To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Vaccine effectiveness.
Journal articles on the topic 'Vaccine effectiveness'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Vaccine effectiveness.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Pálinkás, Anita, and János Sándor. "Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination in Preventing All-Cause Mortality among Adults during the Third Wave of the Epidemic in Hungary: Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study." Vaccines 10, no. 7 (June 24, 2022): 1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10071009.
Full textAbstract:
Our investigation aimed to describe the all-cause mortality rates by COVID-19 vaccination groups in Hungary for an epidemic period (1 April 2021–20 June 2021) and a nonepidemic period (21 June 2021–15 August 2021), and to determine the vaccines’ effectiveness in preventing all-cause mortality utilizing nonepidemic effectiveness measures to adjust for the healthy vaccinee effect (HVE). Sociodemographic status, comorbidity, primary care structural characteristics, and HVE-adjusted survival difference between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts in the epidemic period had been computed by Cox regression models, separately for each vaccine (six vaccines were available in Hungary). Hazard ratio (HR) reduction in epidemic period corrected with nonepidemic period’s HR with 95% confidence interval for each vaccine was used to describe the vaccine effectiveness (VE). The whole adult population (N = 6,404,702) of the country was followed in this study (4,026,849 fully vaccinated). Each vaccine could reduce the HVE-corrected all-cause mortality in the epidemic period (VEOxford/AstraZeneca = 0.592 [0.518–0.655], VEJanssen = 0.754 [0.628–0.838], VEModerna = 0.573 [0.526–0.615], VEPfizer-BioNTech = 0.487 [0.461–0.513], VESinopharm = 0.530 [0.496–0.561], and VESputnik V = 0.557 [0.493–0.614]). The HVE-corrected general mortality for COVID-19 vaccine cohorts demonstrated the real-life effectiveness of vaccines applied in Hungary, and the usefulness of this indicator to convince vaccine hesitants.
2
Fly, Mary. "Vaccine Effectiveness." Brain & Life 17, no. 2 (April 2021): 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.nnn.0000742788.44428.40.
Full text
3
Trombetta, Claudia Maria, Otfried Kistner, Emanuele Montomoli, Simonetta Viviani, and Serena Marchi. "Influenza Viruses and Vaccines: The Role of Vaccine Effectiveness Studies for Evaluation of the Benefits of Influenza Vaccines." Vaccines 10, no. 5 (May 1, 2022): 714. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10050714.
Full textAbstract:
Influenza is a vaccine preventable disease and vaccination remains the most effective method of controlling the morbidity and mortality of seasonal influenza, especially with respect to risk groups. To date, three types of influenza vaccines have been licensed: inactivated, live-attenuated, and recombinant haemagglutinin vaccines. Effectiveness studies allow an assessment of the positive effects of influenza vaccines in the field. The effectiveness of current influenza is suboptimal, being estimated as 40% to 60% when the vaccines strains are antigenically well-matched with the circulating viruses. This review focuses on influenza viruses and vaccines and the role of vaccine effectiveness studies for evaluating the benefits of influenza vaccines. Overall, influenza vaccines are effective against morbidity and mortality in all age and risk groups, especially in young children and older adults. However, the effectiveness is dependent on several factors such as the age of vaccinees, the match between the strain included in the vaccine composition and the circulating virus, egg-adaptations occurring during the production process, and the subject’s history of previous vaccination.
4
Helena De Oliveira, Lucia, Barbara Jauregui, Ana Flavia Carvalho, and Norberto Giglio. "Impact and effectiveness of meningococcal vaccines: a review." Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública 41 (December 20, 2017): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.26633/rpsp.2017.158.
Full textAbstract:
Objectives.To summarize and critically evaluate the evidence on the impact and effectiveness of meningococcal vaccination programs around the world in order to inform decisionmaking in Latin America and the Caribbean.Methods.A review of the literature was conducted following several components of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed Central® was searched for papers published in any language from January 1999 – March 2017.Results.In all, 32 studies were included, most of which evaluated the meningococcal C conjugate vaccine. Fourteen studies measured effectiveness and 30 measured impact. The effectiveness of polysaccharide vaccines was 65% – 83.7% (different age groups), while the effectiveness of the conjugate vaccines was 66% – 100%. Incidence decline of laboratory-confirmed meningococcal disease for the conjugate vaccine ranged from 77% – 100% among different ages groups. The only study that evaluated the protein subunit vaccine reported a vaccine effectiveness of 82.9%.Conclusions.The studies reviewed show impact and effectiveness of both polysaccharide vaccines and conjugate vaccines on vaccine-serogroup meningococcal disease. The conjugate vaccines, however, show higher impact and effectiveness with longer-lasting protection over the polysaccharide vaccines. Given the variance in potential use of a meningococcal vaccine, epidemiological surveillance systems should be strengthened to inform national decisions.
5
Lau, Chin Shern, and Tar Choon Aw. "Considerations in Understanding Vaccine Effectiveness." Vaccines 11, no. 1 (December 22, 2022): 20. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11010020.
Full textAbstract:
Although vaccine effectiveness reports are essential to assessing policies on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, several factors can affect our interpretation of the results. These include the waning of antibodies, the prevailing viral variants at the time of the study, and COVID-19 disease prevalence in the population. Disease prevalence significantly impacts absolute risk reduction and could skew expected efficacy when increased disease prevalence inflates the absolute risk reduction in the face of a constant relative risk reduction. These factors must be considered in the interpretation of vaccine effectiveness to better understand how vaccines can improve disease prevention among the population. We highlight the impact of various factors on vaccine effectiveness.
6
Stöckli, Sabrina, Anna Katharina Spälti, Joseph Phillips, Florian Stoeckel, Matthew Barnfield, Jack Thompson, Benjamin Lyons, Vittorio Mérola, Paula Szewach, and Jason Reifler. "Which vaccine attributes foster vaccine uptake? A cross-country conjoint experiment." PLOS ONE 17, no. 5 (May 4, 2022): e0266003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266003.
Full textAbstract:
Why do people prefer one particular COVID-19 vaccine over another? We conducted a pre-registered conjoint experiment (n = 5,432) in France, Germany, and Sweden in which respondents rated the favorability of and chose between pairs of hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines. Differences in effectiveness and the prevalence of side-effects had the largest effects on vaccine preferences. Factors with smaller effects include country of origin (respondents are less favorable to vaccines of Chinese and Russian origin), and vaccine technology (respondents exhibited a small preference for hypothetical mRNA vaccines). The general public also exhibits sensitivity to additional factors (e.g. how expensive the vaccines are). Our data show that vaccine attributes are more important for vaccine preferences among those with higher vaccine favorability and higher risk tolerance. In our conjoint design, vaccine attributes–including effectiveness and side-effect prevalence–appear to have more muted effects among the most vaccine hesitant respondents. The prevalence of side-effects, effectiveness, country of origin and vaccine technology (e.g., mRNA vaccines) determine vaccine acceptance, but they matter little among the vaccine hesitant. Vaccine hesitant people do not find a vaccine more attractive even if it has the most favorable attributes. While the communication of vaccine attributes is important, it is unlikely to convince those who are most vaccine hesitant to get vaccinated.
7
Bansal, Devendra, Jazeel Abdulmajeed, Maha H. M. A. Al-Shamali, Soha S. A. Albayat, Sayed M. Himatt, Farhan S. Cyprian, Tawanda Chivese, et al. "Duration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness against Severe Disease." Vaccines 10, no. 7 (June 28, 2022): 1036. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10071036.
