Щоб переглянути інші типи публікацій з цієї теми, перейдіть за посиланням: Vaccines Effectiveness.
Статті в журналах з теми "Vaccines Effectiveness"
Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями
Ознайомтеся з топ-50 статей у журналах для дослідження на тему "Vaccines Effectiveness".
Біля кожної праці в переліку літератури доступна кнопка «Додати до бібліографії». Скористайтеся нею – і ми автоматично оформимо бібліографічне посилання на обрану працю в потрібному вам стилі цитування: APA, MLA, «Гарвард», «Чикаго», «Ванкувер» тощо.
Також ви можете завантажити повний текст наукової публікації у форматі «.pdf» та прочитати онлайн анотацію до роботи, якщо відповідні параметри наявні в метаданих.
Переглядайте статті в журналах для різних дисциплін та оформлюйте правильно вашу бібліографію.
1
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
2
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
3
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
4
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
5
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
6
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
7
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
8
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
9
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
10
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
11
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
12
Amado Xavier de Oliveira, Ana Cecilia, Isabella Fernandes Delgado, and Francisco José Roma Paumgartten. "On the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, certainties and uncertainties." Vigilância Sanitária em Debate: Sociedade, Ciência & Tecnologia 9, no. 4 (November 30, 2021): 16–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.22239/2317-269x.01881.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Introduction: The COVID-19 vaccines in use (inactivaded virus, encapsulated m-RNA, non-replicating adenovirus-vectored DNA) were clinically tested in randomized placebocontrolled phase-3 studies. Objective: To address certainties and uncertainties about safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines that were approved for use in various countries. Method: The evidence provided by clinical studies on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines was critically appraised. Results: COVID-19 vaccines proved to be efficacious and safe in clinical trials. Adverse events were mostly those of minor severity commonly noted with other vaccines such as injection site pain, mild flu-like symptoms, headache and asthenia. Although being very rare, anaphylaxis-like reactions were noted with mRNA vaccines. Uncertainties regarding vaccine effectiveness refer mainly to the (long-term) duration of immunity provided by vaccination, the degree of protection conferred to elderly people, and how effective vaccines are against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. There are few uncertainties about vaccine safety including the absence of clinical trial data in pregnant women (and the impact on the unborn child), children and adolescents. Conclusions: Notwithstanding the knowledge gaps about effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (to be further addressed by observational studies), there is overwhelming evidence that public health benefits of vaccination by far outweigh any foreseeable risk.
13
Varghese, Tintu, Gagandeep Kang, and Andrew Duncan Steele. "Understanding Rotavirus Vaccine Efficacy and Effectiveness in Countries with High Child Mortality." Vaccines 10, no. 3 (February 23, 2022): 346. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10030346.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Rotavirus claims thousands of lives of children globally every year with a disproportionately high burden in low- and lower-middle income countries where access to health care is limited. Oral, live-attenuated rotavirus vaccines have been evaluated in multiple settings in both low- and high-income populations and have been shown to be safe and efficacious. However, the vaccine efficacy observed in low-income settings with high rotavirus and diarrheal mortality was significantly lower than that seen in high-income populations where rotavirus mortality is less common. Rotavirus vaccines have been introduced and rolled out in more than 112 countries, providing the opportunity to assess effectiveness of the vaccines in these different settings. We provide an overview of the efficacy, effectiveness, and impact of rotavirus vaccines, focusing on high-mortality settings and identify the knowledge gaps for future research. Despite lower efficacy, rotavirus vaccines substantially reduce diarrheal disease and mortality and are cost-effective in countries with high burden. Continued evaluation of the effectiveness, impact, and cost–benefit of rotavirus vaccines, especially the new candidates that have been recently approved for global use, is a key factor for new vaccine introductions in countries, or for a switch of vaccine product in countries with limited resources.
