 (0.91-0.96, Ns =9), and 1.00 (0.99-1.00, Ns =1) for HPV-18, respectively. Seropositivity remained high among people who received 3 doses despite some declines in antibody titers and lower seropositivity over time, especially for HPV-18, for the quadrivalent than the bivalent vaccine, and for HIV positive than negative individuals. Seropositivity for HPV-18 at 29-99 weeks among PLHIV was 0.72 (0.66-0.79, Ns =8) and 0.96 (0.92-0.99, Ns =2) after 3 doses of the quadrivalent and bivalent vaccine, respectively and 0.94 (0.90-0.98, Ns =3) among HIV-negative historical controls. Evidence suggests that the seropositivity after vaccination declines over time but it can lasts at least 2-4 years. The vaccines were deemed safe among PLHIV with few serious adverse events. Evidence of HPV vaccine efficacy against acquisition of HPV infection and/or associated disease from the eight trials available was inconclusive due to the low quality.InterpretationPLHIV have a robust and safe immune response to HPV vaccination. Antibody titers and seropositivity rates decline over time but remain high. The lack of a formal correlate of protection and efficacy results preclude definitive conclusions on the clinical benefits. Nevertheless, given the burden of HPV disease in PLHIV, although the protection may be shorter or less robust against HPV-18, the robust immune response suggests that PLHIV may benefit from receiving HPV vaccination after acquiring HIV. Better quality studies are needed to demonstrate the clinical efficacy among PLHIV.FundingWorld Health Organization. MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, UK Medical Research Council (MRC).
| S-EPMC9350866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs the epidemic progresses, universal vaccination against COVID-19 has been the trend, but there are still some doubts about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in adolescents, children, and even infants.PurposeTo evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in the population aged 0-17 years.MethodA comprehensive search for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 9, 2021. All data were pooled by RevMan 5.3 statistical software, with risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval as the effect measure. This study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021290205).ResultsThere was a total of six randomized controlled trials included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, enrolling participants in the age range of 3-17 years, and containing three types of COVID-19 vaccines. Compared with mRNA vaccines and adenovirus vector vaccines, inactivated vaccines have a more satisfactory safety profile, both after initial (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.90, P = 0.03) and booster (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.20-2.81, P = 0.005) vaccination. The risk of adverse reactions was significantly increased after the first and second doses, but there was no significant difference between the first two doses (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.99-1.02, P = 0.60). Nevertheless, the two-dose regimen is obviously superior to the single-dose schedule for immunogenicity and efficacy. After booster vaccination, both neutralizing antibodies (RR 144.80, 95%CI 44.97-466.24, P < 0.00001) and RBD-binding antibodies (RR 101.50, 95%CI 6.44-1,600.76, P = 0.001) reach optimal levels, but the cellular immune response seemed not to be further enhanced. In addition, compared with younger children, older children and adolescents were at significantly increased risk of adverse reactions after vaccination, with either mRNA or inactivated vaccines, accompanied by a stronger immune response.ConclusionThe available evidence suggests that the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines are acceptable in people aged 3-17 years. However, there is an urgent need for additional multicenter, large-sample studies, especially in younger children under 3 years of age and even in infants, with long-term follow-up data.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021290205, identifier: CRD42021290205.
| S-EPMC9046659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with autoimmune diseases are among the susceptible groups to COVID-19 infection because of the complexity of their conditions and the side effects of the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat them. They might show impaired immunogenicity to COVID-19 vaccines and have a higher risk of developing COVID-19. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis, this research sought to summarize the evidence on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety in patients with autoimmune diseases following predefined eligibility criteria. Research articles were obtained from an initial search up to 26 September 2022 from PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, MedRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, EuroPMC, and the Cochrane Center of Randomized Controlled Trials (CCRCT). Of 76 eligible studies obtained, 29, 54, and 38 studies were included in systematic reviews of efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively, and 6, 18, and 4 studies were included in meta-analyses for efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively. From the meta-analyses, patients with autoimmune diseases showed more frequent breakthrough COVID-19 infections and lower total antibody (TAb) titers, IgG seroconversion, and neutralizing antibodies after inactivated COVID-19 vaccination compared with healthy controls. They also had more local and systemic adverse events after the first dose of inactivated vaccination compared with healthy controls. After COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, patients with autoimmune diseases had lower TAb titers and IgG seroconversion compared with healthy controls.
| S-EPMC10535431 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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. 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. 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). 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.
| S-EPMC8954135 | biostudies-literature