Full textAbstract:
Waning immunity following administration of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines remains a concern for many health systems. We undertook a study to determine if recent reports of waning for severe disease could have been attributed to design-related bias by conducting a study only among those detected with a first SARS-CoV-2 infection. We used a matched case-control study design with the study base being all individuals with first infection with SARS-CoV-2 reported in the State of Qatar between 1 January 2021 and 20 February 2022. Cases were those detected with first SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring intensive care (hard outcome), while controls were those detected with first SARS-CoV-2 infection who recovered without the need for intensive care. Cases and controls were matched in a 1:30 ratio for the calendar month of infection and the comorbidity category. Duration and magnitude of conditional vaccine effectiveness against requiring intensive care and the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one more case of COVID-19 requiring intensive care was estimated for the mRNA (BNT162b2/mRNA-1273) vaccines. Conditional vaccine effectiveness against requiring intensive care was 59% (95% confidence interval (CI), 50 to 76) between the first and second dose, and strengthened to 89% (95% CI, 85 to 92) between the second dose and 4 months post the second dose in persons who received a primary course of the vaccine. There was no waning of vaccine effectiveness in the period from 4 to 6, 6 to 9, and 9 to 12 months after the second dose. This study demonstrates that, contrary to mainstream reports using hierarchical measures of effectiveness, conditional vaccine effectiveness against requiring intensive care remains robust till at least 12 months after the second dose of mRNA-based vaccines.
8
Kamolratanakul, Supitcha, and Punnee Pitisuttithum. "Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Efficacy and Effectiveness against Cancer." Vaccines 9, no. 12 (November 30, 2021): 1413. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9121413.
Full textAbstract:
Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection, with 15 HPV types related to cervical, anal, oropharyngeal, penile, vulvar, and vaginal cancers. However, cervical cancer remains one of the most common cancers in women, especially in developing countries. Three HPV vaccines have been licensed: bivalent (Cervarix, GSK, Rixensart, Belgium), quadrivalent (Merck, Sharp & Dome (Merck & Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA)), and nonavalent (Merck, Sharp & Dome (Merck & Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA)). The current HPV vaccine recommendations apply to 9 years old and above through the age of 26 years and adults aged 27–45 years who might be at risk of new HPV infection and benefit from vaccination. The primary target population for HPV vaccination recommended by the WHO is girls aged 9–14 years, prior to their becoming sexually active, to undergo a two-dose schedule and girls ≥ 15 years of age, to undergo a three-dose schedule. Safety data for HPV vaccines have indicated that they are safe. The most common adverse side-effect was local symptoms. HPV vaccines are highly immunogenic. The efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines has been remarkably high among young women who were HPV seronegative before vaccination. Vaccine efficacy was lower among women regardless of HPV DNA when vaccinated and among adult women. Comparisons of the efficacy of bivalent, quadrivalent, and nonavalent vaccines against HPV 16/18 showed that they are similar. However, the nonavalent vaccine can provide additional protection against HPV 31/33/45/52/58. In a real-world setting, the notable decrease of HPV 6/11/16/18 among vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated women shows the vaccine to be highly effective. Moreover, the direct effect of the nonavalent vaccine with the cross-protection of bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines results in the reduction of HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58. HPV vaccination has been shown to provide herd protection as well. Two-dose HPV vaccine schedules showed no difference in seroconversion from three-dose schedules. However, the use of a single-dose HPV vaccination schedule remains controversial. For males, the quadrivalent HPV vaccine possibly reduces the incidence of external genital lesions and persistent infection with HPV 6/11/16/18. Evidence regarding the efficacy and risk of HPV vaccination and HIV infection remains limited. HPV vaccination has been shown to be highly effective against oral HPV type 16/18 infection, with a significant percentage of participants developing IgG antibodies in the oral fluid post vaccination. However, the vaccines’ effectiveness in reducing the incidence of and mortality rates from HPV-related head and neck cancers should be observed in the long term. In anal infections and anal intraepithelial neoplasia, the vaccines demonstrate high efficacy. While HPV vaccines are very effective, screening for related cancers, as per guidelines, is still recommended.
9
Diogo José Horst and Charles Adriano Duvoisin. "The doubtful effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine." GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences 15, no. 2 (May 30, 2021): 151–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.30574/gscbps.2021.15.2.0132.
Full textAbstract:
A COVID-19 pandemic has erupted around the world. World Health Organization (WHO) and allies are racing to create and deploy safe and effective vaccines as they work together to monitor the pandemic, advise on crucial measures, and distribute essential medical resources to those in need. Vaccines save millions of lives, by training the body's natural defenses, the immune system, to identify and combat the viruses and bacteria they are intended to combat. This review article presents the status of COVID-19 vaccines evaluated by the WHO Emergency Use Listing (EUL) assessment process and those liberated as well. Data was obtained from the WHO, Gavi – The Vaccine Alliance from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Oxford Vaccine Group, Serum Institute of India, AstraZeneca, European Medicines Agency EMA among others. As can be seen, there is still no totally effective vaccine, and many clinical trials are still needed, and even immunized citizens are still at risk of recontagion. Virus mutation is a recurring problem and different vaccine production methodologies are still being studied.
10
Ferdinands, Jill M., Manish M. Patel, Ivo M. Foppa, and Alicia M. Fry. "Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness." Clinical Infectious Diseases 69, no. 1 (December 18, 2018): 190–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy1084.
Full text
11
Rajaram, Sankarasubramanian, Constantina Boikos, Daniele K. Gelone, and Ashesh Gandhi. "Influenza vaccines: the potential benefits of cell-culture isolation and manufacturing." Therapeutic Advances in Vaccines and Immunotherapy 8 (January 2020): 251513552090812. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2515135520908121.
Full textAbstract:
Influenza continues to cause severe illness in millions and deaths in hundreds of thousands annually. Vaccines are used to prevent influenza outbreaks, however, the influenza virus mutates and annual vaccination is required for optimal protection. Vaccine effectiveness is also affected by other potential factors such as the human immune system, a mismatch with the chosen candidate virus, and egg adaptation associated with egg-based vaccine production. This article reviews the influenza vaccine development process and describes the implications of the changes to the cell-culture process and vaccine strain recommendations by the World Health Organization since the 2017 season. The traditional manufacturing process for influenza vaccines relies on fertilized chicken eggs that are used for vaccine production. Vaccines must be produced in large volumes and the complete process requires approximately 6 months for the egg-based process. In addition, egg adaptation of seed viruses occurs when viruses adapt to avian receptors found within eggs to allow for growth in eggs. These changes to key viral antigens may result in antigenic mismatch and thereby reduce vaccine effectiveness. By contrast, cell-derived seed viruses do not require fertilized eggs and eliminate the potential for egg-adapted changes. As a result, cell-culture technology improves the match between the vaccine virus strain and the vaccine selected strain, and has been associated with increased vaccine effectiveness during a predominantly H3N2 season. During the 2017–2018 influenza season, a small number of studies conducted in the United States compared the effectiveness of egg-based and cell-culture vaccines and are described here. These observational and retrospective studies demonstrate that inactivated cell-culture vaccines were more effective than egg-based vaccines. Adoption of cell-culture technology for influenza vaccine manufacturing has been reported to improve manufacturing efficiency and the additional benefit of improving vaccine effectiveness is a key factor for future policy making considerations.
