Immunogenicity, safety, and effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dos Santos G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6149986 | biostudies-literature | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Immunogenicity, safety, and effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review.
Dos Santos Gael G Tahrat Halima H Bekkat-Berkani Rafik R
Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics 20180409 8
Influenza is associated with an increased risk of complications, especially in diabetic mellitus patients who are more susceptible to influenza infection. Despite recommendations of the WHO and public health authorities, vaccination uptake in this population remains suboptimal. This systematic review identified 15 studies published between January 2000-March 2017 in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library, which provided data on immunogenicity, safety, effectiveness, and/or cost-effectiveness of sea ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundEvidence suggests that repeated influenza vaccination may reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE). Using influenza vaccination program maturation (PM; number of years since program inception) as a proxy for population-level repeated vaccination, we assessed the impact on pooled adjusted end-season VE estimates from outpatient test-negative design studies.MethodsWe systematically searched and selected full-text publications from January 2011 to February 2020 (PROSPERO: CRD42017064595). We obtained influenza vaccination program inception year for each country and calculated PM as the difference between the year of deployment and year of program inception. We categorized PM into halves (cut at the median), tertiles, and quartiles and calculated pooled VE using an inverse-variance random-effects model. The primary outcome was pooled VE against all influenza.ResultsWe included 72 articles from 11 931 citations. Across the 3 categorizations of PM, a lower pooled VE against all influenza for all patients was observed with PM. Substantially higher reductions were observed in older adults (≥65 years). We observed similar results for A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2), and influenza B.ConclusionsThe evidence suggests that influenza VE declines with vaccination PM. This study forms the basis for further discussions and examinations of the potential impact of vaccination PM on seasonal VE.
| S-EPMC7953658 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Seasonal influenza is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Despite annual recommendations, influenza vaccination uptake rates are disproportionately lower among nurses compared to other health care professionals, especially when compared to physicians. Nurses have an additional risk of exposure to influenza infection due to the nature of their work. To determine the effectiveness of interventions in increasing seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among nurses. Evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to improve seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among nurses was systematically reviewed. A comprehensive search of six electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken. A minimum of two reviewers completed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment independently. One hundred and thirty-four studies were identified of which one cluster randomised trial met the inclusion criteria. The results of the included study found the implementation of an intervention with multiple components increased nurses' seasonal influenza vaccination rates during a single influenza season in geriatric healthcare settings in France. As the evidence in this review was very limited, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding which interventions were effective at increasing the seasonal influenza vaccination rate for nurses. This systematic review highlights a lack of high-quality studies that assessed interventions to improve the seasonal influenza vaccination of nurses. In view of the likelihood of influenza and the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic occurring together, it is imperative to have evidence on effective interventions for the nursing workforce and for policy decision makers.
| S-EPMC10638950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn Canada, vaccination coverage for seasonal influenza among health care personnel remains below 50%. The objective of this review was to determine which seasonal influenza vaccination campaign or campaign components in health care settings were significantly associated with increases in influenza vaccination among staff.MethodsWe identified articles in eight electronic databases and included randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and studies with interrupted time series designs in our review. Two reviewers independently abstracted the data and assessed the risk of biases. We calculated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for randomized controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies and described interrupted time series studies.ResultsWe identified 99 studies evaluating influenza vaccination campaigns for health care workers, but only 12 of the studies were eligible for review. In nonhospital health care settings, including long-term care facilities, campaigns with a greater variety of components (including education or promotion, better access to vaccines, legislation or regulation and/or role models) were associated with higher risk ratios (i.e, favouring the intervention group). Within hospital settings, the results reported for various types of campaigns were mixed. Many of the criteria for assessing risk of bias were not reported.InterpretationCampaigns involving only education or promotion resulted in minimal changes in vaccination rates. Further studies are needed to determine the appropriate components and combinations of components in influenza vaccination campaigns for health care personnel.
| S-EPMC2934816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInfluenza is a frequent cause of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Exacerbations are associated with worsening of the airflow obstruction, hospitalisation, reduced quality of life, disease progression, death, and ultimately, substantial healthcare-related costs. Despite longstanding recommendations to vaccinate vulnerable high-risk groups against seasonal influenza, including patients with COPD, vaccination rates remain sub-optimal in this population.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to summarise current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on the immunogenicity, safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in patients with COPD. The selection of relevant articles was based on a three-step selection procedure according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The search yielded 650 unique hits of which 48 eligible articles were screened in full-text.ResultsSeventeen articles describing 13 different studies were found to be pertinent to this review. Results of four RCTs and one observational study demonstrate that seasonal influenza vaccination is immunogenic in patients with COPD. Two studies assessed the occurrence of COPD exacerbations 14 days after influenza vaccination and found no evidence of an increased risk of exacerbation. Three RCTs showed no significant difference in the occurrence of systemic effects between groups receiving influenza vaccine or placebo. Six out of seven studies on vaccine efficacy or effectiveness indicated long-term benefits of seasonal influenza vaccination, such as reduced number of exacerbations, reduced hospitalisations and outpatient visits, and decreased all-cause and respiratory mortality.ConclusionsAdditional large and well-designed observational studies would contribute to understanding the impact of disease severity and patient characteristics on the response to influenza vaccination. Overall, the evidence supports a positive benefit-risk ratio for seasonal influenza vaccination in patients with COPD, and supports current vaccination recommendations in this population.