14
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
15
Folorunso, Olufemi Samuel, and Olihile M. Sebolai. "Overview of the Development, Impacts, and Challenges of Live-Attenuated Oral Rotavirus Vaccines." Vaccines 8, no. 3 (June 27, 2020): 341. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8030341.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness are paramount to vaccine development. Following the isolation of rotavirus particles in 1969 and its evidence as an aetiology of severe dehydrating diarrhoea in infants and young children worldwide, the quest to find not only an acceptable and reliable but cost-effective vaccine has continued until now. Four live-attenuated oral rotavirus vaccines (LAORoVs) (Rotarix®, RotaTeq®, Rotavac®, and RotaSIIL®) have been developed and licensed to be used against all forms of rotavirus-associated infection. The efficacy of these vaccines is more obvious in the high-income countries (HIC) compared with the low- to middle-income countries (LMICs); however, the impact is far exceeding in the low-income countries (LICs). Despite the rotavirus vaccine efficacy and effectiveness, more than 90 countries (mostly Asia, America, and Europe) are yet to implement any of these vaccines. Implementation of these vaccines has continued to suffer a setback in these countries due to the vaccine cost, policy, discharging of strategic preventive measures, and infrastructures. This review reappraises the impacts and effectiveness of the current live-attenuated oral rotavirus vaccines from many representative countries of the globe. It examines the problems associated with the low efficacy of these vaccines and the way forward. Lastly, forefront efforts put forward to develop initial procedures for oral rotavirus vaccines were examined and re-connected to today vaccines.
16
Khandker, Shahad Saif, Brian Godman, Md Irfan Jawad, Bushra Ayat Meghla, Taslima Akter Tisha, Mohib Ullah Khondoker, Md Ahsanul Haq, et al. "A Systematic Review on COVID-19 Vaccine Strategies, Their Effectiveness, and Issues." Vaccines 9, no. 12 (November 24, 2021): 1387. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9121387.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
COVID-19 vaccines are indispensable, with the number of cases and mortality still rising, and currently no medicines are routinely available for reducing morbidity and mortality, apart from dexamethasone, although others are being trialed and launched. To date, only a limited number of vaccines have been given emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. There is a need to systematically review the existing vaccine candidates and investigate their safety, efficacy, immunogenicity, unwanted events, and limitations. The review was undertaken by searching online databases, i.e., Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect, with finally 59 studies selected. Our findings showed several types of vaccine candidates with different strategies against SARS-CoV-2, including inactivated, mRNA-based, recombinant, and nanoparticle-based vaccines, are being developed and launched. We have compared these vaccines in terms of their efficacy, side effects, and seroconversion based on data reported in the literature. We found mRNA vaccines appeared to have better efficacy, and inactivated ones had fewer side effects and similar seroconversion in all types of vaccines. Overall, global variant surveillance and systematic tweaking of vaccines, coupled with the evaluation and administering vaccines with the same or different technology in successive doses along with homologous and heterologous prime-booster strategy, have become essential to impede the pandemic. Their effectiveness appreciably outweighs any concerns with any adverse events.
17
Sabin, A. "Effectiveness of AIDS vaccines." Science 251, no. 4998 (March 8, 1991): 1161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.2015033.
Повний текст джерела
18
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
19
Christensen, Hannah, Hareth Al-Janabi, Pierre Levy, Maarten J. Postma, David E. Bloom, Paolo Landa, Oliver Damm, et al. "Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future." European Journal of Health Economics 21, no. 2 (November 21, 2019): 297–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01129-z.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractIn 2018, a panel of health economics and meningococcal disease experts convened to review methodologies, frameworks, and decision-making processes for economic evaluations of vaccines, with a focus on evaluation of vaccines targeting invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). The panel discussed vaccine evaluation methods across countries; IMD prevention benefits that are well quantified using current methods, not well quantified, or missing in current cost-effectiveness methodologies; and development of recommendations for future evaluation methods. Consensus was reached on a number of points and further consideration was deemed necessary for some topics. Experts agreed that the unpredictability of IMD complicates an accurate evaluation of meningococcal vaccine benefits and that vaccine cost-effectiveness evaluations should encompass indirect benefits, both for meningococcal vaccines and vaccines in general. In addition, the panel agreed that transparency in the vaccine decision-making process is beneficial and should be implemented when possible. Further discussion is required to ascertain: how enhancing consistency of frameworks for evaluating outcomes of vaccine introduction can be improved; reviews of existing tools used to capture quality of life; how indirect costs are considered within models; and whether and how the weighting of quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), application of QALY adjustment factors, or use of altered cost-effectiveness thresholds should be used in the economic evaluation of vaccines.