12
Naranbhai, Vivek, Wilfredo F. Garcia-Beltran, Christina C. Chang, Cristhian Berrios Mairena, Julia C. Thierauf, Grace Kirkpatrick, Maristela L. Onozato, et al. "Comparative Immunogenicity and Effectiveness of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 Vaccines." Journal of Infectious Diseases 225, no. 7 (December 9, 2021): 1141–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiab593.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Background Understanding immunogenicity and effectiveness of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines is critical to guide rational use. Methods We compared the immunogenicity of mRNA-1273, BNT-162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S in healthy ambulatory adults. We performed an inverse-variance meta-analysis of population-level effectiveness from public health reports in > 40 million individuals. Results A single dose of either mRNA vaccine yielded comparable antibody and neutralization titers to convalescent individuals. Ad26.COV2.S yielded lower antibody concentrations and frequently undetectable neutralization titers. Bulk and cytotoxic T-cell responses were higher in mRNA1273 and BNT162b2 than Ad26.COV2.S recipients. Regardless of vaccine, <50% of vaccinees demonstrated CD8+ T-cell responses. Antibody concentrations and neutralization titers increased comparably after the first dose of either vaccine, and further in recipients of a second dose. Prior infection was associated with high antibody concentrations and neutralization even after a single dose and regardless of vaccine. Neutralization of Beta, Gamma, and Delta strains were poorer regardless of vaccine. In meta-analysis, relative to mRNA1273 the effectiveness of BNT162b2 was lower against infection and hospitalization, and Ad26COV2.S was lower against infection, hospitalization, and death. Conclusions Variation in the immunogenicity correlates with variable effectiveness of the 3 vaccines deployed in the United States.
13
Song, Katerina Rok, Jacqueline Kyungah Lim, Se Eun Park, Tarun Saluja, Sung-Il Cho, Tram Anh Wartel, and Julia Lynch. "Oral Cholera Vaccine Efficacy and Effectiveness." Vaccines 9, no. 12 (December 15, 2021): 1482. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9121482.
Full textAbstract:
Although measuring vaccine efficacy through the conventional phase III study design, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial serves as the “gold standard”, effectiveness studies, conducted in the context of a public health program, seek to broaden the understanding of the impact of a vaccine in a real world setting including both individual and population level impacts. Cholera is an acute diarrheal infection caused by the ingestion of food or water contaminated with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae. Since the 1980s, either killed or live oral cholera vaccines (OCVs) have been developed and efficacy and effectiveness studies have been conducted on OCV. Although the results of OCV effectiveness studies sometimes showed outliers, the tendency seen is for effectiveness of the vaccine used in public health settings to be somewhat higher than estimated in randomized controlled trials due to the influence of indirect herd protection. Efficacy and Effectiveness studies both generate important information about the vaccine performance characteristics and its impact when used in real world populations at risk for the disease.
14
Belongia, Edward A., and Huong Q. McLean. "Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness: Defining the H3N2 Problem." Clinical Infectious Diseases 69, no. 10 (May 17, 2019): 1817–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz411.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Observational studies have consistently shown that influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) is lower for H3N2 relative to H1N1pdm09 and type B, and this is not entirely explained by antigenic match. The triad of virus, vaccine, and host immunity provides a framework to examine contributing factors. Antigenic evolution facilitates H3N2 immune escape, and increasing glycosylation of the hemagglutinin shields antigenic sites from antibody binding. Egg passage adaptation of vaccine viruses generates mutations that alter glycosylation, impair the neutralizing antibody response, and reduce VE. Complex host immune factors may also influence H3N2 VE, including early childhood imprinting and repeated vaccination, but their role is uncertain. Of the triad of contributing factors, only changes to the vaccine are readily achievable. However, it is unclear whether current licensed non–egg-based vaccines generate superior protection against H3N2. The optimal strategy remains to be defined, but newer vaccine technology platforms offer great potential.
15
Izurieta, Hector S., Yoganand Chillarige, Jeffrey Kelman, Yuqin Wei, Yun Lu, Wenjie Xu, Michael Lu, et al. "Relative Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines Among the United States Elderly, 2018–2019." Journal of Infectious Diseases 222, no. 2 (February 26, 2020): 278–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa080.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Background Studies among individuals ages ≥65 years have found a moderately higher relative vaccine effectiveness (RVE) for the high-dose (HD) influenza vaccine compared with standard-dose (SD) products for most seasons. Studies during the A(H3N2)-dominated 2017–2018 season showed slightly higher RVE for the cell-cultured vaccine compared with SD egg-based vaccines. We investigated the RVE of influenza vaccines among Medicare beneficiaries ages ≥65 years during the 2018–2019 season. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study using inverse probability of treatment weighting and Poisson regression to evaluate RVE in preventing influenza hospital encounters. Results Among 12 777 214 beneficiaries, the egg-based adjuvanted (RVE, 7.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9%–11.4%) and HD (RVE, 4.9%; 95% CI, 1.7%–8.1%) vaccines were marginally more effective than the egg-based quadrivalent vaccines. The cell-cultured quadrivalent vaccine was not significantly more effective than the egg-based quadrivalent vaccine (RVE, 2.5%; 95% CI, −2.4% to 7.3%). Conclusions We did not find major effectiveness differences between licensed vaccines used among the elderly during the 2018–2019 season. Consistent with prior research, we found that the egg-based adjuvanted and HD vaccines were slightly more effective than the egg-based quadrivalent vaccines.
16
Lu, Jia, Xiaosa Wen, Qi Guo, Mengdi Ji, Felicia Zhang, Abram L. Wagner, and Yihan Lu. "Sensitivity to COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness and Safety in Shanghai, China." Vaccines 9, no. 5 (May 7, 2021): 472. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9050472.
Full textAbstract:
Several COVID-19 vaccines have been on the market since early 2021 and may vary in their effectiveness and safety. This study characterizes hesitancy about accepting COVID-19 vaccines among parents in Shanghai, China, and identifies how sensitive they are to changes in vaccine safety and effectiveness profiles. Schools in each township of Minhang District, Shanghai, were sampled, and parents in the WeChat group of each school were asked to participate in this cross-sectional Internet-based survey. Parents responded to questions about hesitancy and were given information about five different COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the effectiveness of which varied between 50 and 95% and which had a risk of fever as a side effect between 5 and 20%. Overall, 3673 parents responded to the survey. Almost 90% would accept a vaccine for themselves (89.7%), for their child (87.5%) or for an elderly parent (88.5%) with the most ideal attributes (95% effectiveness with 5% risk of fever). But with the least ideal attributes (50% effectiveness and a 20% risk of fever) these numbers dropped to 33.5%, 31.3%, and 31.8%, respectively. Vaccine hesitancy, age at first child’s birth, and relative income were all significantly related to sensitivity to vaccine safety and effectiveness. Parents showed a substantial shift in attitudes towards a vaccine based on its safety and effectiveness profile. These findings indicate that COVID-19 vaccine acceptance may be heavily influenced by how effective the vaccine actually is and could be impeded or enhanced based on vaccines already on the market.