| S-EPMC5415833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost countries recommend that healthcare workers (HCWs) are vaccinated seasonally against influenza in order to protect themselves and patients. However, in many cases coverage remains low. A range of strategies have been implemented to increase uptake. Qualitative evidence can help in understanding the context of interventions, including why interventions may fail to achieve the desired effect. This study aimed to synthesise evidence on HCWs' perceptions and experiences of vaccination for seasonal influenza.MethodsSystematic review of qualitative evidence. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and included English-language studies which reported substantive qualitative data on the vaccination of HCWs for seasonal influenza. Findings were synthesised thematically.ResultsTwenty-five studies were included in the review. HCWs may be motivated to accept vaccination to protect themselves and their patients against infection. However, a range of beliefs may act as barriers to vaccine uptake, including concerns about side-effects, scepticism about vaccine effectiveness, and the belief that influenza is not a serious illness. HCWs value their autonomy and professional responsibility in making decisions about vaccination. The implementation of interventions to promote vaccination uptake may face barriers both from HCWs' personal beliefs and from the relationships between management and employees within the targeted organisations.ConclusionsHCWs' vaccination behaviour needs to be understood in the context of HCWs' relationships with each other, with management and with patients. Interventions to promote vaccination should take into account both the individual beliefs of targeted HCWs and the organisational context within which they are implemented.
| S-EPMC5688738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adjuvanted-influenza vaccination is an efficient method for enhancing the immunogenicity of influenza split-virus vaccines for preventing influenza. However, the medical community's understanding of its performance in patients infected with HIV remains limited. To identify the advantages, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort and case-control studies that have the immunogenicity and safety of influenza vaccines in patients infected with HIV as outcomes. We searched six different databases, and 1698 patients infected with HIV in 11 studies were included. Statistical analysis was performed to calculate the pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) or relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Regarding immunogenicity, the pooled SMD of GMT (Geometric mean titer) for A/H1N1 was 0.61 (95%CI (0.40,0.82)), the pooled RR of seroconversion was 1.34 (95%CI (0.91,1.98)) for the H1N1 vaccine, 1.27(95%CI (0.64,2.52)) for the H3N2 vaccine, 1.19(95%CI (0.97,1.46)) for the B-type influenza vaccine. The pooled RR of seroprotection was 1.61 (95%CI (1.00,2.58)) for the H1N1 vaccine, 1.06 (95%CI(0.83,1.35)) for the H3N2 vaccine, and 1.13(95%CI(0.91,1.41)) for the B-type vaccine. Adjuvanted-influenza vaccination showed good general tolerability in patients infected with HIV, with the only significant increase being the rate of local pain at the injection site (RR = 2.03, 95%CI (1.06,3.86)). In conclusion, all studies evaluating injected adjuvanted influenza vaccination among patients infected with HIV showed acceptable levels of safety and immunogenicity.
| S-EPMC7227622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Influenza vaccination is administered annually as a preventive measure against influenza infection and influenza-related complications in high-risk individuals, such as those with asthma. However, the effectiveness of influenza vaccination in people with asthma against influenza-related complications is still not well established.We will search the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Web of Science Core Collection, Science direct, WHO Library Information System (WHOLIS), Global Health Library and Chinese databases (CNKI, Wanfang and ChongQing VIP) from Jan 1970 to Jan 2016 for observational and experimental studies on effectiveness of influenza vaccine in people with asthma. The identification of studies will be complemented with the searching of the reference lists and citations, and contacting influenza vaccine manufacturers to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. Two reviewers will extract data and appraise the quality of each study independently. Separate meta-analyses will be undertaken for observational and experimental evidence using fixed-effect or random-effects models, as appropriate.Formal ethical approval is not required, as primary data will not be collected. The review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.