20
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
21
Cho, Hyun-Il, Young-Ran Lee та Esteban Celis. "Interferon γ limits the effectiveness of melanoma peptide vaccines". Blood 117, № 1 (6 січня 2011): 135–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood-2010-08-298117.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract The development of effective therapeutic vaccines to generate tumor-reactive cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) continues to be a top research priority. However, in spite of some promising results, there are no clear examples of vaccines that eradicate established tumors. Most vaccines are ineffective because they generate low numbers of CTLs and because numerous immunosuppressive factors abound in tumor-bearing hosts. We designed a peptide vaccine that produces large numbers of tumor-reactive CTLs in a mouse model of melanoma. Surprisingly, CTL tumor recognition and antitumor effects decreased in the presence of interferon γ (IFNγ), a cytokine that can provide therapeutic benefit. Tumors exposed to IFNγ evade CTLs by inducing large amounts of noncognate major histocompatibility complex class I molecules, which limit T-cell activation and effector function. Our results demonstrate that peptide vaccines can eradicate large, established tumors in circumstances under which the inhibitory activities of IFNγ are curtailed.
22
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
23
Vaezi, Atefeh, and Alipasha Meysamie. "COVID-19 Vaccines Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Scenario for Iran." Vaccines 10, no. 1 (December 29, 2021): 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10010037.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
COVID-19 vaccines are supposed to be critical measure for ending the pandemic. Governments had to decide on the type of vaccine to provide for their population. In this decision-making process, cost-effectiveness analysis is considered a helpful tool. This study is a cost-effectiveness analysis utilized to calculate the incremental cost per averted disability-adjusted life year (DALY) by vaccination compared to no vaccination for different COVID-19 vaccines. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was estimated at 6.2 to 121.2 USD to avert one DALY and 566.8 to 10,957.7 USD per one death. The lowest and highest ICERs belong to Ad26.COV2.S and CoronaVac, respectively. Considering the scenario of Iran, vaccines that are recommended include ad26.cov2.s, chadox1-S, rAd26-S + rAd5-S, and BNT162b2 in the order of recommendation.
24
Gao, Hao, Qingting Zhao, Chuanlin Ning, Difan Guo, Jing Wu, and Lina Li. "Does the COVID-19 Vaccine Still Work That “Most of the Confirmed Cases Had Been Vaccinated”? A Content Analysis of Vaccine Effectiveness Discussion on Sina Weibo during the Outbreak of COVID-19 in Nanjing." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 1 (December 26, 2021): 241. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010241.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
In July 2021, breakthrough cases were reported in the outbreak of COVID-19 in Nanjing, sparking concern and discussion about the vaccine’s effectiveness and becoming a trending topic on Sina Weibo. In order to explore public attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine and their emotional orientations, we collected 1542 posts under the trending topic through data mining. We set up four categories of attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines, and used a big data analysis tool to code and manually checked the coding results to complete the content analysis. The results showed that 45.14% of the Weibo posts (n = 1542) supported the COVID-19 vaccine, 12.97% were neutral, and 7.26% were doubtful, which indicated that the public did not question the vaccine’s effectiveness due to the breakthrough cases in Nanjing. There were 66.47% posts that reflected significant negative emotions. Among these, 50.44% of posts with negative emotions were directed towards the media, 25.07% towards the posting users, and 11.51% towards the public, which indicated that the negative emotions were not directed towards the COVID-19 vaccine. External sources outside the vaccine might cause vaccine hesitancy. Public opinions expressed in online media reflect the public’s cognition and attitude towards vaccines and their core needs in terms of information. Therefore, online public opinion monitoring could be an essential way to understand the opinions and attitudes towards public health issues.