17
Baum, Ulrike, Sangita Kulathinal, Kari Auranen, and Hanna Nohynek. "Effectiveness of 2 Influenza Vaccines in Nationwide Cohorts of Finnish 2-Year-Old Children in the Seasons 2015–2016 Through 2017–2018." Clinical Infectious Diseases 71, no. 8 (January 19, 2020): e255-e261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa050.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Background From 2015–2016 through 2017–2018, injectable, trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3) and a nasal spray, tetravalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) were used in parallel in Finland. To understand how well vaccination with each vaccine type protected children against influenza under real-life conditions, vaccine effectiveness in 2-year-olds was estimated for all 3 seasons. Methods Each season, a nationwide register-based cohort study was conducted. The study population comprised 60 088, 60 860, and 60 345 children in 2015–2016, 2016–2017, and 2017–2018, respectively. Laboratory-confirmed influenza was the study outcome. Seasonal influenza vaccination with either LAIV4 or IIV3 was the time-dependent exposure of interest. Vaccine effectiveness was defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children. Results From 2015–2016 through 2017–2018, the effectiveness of LAIV4 against influenza of any virus type was estimated at 54.2% (95% confidence interval, 32.2–69.0%), 20.3% (−12.7%, 43.6%), and 30.5% (10.9–45.9%); the corresponding effectiveness of IIV3 was 77.2% (48.9–89.8%), 24.5% (−29.8%, 56.1%), and −20.1% (−61.5%, 10.7%). Neither influenza vaccine clearly excelled in protecting children. The LAIV4 effectiveness against type B was greater than against type A and greater than the IIV3 effectiveness against type B. Conclusions To understand how influenza vaccines could be improved, vaccine effectiveness must be analyzed by vaccine and virus type. Effectiveness estimates also expressing overall protection levels are needed to guide individual and programmatic decision-making processes. Supported by this analysis, the vaccination program in Finland now recommends LAIV4 and injectable, tetravalent inactivated influenza vaccines replacing IIV3.
18
Imai, Natsuko, Alexandra B. Hogan, Lucy Williams, Anne Cori, Tara D. Mangal, Peter Winskill, Lilith K. Whittles, et al. "Interpreting estimates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine efficacy and effectiveness to inform simulation studies of vaccine impact: a systematic review." Wellcome Open Research 6 (July 19, 2021): 185. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16992.1.
Full textAbstract:
Background: The multiple efficacious vaccines authorised for emergency use worldwide represent the first preventative intervention against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that does not rely on social distancing measures. The speed at which data are emerging and the heterogeneities in study design, target populations, and implementation make it challenging to interpret and assess the likely impact of vaccine campaigns on local epidemics. We reviewed available vaccine efficacy and effectiveness studies to generate working estimates that can be used to parameterise simulation studies of vaccine impact. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, the World Health Organization’s Institutional Repository for Information Sharing, medRxiv, and vaccine manufacturer websites for studies that evaluated the emerging data on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. Studies providing an estimate of the efficacy or effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine using disaggregated data against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease, severe disease, death, or transmission were included. We extracted information on study population, variants of concern (VOC), vaccine platform, dose schedule, study endpoints, and measures of impact. We applied an evidence synthesis approach to capture a range of plausible and consistent parameters for vaccine efficacy and effectiveness that can be used to inform and explore a variety of vaccination strategies as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves. Results: Of the 602 articles and reports identified, 53 were included in the analysis. The availability of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness estimates varied by vaccine and were limited for VOCs. Estimates for non-primary endpoints such as effectiveness against infection and onward transmission were sparse. Synthesised estimates were relatively consistent for the same vaccine platform for wild-type, but was more variable for VOCs. Conclusions: Assessment of efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines is complex. Simulation studies must acknowledge and capture the uncertainty in vaccine effectiveness to robustly explore and inform vaccination policies and policy around the lifting of non-pharmaceutical interventions.
19
Knight-Jones, T. J. D., K. Edmond, S. Gubbins, and D. J. Paton. "Veterinary and human vaccine evaluation methods." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281, no. 1784 (June 7, 2014): 20132839. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2839.
Full textAbstract:
Despite the universal importance of vaccines, approaches to human and veterinary vaccine evaluation differ markedly. For human vaccines, vaccine efficacy is the proportion of vaccinated individuals protected by the vaccine against a defined outcome under ideal conditions, whereas for veterinary vaccines the term is used for a range of measures of vaccine protection. The evaluation of vaccine effectiveness , vaccine protection assessed under routine programme conditions, is largely limited to human vaccines. Challenge studies under controlled conditions and sero-conversion studies are widely used when evaluating veterinary vaccines, whereas human vaccines are generally evaluated in terms of protection against natural challenge assessed in trials or post-marketing observational studies. Although challenge studies provide a standardized platform on which to compare different vaccines, they do not capture the variation that occurs under field conditions. Field studies of vaccine effectiveness are needed to assess the performance of a vaccination programme. However, if vaccination is performed without central co-ordination, as is often the case for veterinary vaccines, evaluation will be limited. This paper reviews approaches to veterinary vaccine evaluation in comparison to evaluation methods used for human vaccines. Foot-and-mouth disease has been used to illustrate the veterinary approach. Recommendations are made for standardization of terminology and for rigorous evaluation of veterinary vaccines.
20
Nsanzimana, Sabin, Alind Gupta, Jean Paul Uwizihiwe, Jonas Haggstrom, Louis Dron, Paul Arora, and Jay J. H. Park. "The Need for a Practical Approach to Evaluate the Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines for Low- and Middle-Income Countries." American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 105, no. 3 (September 15, 2021): 561–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.21-0482.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACT. The global demand for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines currently far outweighs the available global supply and manufacturing capacity. As a result, securing doses of vaccines for low- and middle-income countries has been challenging, particularly for African countries. Clinical trial investigation for COVID-19 vaccines has been rare in Africa, with the only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for COVID-19 vaccines having been conducted in South Africa. In addition to addressing the current inequities in the vaccine roll-out for low- and middle-income countries, there is a need to monitor the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in these regions. Although RCTs are the superior method for evaluating vaccine efficacy, the feasibility of conducting RCTs to monitor COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness during mass vaccine campaigns will likely be low. There is still a need to evaluate the effectiveness of mass COVID-19 vaccine distribution in a practical manner. We discuss how target trial emulation, the application of trial design principles from RCTs to the analysis of observational data, can be used as a practical, cost-effective way to evaluate real-world effectiveness for COVID-19 vaccines. There are several study design considerations that need to be made in the analyses of observational data, such as uncontrolled confounders and selection biases. Target trial emulation accounts for these considerations to improve the analyses of observational data. The framework of target trial emulation provides a practical way to monitor the effectiveness of mass vaccine campaigns for COVID-19 using observational data.
21
Costantino, Claudio, Alessandra Casuccio, and Vincenzo Restivo. "Vaccination and Vaccine Effectiveness: A Commentary of Special Issue Editors." Vaccines 8, no. 3 (September 18, 2020): 545. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8030545.
Full textAbstract:
The Special Issue “Vaccination and Vaccine Effectiveness”, published in the journal Vaccines, has the main aim to increase international literature data on vaccine effectiveness and safety and on vaccination strategies in order to reduce vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccination coverage rates. The main topics included in the call for papers were vaccines administered to infants, adolescents, adults, elderly people, at-risk populations (due to comorbidities and personal risk factors) and healthcare workers and strategies adopted to promote vaccination adherence among these categories. This Special Issue started from the assumption that, despite vaccination being universally recognized as one of the best strategies to increase duration and quality of life during the last centuries, vaccination coverage rates are often under the levels recommended to reduce circulation and to extinguish vaccine-preventable diseases. Vaccine hesitancy involves at least 15% of the general population, and healthcare workers also sometimes demonstrate doubts on vaccination effectiveness and safety. At the end of the six-month submission period, 16 articles (15 research article and one review) were accepted after the peer-review processes and published online.
22
Liu, Chuyao, Aiyun Lu, and Xiaoyu Wu. "COVID-19 Vaccine Comparison: How to Choose the Best Suiting Vaccine for Different Needs." E3S Web of Conferences 292 (2021): 03080. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202129203080.