| S-EPMC4823396 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review to evaluate associations between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes and maternal non-obstetric serious adverse events (SAEs), taking into consideration confounding and temporal biases.MethodsElectronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Embase Classic+Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched to June 2021 for observational studies assessing associations between influenza vaccination during pregnancy and maternal non-obstetric SAEs and adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, small-for-gestational-age birth and congenital anomalies. Studies of live attenuated vaccines, single-arm cohort studies and abstract-only publications were excluded. Records were screened using a liberal accelerated approach initially, followed by a dual independent approach for full-text screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted, where two or more studies met methodological criteria for inclusion. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence certainty.ResultsOf 9443 records screened, 63 studies were included. Twenty-nine studies (24 cohort and 5 case-control) evaluated seasonal influenza vaccination (trivalent and/or quadrivalent) versus no vaccination and were the focus of our prioritised syntheses; 34 studies of pandemic vaccines (2009 A/H1N1 and others), combinations of pandemic and seasonal vaccines, and seasonal versus seasonal vaccines were also reviewed. Control for confounding and temporal biases was inconsistent across studies, limiting pooling of data. Meta-analyses for preterm birth, spontaneous abortion and small-for-gestational-age birth demonstrated no significant associations with seasonal influenza vaccination. Immortal time bias was observed in a sensitivity analysis of meta-analysing risk-based preterm birth data. In descriptive summaries for stillbirth, congenital anomalies and maternal non-obstetric SAEs, no significant association with increased risk was found in any studies. All evidence was of very low certainty.ConclusionsEvidence of very low certainty suggests that seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with adverse birth outcomes or maternal non-obstetric SAEs. Appropriate control of confounding and temporal biases in future studies would improve the evidence base.
| S-EPMC10496691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the behaviour-related factors influencing influenza vaccination among elderly people using a framework derived from the Health Belief Model (HBM) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA).Study designSystematic review.MethodsFive databases were searched using predetermined strategies in March 2016, and 1927 citations were identified. Articles were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Key information was extracted from selected studies using a predesigned sheet. Both authors assessed study quality using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) or Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist.ResultsThirty-six articles were selected. A new framework was proposed that contributes to shared understanding of factors influencing health behaviour. Possible determinants of influenza vaccination among elderly people were knowledge, health promotion factors, all constructs of the HBM, and some concepts of the TRA. Key factors were threat perception, behavioural beliefs, subjective norms, recommendations, past behaviour and perceived barriers.ConclusionsThis is the first systematic review to analyse the factors influencing influenza vaccination behaviour of elderly people using a framework integrating the HBM and the TRA. The framework identified key factors of influenza vaccination and presented the inter-relation of behaviour-related variables. However, further well-designed studies are required to explore the inter-relationships accurately and comprehensively.
| S-EPMC7111770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMeasles is an important cause of death in children, despite the availability of safe and cost-saving measles-containing vaccines (MCVs). The first MCV dose (MCV1) is recommended at 9 months of age in countries with ongoing measles transmission, and at 12 months in countries with low risk of measles. To assess whether bringing forward the age of MCV1 is beneficial, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits and risks of MCV1 in infants younger than 9 months.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Proquest, Global Health, the WHO library database, and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing database, and consulted experts. We included 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 assessed: proportion of infants seroconverted, geometric mean antibody titre, avidity, cellular immunity, duration of immunity, vaccine efficacy, vaccine effectiveness, and safety. We used random-effects models to derive pooled estimates of the endpoints, where appropriate. We assessed methodological quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines.FindingsOur search identified 1156 studies, of which 1071 were screened for eligibility. 351 were eligible for full-text screening, and data from 56 studies that met all inclusion criteria were used for analysis. The proportion of infants who seroconverted increased from 50% (95% CI 29-71) for those vaccinated with MCV1 at 4 months of age to 85% (69-97) for those were vaccinated at 8 months. The pooled geometric mean titre ratio for infants aged 4-8 months vaccinated with MCV1 compared with infants vaccinated with MCV1 at age 9 months or older was 0·46 (95% CI 0·33-0·66; I2=99·9%, p<0·0001). Only one study reported on avidity and suggested that there was lower avidity and a shorter duration of immunity following MCV1 administration at 6 months of age than at 9 months of age (p=0·0016) or 12 months of age (p<0·001). No effect of age at MCV1 administration on cellular immunity was found. One study reported that vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed measles virus infection was 94% (95% CI 74-98) in infants vaccinated with MCV1 at 4·5 months of age. The pooled vaccine effectiveness of MCV1 in infants younger than 9 months against measles was 58% (95% CI 9-80; I2=84·9%, p<0·0001). The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimate from within-study comparisons of infants younger than 9 months vaccinated with MCV1 were 51% (95% CI -44 to 83; I2=92·3%, p<0·0001), and for those aged 9 months and older at vaccination it was 83% (76-88; I2=93·8%, p<0·0001). No differences in the risk of adverse events after MCV1 administration were found between infants younger than 9 months and those aged 9 months of older. Overall, the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.InterpretationMCV1 administered to infants younger than 9 months induces a good immune response, whereby the proportion of infants seroconverted increases with increased age at vaccination. A large proportion of infants receiving MCV1 before 9 months of age are protected and the vaccine is safe, although higher antibody titres and vaccine effectiveness are found when MCV1 is administered at older ages. Recommending MCV1 administration to infants younger than 9 months for those at high risk of measles is an important step towards reducing measles-related mortality and morbidity.FundingWHO.
| S-EPMC6838664 | biostudies-literature