25
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
26
Mahumud, Rashidul Alam, Mohammad Afshar Ali, Satyajit Kundu, Md Ashfikur Rahman, Joseph Kihika Kamara, and Andre M. N. Renzaho. "Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines against Delta Variant (B.1.617.2): A Meta-Analysis." Vaccines 10, no. 2 (February 11, 2022): 277. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10020277.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Objectives: The highly transmissible COVID-19 Delta variant (DV) has contributed to a surge in cases and exacerbated the worldwide public health crisis. Several COVID-19 vaccines play a significant role in a high degree of protection against the DV. The primary purpose of this meta-analysis is to estimate the pooled effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines against the DV in terms of risk ratio (RR) among fully vaccinated, compared to unvaccinated populations. Methods: We carried out a systematic review, with meta-analysis of original studies focused on COVID-19 vaccines effectiveness against a DV clinical perspective among fully COVID-19 vaccinated populations, compared to placebo (unvaccinated populations), published between 1 May 2021 and 30 September 2021. Eleven studies containing the data of 17.2 million participants were identified and included in our study. Pooled estimates of COVID-19 vaccines effectiveness (i.e., risk ratio, RR) against the DV with 95% confidence intervals were assessed using random-effect models. Publication bias was assessed using Egger’s regression test and funnel plot to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity and identify any differences in study design. Results: A total population of 17.2 million (17,200,341 people) were screened for the COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness against the DV. We found that 61.13% of the study population were fully vaccinated with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. The weighted pooled incidence of COVID-19 infection was more than double (20.07%) among the unvaccinated population, compared to the fully vaccinated population (8.16%). Overall, the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine against the DV was 85% (RR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07–0.31). The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines varied slidably by study designs, 87% (RR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.06–0.30) and 84% (RR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.02, 1.64) for cohort and case-control studies, respectively. Conclusions: The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines were noted to offer higher protection against the DV among populations who received two vaccine doses compared with the unvaccinated population. This finding would help efforts to maximise vaccine coverage (i.e., at least 60% to 70% of the population), with two doses among vulnerable populations, in order to have herd immunity to break the chain of transmission and gain greater overall population protection more rapidly.
27
Fanelli, Angela, Luca Mantegazza, Saskia Hendrickx, and Ilaria Capua. "Thermostable Vaccines in Veterinary Medicine: State of the Art and Opportunities to Be Seized." Vaccines 10, no. 2 (February 5, 2022): 245. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10020245.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the weakness of the vaccine supply chain, and the lack of thermostable formulations is one of its major limitations. This study presents evidence from peer-reviewed literature on the development of thermostable vaccines for veterinary use. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the immunogenicity and/or the efficacy/effectiveness of thermostable vaccines against infectious diseases. The selected studies (n = 78) assessed the vaccine’s heat stability under different temperature conditions and over different periods. Only one study assessed the exposure of the vaccine to freezing temperatures. Two field studies provided robust evidence on the immunogenicity of commercial vaccines stored at temperatures far in excess of the manufacturer’s recommended cold-chain conditions. The drying process was the most-used method to improve the vaccine’s thermostability, along with the use of different stabilizers. The pooled vaccine efficacy was estimated to be high (VE = 69%), highlighting the importance of vaccination in reducing the economic losses due to the disease impact. These findings provide evidence on the needs and benefits of developing a portfolio of heat- and freeze-stable veterinary vaccines to unleash the true potential of immunization as an essential component of improved animal health and welfare, reduce the burden of certain zoonotic events and thus contribute to economic resilience worldwide.
28
Rizzo, Caterina, Francesco Gesualdo, Daniela Loconsole, Elisabetta Pandolfi, Antonino Bella, Andrea Orsi, Giulia Guarona, et al. "Moderate Vaccine Effectiveness against Severe Acute Respiratory Infection Caused by A(H1N1)pdm09 Influenza Virus and No Effectiveness against A(H3N2) Influenza Virus in the 2018/2019 Season in Italy." Vaccines 8, no. 3 (July 30, 2020): 427. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8030427.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Every season, circulating influenza viruses change; therefore, vaccines must be reformulated each year. We aimed to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against severe influenza infection for the 2018/19 season in Italy. We conducted a test-negative design case-control study at five Italian hospitals. We estimated influenza VE against severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) requiring hospitalisation overall, and by virus subtype, vaccine brand, and age. The 2018/19 season was characterised by A(H1N1)pmd09 and A(H3N2) influenza viruses. Vaccine coverage among <18 years recruited SARI cases was very low (3.2%). Seasonal vaccines were moderately effective against type A influenza overall (adjusted VE = 40.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 18.7–56.4%) and subtype A(H1N1)pmd09 viruses (adjusted VE = 55%; 95% CI = 34.5–69.1%), but ineffective against subtype A(H3N2) viruses (adjusted VE = 2.5%; 95% CI = −50.0–36.7%). Both Fluad and Fluarix Tetra vaccines were effective against type A influenza overall and subtype A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses. VE appeared to be similar across age groups (0–64 years, ≥65 years). Seasonal influenza vaccines in the 2018/19 season were moderately effective in preventing SARI caused by A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza but ineffective against A(H3N2).