Full textAbstract:
Varied measurements have been developed to solve the COVID-19 pandemic, and one of the best ways is vaccines. This paper aims to compare different kinds of vaccines and help people or countries to choose the best suitable vaccine needs based on their different needs. It provides a broader and more detailed analysis of variant vaccines on different levels. In the sequence of technology maturity, inactivated vaccines including CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV vaccine, and WIBP-CorV vaccine, viral-based vector vaccines including AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine, and mRNA vaccines including Moderna vaccine and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine have been discussed. There are several important elements of these vaccines, for example, mechanism, effectiveness, and side effects. Different criteria make comparison. For effectiveness, in general, Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines could be a better choice. For cost-performance ratio, the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is the best. As for inoculators’ age and race, old people are suggested to take CoronaVac, and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and CoronaVac are suitable for all races. In terms of mutant variant distribution, CoronaVac could be the best choice. Based on safety concerns, inactivated vaccines are better choices. For the developing period, mRNA vaccines win the game. In conclusion, this paper provides further directions for countries seeking the best suitable vaccine for their citizens. After comparing the main vaccines available, we provide a clear view of when countries decide. There would be specific vaccines best suiting specific needs of inoculators and countries.
23
Habibzadeh, Farrokh, Parham Habibzadeh, and Mahboobeh Yadollahie. "On Measuring Vaccine Effectiveness with Observational Study Designs." Acta Medica Academica 51, no. 2 (October 21, 2022): 134. http://dx.doi.org/10.5644/ama2006-124.383.
Full textAbstract:
<p>Herein, we present a bird’s eye view of common observational study designs utilized for measurement of vaccine effectiveness. Assessing vaccines effectiveness is an integral part of vaccine research, particularly for the newly developed vaccines. A cohort study is prospective, directing from an exposure to one or more outcomes. The design is the best method to ascertain the attack rate of an infectious disease. A traditional case-control study is retrospective, directing from a given outcome to one or more exposures. The design cannot provide the relative risk, but it can provide the odds ratio, which is a good estimation of the relative risk when the attack rate is low. Critically depending on laboratory test results and performance, the test-negative case-control study design is another type of observational study commonly used nowadays for the evaluation of the vaccine effectiveness. Comparing to cohort and traditional case-control designs, conducting a test-negative case-control study is relatively cheaper and faster. Herein, we describe each of the above-mentioned study designs through examples generated by a Monte-Carlo simulation program assuming real-world conditions.</p><p><strong> Conclusion</strong>. The simulation shows that regardless of the study design employed, the diagnostic test specificity is of utmost importance in providing a valid estimate of the vaccine effectiveness.</p>
24
Marra, Yasmin, and Fawziah Lalji. "Prevention of Herpes Zoster: A Focus on the Effectiveness and Safety of Herpes Zoster Vaccines." Viruses 14, no. 12 (November 29, 2022): 2667. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/v14122667.
Full textAbstract:
Infection with varicella zoster virus typically occurs in children and it can cause primary varicella infection or “chickenpox”, or it can reactivate later in life and cause herpes zoster or “shingles”. Herpes zoster mainly occurs in older adults, causing a reduction in activities of daily living, impacting quality of life, and may lead to serious complications, including chronic pain. Two vaccines are marketed to prevent herpes zoster: the live zoster vaccine and the non-live, recombinant zoster vaccine. The pre-licensure clinical trials show the efficacy of the live zoster vaccine to be between 50 and 70% and for the recombinant vaccine to be higher at 90 to 97%. Real-world effectiveness studies, with a follow-up of approximately 10 years, were reviewed in this article. These data corroborated the efficacy studies, with vaccine effectiveness being 46% and 85% for the live and recombinant vaccines, respectively. Safety data from the effectiveness studies show similar results to the clinical trials with mostly local injection-site reactions and mild systemic reactions seen with both vaccines, although in larger proportions with the recombinant vaccine. Rare adverse events, occurring less than 1% of the time, have been seen with both vaccine types and include disseminated herpes zoster with the live zoster vaccine and Guillain–Barré syndrome with the recombinant vaccine. The wider use of preventative measures with vaccines will reduce the herpes zoster burden of illness seen in older adults.
25
Kaur, Upinder, Sapna Bala, Aditi Joshi, Noti Taruni Srija Reddy, Chetan Japur, Mayank Chauhan, Nikitha Pedapanga, et al. "Persistent Health Issues, Adverse Events, and Effectiveness of Vaccines during the Second Wave of COVID-19: A Cohort Study from a Tertiary Hospital in North India." Vaccines 10, no. 7 (July 20, 2022): 1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10071153.
Full textAbstract:
Background There is paucity of real-world data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness from cohort designs. Variable vaccine performance has been observed in test-negative case-control designs. There is also scarce real-world data of health issues in individuals receiving vaccines after prior COVID-19, and of adverse events of significant concern (AESCs) in the vaccinated. Methods: A cohort study was conducted from July 2021 to December 2021 in a tertiary hospital of North India. The primary outcome was vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 during the second wave in India. Secondary outcomes were AESCs, and persistent health issues in those receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Regression analyses were performed to determine risk factors of COVID-19 outcomes and persistent health issues. Results: Of the 2760 health care workers included, 2544 had received COVID-19 vaccines, with COVISHIELD (rChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine) received by 2476 (97.3%) and COVAXIN (inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine) by 64 (2.5%). A total of 2691 HCWs were included in the vaccine effectiveness analysis, and 973 COVID-19 events were reported during the period of analysis. Maximum effectiveness of two doses of vaccine in preventing COVID-19 occurrence was 17% across three different strategies of analysis adopted for robustness of data. One-dose recipients were at 1.27-times increased risk of COVID-19. Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was a strong independent protective factor against COVID-19 (aOR 0.66). Full vaccination reduced moderate–severe COVID-19 by 57%. Those with lung disease were at 2.54-times increased risk of moderate–severe COVID-19, independent of vaccination status. AESCs were observed in 33/2544 (1.3%) vaccinees, including one case each of myocarditis and severe hypersensitivity. Individuals with hypothyroidism were at 5-times higher risk and those receiving a vaccine after recovery from COVID-19 were at 3-times higher risk of persistent health issues. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination reduced COVID-19 severity but offered marginal protection against occurrence. The possible relationship of asthma and hypothyroidism with COVID-19 outcomes necessitates focused research. With independent protection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and high-risk of persistent health issues in individuals receiving vaccine after recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection, the recommendation of vaccinating those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection needs reconsideration.
26
Vijayalakshmi, S., K. Manivannane, and N. Malarvizhi. "Efficacy of Vaccine and Administration of Vaccine for all the Individuals against SARS-CoV-19 and the Variants." Shanlax International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities 9, no. 2 (October 1, 2021): 148–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.34293/sijash.v9i2.4384.
Full textAbstract:
The efficacy of different designed drug for SARS-CoV-2 has been much of debate from the approval and till date after roll out. The data released from WHO, CDC, PHE and ICMR is used to analysis and compare the effectiveness of the UK and Indian made vaccine. The mentioned vaccine differs in raw material and fall under different category in preparation. The immune response of various vaccines over the mutant strains was assessed from the data of public domain. Attempt was made to correlate the effectiveness, mechanism of triggering antibodies and age factor for vaccination based on the vaccine type. The better effectiveness of certain vaccines like Covaxin, Pfizer and AstraZeneca (Covidshield) and the administration of vaccination differences with age factor of over approved vaccines asserted inductively.
27
Thiele, Sonja, Aljona Borschewski, Judit Küchler, Marc Bieberbach, Sebastian Voigt, and Bernhard Ehlers. "Molecular Analysis of Varicella Vaccines and Varicella-Zoster Virus from Vaccine-Related Skin Lesions." Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 18, no. 7 (May 11, 2011): 1058–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/cvi.05021-11.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTTo prevent complications that might follow an infection with varicella-zoster virus (VZV), the live attenuated Oka strain (V-Oka) is administered to children in many developed countries. Three vaccine brands (Varivax from Sanofi Pasteur MSD; Varilrix and Priorix-Tetra, both from Glaxo-Smith-Kline) are licensed in Germany and have been associated with both different degrees of vaccine effectiveness and adverse effects. To identify genetic variants in the vaccines that might contribute to rash-associated syndromes, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) profiles of variants from the three vaccines and rash-associated vaccine-type VZV from German vaccinees were quantitatively compared by PCR-based pyrosequencing (PSQ). The Varivax vaccine contained an estimated 3-fold higher diversity of VZV variants, with 20% more wild-type (wt) SNPs than Varilrix and Priorix-Tetra. These minor VZV variants in the vaccines were identified by analyzing cloned full-length open reading frame (ORF)orf62sequences by chain termination sequencing and PSQ. Some of these sequences amplified from vaccine VZV were very similar or identical to those of the rash-associated vaccine-type VZV from vaccinees and were almost exclusively detected in Varivax. Therefore, minorities of rash-associated VZV variants are present in varicella vaccine formulations, and it can be concluded that the analysis of a core set of four SNPs is required as a minimum for a firm diagnostic differentiation of vaccine-type VZV from wt VZV.
28
Nugroho, Setiyo Adi, and Indra Nur Hidayat. "Efektivitas Dan Keamanan Vaksin Covid-19 : Studi Refrensi." Jurnal Keperawatan Profesional 9, no. 2 (August 18, 2021): 61–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.33650/jkp.v9i2.2767.
Full textAbstract:
Various strategies and development of the Covid-19 vaccine have been carried out for the control of the Covid-19 pandemic. Various vaccines have undergone clinical trials with promising results in various countries. The effectiveness and safety and short- and long-term side effects of vaccines are a major concern in clinical trials in these strategies and developments. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to find out the effectiveness and safety of the Covid-19 vaccine so that it can inform and increase public confidence in the Covid-19 vaccine through a reference study approach. Method: The research method we use here is a reference study using electronic databases through journals from international and national. Google Scholar, science direx, elsiver, Pubmed are used as the main Journal database for this reference study. Results: From the results of reference studies found that all vaccines in clinical trials have promising effectiveness and safety. The Pfizer-BiONTech vaccine is a vaccine that has a good level of effectiveness and safety with a value of 94.6% and does not cause serious side effects. Double-dose vaccination further improves the immune response in younger and older adults. Conclusion: The Covid-19 vaccine in clinical trials all demonstrates promising immunogenicity with varying levels of protective effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile.
29
Tomaszewski, Tre, Alex Morales, Ismini Lourentzou, Rachel Caskey, Bing Liu, Alan Schwartz, and Jessie Chin. "Identifying False Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Information and Corresponding Risk Perceptions From Twitter: Advanced Predictive Models." Journal of Medical Internet Research 23, no. 9 (September 9, 2021): e30451. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/30451.
Full textAbstract:
Background The vaccination uptake rates of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine remain low despite the fact that the effectiveness of HPV vaccines has been established for more than a decade. Vaccine hesitancy is in part due to false information about HPV vaccines on social media. Combating false HPV vaccine information is a reasonable step to addressing vaccine hesitancy. Objective Given the substantial harm of false HPV vaccine information, there is an urgent need to identify false social media messages before it goes viral. The goal of the study is to develop a systematic and generalizable approach to identifying false HPV vaccine information on social media. Methods This study used machine learning and natural language processing to develop a series of classification models and causality mining methods to identify and examine true and false HPV vaccine–related information on Twitter. Results We found that the convolutional neural network model outperformed all other models in identifying tweets containing false HPV vaccine–related information (F score=91.95). We also developed completely unsupervised causality mining models to identify HPV vaccine candidate effects for capturing risk perceptions of HPV vaccines. Furthermore, we found that false information contained mostly loss-framed messages focusing on the potential risk of vaccines covering a variety of topics using more diverse vocabulary, while true information contained both gain- and loss-framed messages focusing on the effectiveness of vaccines covering fewer topics using relatively limited vocabulary. Conclusions Our research demonstrated the feasibility and effectiveness of using predictive models to identify false HPV vaccine information and its risk perceptions on social media.
30
Veljkovic, Veljko, Vladimir Perovic, and Slobodan Paessler. "Prediction of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine candidates." F1000Research 9 (May 14, 2020): 365. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.23865.1.
Full textAbstract:
A safe and effective vaccine is urgently needed to bring the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic under control. The spike protein (SP) of SARS-CoV-2 represents the principal target for most vaccines currently under development. This protein is highly conserved indicating that vaccine based on this antigen will be efficient against all currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains. The present analysis of SP suggests that mutation D614G could significantly decrease the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine through modulation of the interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and its principal receptor ACE2.
31
Rockman, Steven, Karen Laurie, Chi Ong, Sankarasubramanian Rajaram, Ian McGovern, Vy Tran, and John Youhanna. "Cell-Based Manufacturing Technology Increases Antigenic Match of Influenza Vaccine and Results in Improved Effectiveness." Vaccines 11, no. 1 (December 26, 2022): 52. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11010052.
Full textAbstract:
To ensure that vaccination offers the best protection against an infectious disease, sequence identity between the vaccine and the circulating strain is paramount. During replication of nucleic acid, random mutations occur due to the level of polymerase fidelity. In traditional influenza vaccine manufacture, vaccine viruses are propagated in fertilized chicken eggs, which can result in egg-adaptive mutations in the antigen-encoding genes. Whilst this improves infection and replication in eggs, mutations may reduce the effectiveness of egg-based influenza vaccines against circulating human viruses. In contrast, egg-adaptive mutations are avoided when vaccine viruses are propagated in Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cell lines during manufacture of cell-based inactivated influenza vaccines. The first mammalian cell-only strain was included in Flucelvax® Quadrivalent in 2017. A sequence analysis of the viruses selected for inclusion in this vaccine (n = 15 vaccine strains, containing both hemagglutinin and neuraminidase) demonstrated that no mutations occur in the antigenic sites of either hemagglutinin or neuraminidase, indicating that cell adaptation does not occur during production of this cell-based vaccine. The development of this now entirely mammalian-based vaccine system, which incorporates both hemagglutinin and neuraminidase, ensures that the significant protective antigens are equivalent to the strains recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) in both amino acid sequence and glycosylation pattern. The inclusion of both proteins in a vaccine may provide an advantage over recombinant vaccines containing hemagglutinin alone. Findings from real world effectiveness studies support the use of cell-based influenza vaccines.
32
Cates, Jordan, Avnika Amin, Jacqueline Tate, Ben Lopman, and Umesh D. Parashar. "1170. Do Rotavirus Strains Affect Vaccine Effectiveness? A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis." Open Forum Infectious Diseases 8, Supplement_1 (November 1, 2021): S676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab466.1363.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Background Rotavirus causes 215,000 deaths from severe childhood diarrhea annually. Two rotavirus vaccines – a monovalent vaccine containing a single rotavirus strain (RV1) and a pentavalent vaccine containing 5 rotavirus strains (RV5) – are used in routine immunization programs of nearly 100 countries. Concerns exist that rotavirus vaccines may be less effective against rotavirus strains not contained in the vaccines which could subsequently cause selective pressure and strain replacement. We estimated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of RV1 and RV5 against vaccine (homotypic) and non-vaccine (partially and fully heterotypic) strains. Methods After conducting a systematic review, we meta-analyzed 31 case-control studies (N=27,293) conducted between 2006 and 2020 using a random-effect regression model. Results In high-income countries, RV1 VE was 10% lower against partially heterotypic (p-value=0.04) and fully heterotypic (p-value=0.10) compared to homotypic strains (homotypic VE: 90% [95% CI: 82, 94]; partially heterotypic VE: 79% [95% CI: 71, 85]; fully heterotypic VE: 80% [95% CI: 65, 88]; Figure 1). In middle-income countries, RV1 VE was 14 to 16% lower against partially heterotypic (p-value=0.06) and fully heterotypic (p-value=0.04) compared to homotypic strains (homotypic VE: 81% [95% CI: 69, 88]; partially heterotypic VE: 67% [95% CI: 54, 76]; fully heterotypic VE: 65% [95% CI: 52, 75]; Figure 1). Strain-specific RV5 VE differences were less pronounced (Figure 2). Limited data were available from low-income countries. Figure 1. Vaccine effectiveness by country income level and strain type, for RV1. Figure 2. Vaccine effectiveness by country income level and strain type, for RV5. Conclusion Vaccine effectiveness of RV1 and RV5 was somewhat lower VE against non-vaccine than vaccine strains. Ongoing surveillance is crucial to continue long-term monitoring for strain replacement, particularly in low-income settings where data are limited. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
33
Shader, Richard I. "COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness." Clinical Therapeutics 43, no. 6 (June 2021): 1132–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2021.04.016.
Full text
34
Pujanandez, Lindsey. "Investigating flu vaccine effectiveness." Science 359, no. 6377 (February 15, 2018): 756.1–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.359.6377.756-a.
Full text
35
Hak, E., GA van Essen, DE Grobbee, Th JM Verheij, and E. Hak. "Effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine." Lancet 351, no. 9111 (April 1998): 1283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(98)26017-x.
Full text
36
Butler, Jay C., John S. Spika, Kristin L. Nichol, Eugene D. Shapiro, and Robert F. Breinan. "Effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine." Lancet 351, no. 9120 (June 1998): 1961. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)78647-5.
Full text
37
Steinhoff, Mark C., L. Moulton, and John Clemens. "Effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine." Lancet 351, no. 9120 (June 1998): 1961–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)78648-7.
Full text
38
Örtqvist, Åke, Jonas Hedlund, and Mats Kalin. "Effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine." Lancet 351, no. 9120 (June 1998): 1962. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)78649-9.
Full text
39
Gold, Ronald. "Effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine." Lancet 351, no. 9111 (April 1998): 1283–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)79344-2.
Full text
40
Obaro, Steven. "Effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine." Lancet 351, no. 9111 (April 1998): 1284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)79345-4.
Full text
41
Sutton, Stuart Keith. "Effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine." Lancet 351, no. 9111 (April 1998): 1284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)79346-6.
Full text
42
Örtqvist, Åkke, Jonas Hedlund, and Mats Kalin. "Effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine." Lancet 351, no. 9111 (April 1998): 1284–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)79347-8.
Full text
43
PICHICHERO, MICHAEL E. "Consider Vaccine Cost-Effectiveness." Pediatric News 43, no. 11 (November 2009): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0031-398x(09)70307-8.
Full text
44
Erofeeva, M. K., M. A. Stukova, E. V. Shakhlanskaya, Zh V. Buzitskaya, V. L. Maksakova, T. I. Krainova, M. M. Pisareva, A. B. Popov, M. G. Pozdnjakova, and D. A. Lioznov. "Evaluation of the Preventive Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines in the Epidemic Season 2019–2020 in St. Petersburg." Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention 20, no. 5 (November 5, 2021): 52–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.31631/2073-3046-2021-20-5-52-60-52-60.
Full textAbstract:
Background. The vaccine is the best available instrument to prevent influenza and reduce the risks of major disease complications and mortality. The vaccine effectiveness during the influenza season depends on a number of factors: (1) a person vaccinated (their age and health status); (2) the vaccine formulation; (3) types and subtypes of the circulating viruses; (4) vaccination timeline, as the immune response fades over time. An influenza vaccine can yield different effectiveness in people who have been infected or vaccinated previously and in those who have not been yet exposed to the circulating viruses. At present, trivalent and quadrivalent influenza vaccines are registered and produced in Russia. It allows for vaccination of all social groups, including high-risk populations, and for increasing the number of vaccinated individuals yearly. Russian Federation constantly improves the production of influenza vaccines, introducing new variants of vaccine formulations into national clinical usage. It is thus essential to monitor and analyze the changes in the effectiveness of influenza vaccines every season.Aim of the study. To evaluate of the effectiveness of Russian domestic influenza vaccines during the epidemic season 2019–2020 in St. Petersburg compared to the season 2018–2019.Materials and Methods. 3315 female and male adult participants aged 18 years and older were monitored from October 2019 to March 2020. The group included university students and tutors, researchers, and production and office workers of industrial enterprises. Sovigripp, Grippol Plus, Ultrix, and Ultrix Quadri influenza vaccines were used for immunization.Results and Discussion. In the context of incomplete correspondence between the viruses circulating in Russia and the strains used in the vaccines, the vaccination of the St. Petersburg population during the epidemic season 2019-2020 with Sovigripp, Grippol Plus, Ultrix, and Ultrix Quadri influenza vaccines cumulatively reduced influenza and ARI incidences by half; the total vaccine effectiveness against influenza and ARI amounted to 50.0%. The strongest preventive effect was identified for Grippol Plus, Ultrix, and Ultrix Quadri which demonstrated the total vaccine effectiveness from 70.6% to 75.0%, and their effectiveness against influenza A and B viruses reached from 65.5% to 83.5%.Conclusion. In the context of incomplete correspondence between the viral strains used in the vaccines and the strains circulating in Russia and St. Petersburg during the epidemic season 2019- 2020 and considering the active circulation of non-influenza viruses such as rhinoviruses and adenoviruses, we found a moderate preventive effectiveness of the influenza vaccines during the seasonal epidemic increase in ARI cases. Russian domestic influenza vaccines were shown to have good acceptability, be safe, and non-reactogenic.
45
O’Leary, Sean T., Yvonne A. Maldonado, and David W. Kimberlin. "Update from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices." Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society 9, no. 1 (February 4, 2020): 3–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jpids/piaa008.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a group of medical and public health experts, meets 3 times per year to develop recommendations for vaccine use in the United States. There are usually 15 voting members; members’ terms are for 4 years. ACIP members and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staff discuss the epidemiology of vaccine-preventable diseases and vaccine research, effectiveness, safety data, and results from clinical trials. Representatives from the American Academy of Pediatrics (Y. A. M., D. W. K.) and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (S. T. O.) are present as liaisons to the ACIP. The ACIP met on 23–24 October 2019 to discuss pertussis vaccines, the child/adolescent and adult immunization schedule, influenza vaccine effectiveness and safety, Ebola vaccine, orthopoxvirus vaccines, Dengue vaccine, rabies vaccine, measles, and vaccine safety update.
46
Brunell, P. "The Effectiveness of Evaluating Mumps Vaccine Effectiveness." Clinical Infectious Diseases 45, no. 4 (August 15, 2007): 467–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/520027.
Full text
47
Prunas, Ottavia, Joshua L. Warren, Forrest W. Crawford, Sivan Gazit, Tal Patalon, Daniel M. Weinberger, and Virginia E. Pitzer. "Vaccination with BNT162b2 reduces transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to household contacts in Israel." Science 375, no. 6585 (March 11, 2022): 1151–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4292.
Full textAbstract:
The effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19 on the individual level is well established. However, few studies have examined vaccine effectiveness against transmission. We used a chain binomial model to estimate the effectiveness of vaccination with BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccine] against household transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Israel before and after emergence of the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. Vaccination reduced susceptibility to infection by 89.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88.7 to 90.0%], whereas vaccine effectiveness against infectiousness given infection was 23.0% (95% CI: −11.3 to 46.7%) during days 10 to 90 after the second dose, before 1 June 2021. Total vaccine effectiveness was 91.8% (95% CI: 88.1 to 94.3%). However, vaccine effectiveness is reduced over time as a result of the combined effect of waning of immunity and emergence of the Delta variant.
48
Aty, Yoany M. V. B., Pius Selasa, Marselina Bende Molina, Rohana Mochsen, Nantiya Pupuh, and Panyada Cholsakhon. "Public Trust in the Effectiveness of the Covid-19 Vaccine in Liliba Village, Oebobo District, Kupang City." JURNAL INFO KESEHATAN 20, no. 1 (June 27, 2022): 10–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.31965/infokes.vol20.iss1.588.
Full textAbstract:
The Covid-19 pandemic has continued to develop in Indonesia since the beginning of 2020. The incidence and death rates continue to increase from day to day. Various efforts were made to stop the spread of the deadly Covid-19. One way to prevent and suppress the spread of infection with the virus is to vaccinate. The role of the vaccine is to provide immunity. Many people in the city of Kupang do not believe in the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccine, so they do not want to be vaccinated. The objective of this study is to describe the level of public confidence in the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccine in Liliba Village, Oebobo District, Kupang City. The research method is quantitative with a descriptive study research design. The population is people who live in the Liliba sub-district, Oebobo district, Kupang City. The sample was 106 people who were taken using the Cluster Simple Random Sampling technique. The results showed that the level of public confidence in the susceptibility of the Covid-19 vaccine was (89.6%), the seriousness of the vaccine's effectiveness (90.6%), the benefits of the vaccine (54.7%), and the perceived barriers (88.7%). This study revealed that the level of public confidence in the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccine in Liliba Village, Oebobo District, Kupang City is high.
49
Klein, Nicola P., Bruce Fireman, Kristin Goddard, Ousseny Zerbo, Jason Asher, James Zhou, James King, and Ned Lewis. "LB15. Vaccine Effectiveness of Flucelvax Relative to Inactivated Influenza Vaccine During the 2017–18 Influenza Season in Northern California." Open Forum Infectious Diseases 5, suppl_1 (November 2018): S764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy229.2189.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Background In June 2018, the CDC reported that influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against A(H3N2) influenza virus for the 2017–2018 season was ~24%. This lower than expected VE was hypothesized to be partially related to genetic changes arising in the vaccine virus during passage in eggs. Flucelvax™ (Seqirus) is a cell culture-based inactivated influenza vaccine (ccIIV) which is not manufactured in eggs. We investigated whether the VE of ccIIV against influenza A differed from that of egg-based IIV (ebIIV) during the 2017–2018 influenza season. Methods The study included all Kaiser Permanente Northern California members aged 4–64 years. We identified all individuals who were positive for influenza by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This cohort analysis estimated the relative VE of ccIIV vs. ebIIV by comparing the ccIIV vaccinees vs. the ebIIV vaccinees with respect to the risk of PCR-confirmed influenza. We separately estimated the absolute VE of ccIIV and ebIIV by comparing each group of vaccinees with unvaccinated individuals. We used Cox regression with a calendar timeline, stratified by birth year, and adjusted for facility, race, years of membership, prior season influenza vaccine, co-morbidities, and number of inpatient admits in the prior year. We calculated VE as 1 − hazard ratio (HR). Results Of the 3,015,891 members aged 4–64 years, 1,017,314 were vaccinated. Of these, 932,874 (91.7%) received ebIIV and 84,440 (8.3%) received ccIIV. Most ebIIV (86.2%) was trivalent. Comparing ccIIV with ebIIV, the adjusted relative VE against influenza A was 6.8% (95% CI: 11.2, 21.9; P = 0.43). The adjusted absolute VE vs. unvaccinated of ccIIV was 30.2% (95% CI: 17.1, 41.3; P < 0.0001) and of ebIIV was 17.9% (95% CI: 12.1, 23.3; P < 0.0001). Conclusion Both cell-culture and egg-based IIV vaccines showed relatively low effectiveness during the 2017–2018 influenza season in which A(H3N2) predominated. The findings of this study show there was no significant difference in the effectiveness of cell-culture IIV compared with egg-based IIVs. Improvements in influenza vaccines will require ongoing monitoring of vaccine effectiveness. Disclosures N. P. Klein, GSK: Investigator, Research support. Sanofi Pasteur: Investigator, Research support. Merck: Investigator, Research support. Pfizer: Investigator, Research support. Protein Science: Investigator, Research support. MedImmune: Investigator, Research support. Dynavax: Investigator, Research support.
50
Wei, Yuchen, Katherine Min Jia, Shi Zhao, Chi Tim Hung, Chris Ka Pun Mok, Paul Kwok Ming Poon, Eman Yee Man Leung, et al. "Estimation of Vaccine Effectiveness of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 Against Severe Outcomes Over Time Among Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Omicron." JAMA Network Open 6, no. 2 (February 3, 2023): e2254777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54777.
Full textAbstract:
ImportanceFew studies have evaluated the waning of vaccine effectiveness against severe outcomes caused by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection. Hong Kong is providing inactivated and mRNA vaccines, but the population had limited protection from natural infections before the Omicron variant emerged.ObjectiveTo examine the change in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization and mortality due to the Omicron variant over time.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis case-control study included adults with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection who died or were hospitalized in Hong Kong from January 1 to June 5, 2022 (ie, case participants), and adults with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron, sampled from the public health registry during the study period (ie, control participants), who were matched to case participants by propensity score.ExposuresVaccination status of the individuals.Main Outcomes and MeasuresEstimated vaccine effectiveness against death, death or hospitalization, and death among hospitalized patients. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated as 1 − adjusted odds ratio obtained by conditional logistic regression adjusted with covariates for each period following vaccination.ResultsThere were 32 823 case participants (25 546 [77.8%] ≥65 years; 16 930 [47.4%] female) and 131 328 control participants (100 041 [76.2%] ≥65 years; 66 625 [46.6%] female) in the sample analyzed for the death or hospitalization outcome. Vaccine effectiveness against death or hospitalization was maintained for at least 6 months after the second dose of both CoronaVac (74.0%; 95% CI, 71.8%-75.8%) and BNT162b2 (77.4%; 95% CI, 75.5%-79.0%) vaccines. Vaccine effectiveness against death in those aged 18 to 49 years was 86.4% (95% CI, 85.8%-87.0%) and 92.9% (95% CI, 92.6%-93.2%) for those receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2, respectively, while for patients aged 80 years or older, it dropped to 61.4% (95% CI, 59.8%-63.2%) and 52.7% (95% CI, 50.2%-55.6%) for CoronaVac and BNT162b2, respectively. Nevertheless, overall vaccine effectiveness against death at 4 to 6 months after the third dose was greater than 90% for CoronaVac, BNT162b2, and the mixed vaccine schedule (eg, mixed vaccines: vaccine effectiveness, 92.2%; 95% CI, 89.2%-95.1%).Conclusions and RelevanceWhile vaccines were generally estimated to be effective against severe outcomes caused by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection, this analysis found that protection in older patients was more likely to wane 6 months after the second dose. Hence, a booster dose is recommended for older patients to restore immunity. This is especially critical in a setting like Hong Kong, where third-dose coverage is still insufficient among older residents.