29
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
30
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
31
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
32
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
33
van den Berg, Jesse M., Sharon Remmelzwaal, Marieke T. Blom, Beryl A. C. E. van Hoek, Karin M. A. Swart, Jetty A. Overbeek, George L. Burchell, Ron M. C. Herings, and Petra J. M. Elders. "Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Adults with Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review." Vaccines 11, no. 1 (December 22, 2022): 24. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11010024.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Persons with diabetes mellitus may have an increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 compared to persons without diabetes. Prior studies indicate that immune response and thus vaccine effectiveness might be lower in persons with diabetes. We aimed to systematically review the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in adults with diabetes. Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that evaluated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in adults with diabetes, published before 4 March 2022. Risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool. At least two reviewers conducted the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment independently. After screening of 2196 studies, a total of 17 articles were included. Six different COVID-19 vaccines (Ad5-nCoV-S, AZD1222, BNT162b2, CoronaVac, JNJ-78436735, and mRNA-1273) were included in the synthesis. Vaccine effectiveness was reported for SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic COVID-19, hospitalization, and death, and ranged from 24 to 96% in persons with diabetes, and from 33 to 97% in total study populations; effectiveness was generally lower for persons with diabetes. Odds ratios for breakthrough infection or severe COVID-19 ranged from 1.03 to 2.41 in vaccinated persons with diabetes compared to persons without diabetes. Even though the included studies were very heterogeneous, results from the synthesis indicate that effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines might be lower in persons with diabetes. More research is needed on the comparison of vaccine effectiveness between persons with and without diabetes, and the effectiveness of repeat COVID-19 vaccinations.
34
Ndawula, Charles. "From Bench to Field: A Guide to Formulating and Evaluating Anti-Tick Vaccines Delving beyond Efficacy to Effectiveness." Vaccines 9, no. 10 (October 15, 2021): 1185. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9101185.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Ticks are ubiquitous blood-sucking ectoparasites capable of transmitting a wide range of pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and fungi to animals and humans. Although the use of chemicals (acaricides) is the predominant method of tick-control, there are increasing incidents of acaricide tick resistance. Furthermore, there are concerns over accumulation of acaricide residues in meat, milk and in the environment. Therefore, alternative methods of tick-control have been proposed, of which anti-tick cattle vaccination is regarded as sustainable and user-friendly. Over the years, tremendous progress has been made in identifying and evaluating novel candidate tick vaccines, yet none of them have reached the global market. Until now, Bm86-based vaccines (Gavac™ in Cuba and TickGARDPLUS™ Australia-ceased in 2010) are still the only globally commercialized anti-tick vaccines. In contrast to Bm86, often, the novel candidate anti-tick vaccines show a lower protection efficacy. Why is this so? In response, herein, the potential bottlenecks to formulating efficacious anti-tick vaccines are examined. Aside from Bm86, the effectiveness of other anti-tick vaccines is rarely assessed. So, how can the researchers assess anti-tick vaccine effectiveness before field application? The approaches that are currently used to determine anti-tick vaccine efficacy are re-examined in this review. In addition, a model is proposed to aid in assessing anti-tick vaccine effectiveness. Finally, based on the principles for the development of general veterinary vaccines, a pipeline is proposed to guide in the development of anti-tick vaccines.
35
George, Gavin, Michael Strauss, Emma Lansdell, Nisha Nadesan-Reddy, Nomfundo Moroe, Tarylee Reddy, Ingrid Eshun-Wilsonova, and Mosa Moshabela. "South African University Staff and Students’ Perspectives, Preferences, and Drivers of Hesitancy Regarding COVID-19 Vaccines: A Multi-Methods Study." Vaccines 10, no. 8 (August 4, 2022): 1250. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10081250.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy poses a threat to the success of vaccination programmes currently being implemented. Concerns regarding vaccine effectiveness and vaccine-related adverse events are potential barriers to vaccination; however, it remains unclear whether tailored messaging and vaccination programmes can influence uptake. Understanding the preferences of key groups, including students, could guide the implementation of youth-targeted COVID-19 vaccination programmes, ensuring optimal uptake. This study examined university staff and students’ perspectives, preferences, and drivers of hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines. A multi-methods approach was used—an online convenience sample survey and discrete choice experiment (DCE)—targeting staff and students at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The survey and DCE were available for staff and students, and data were collected from 18 November to 24 December 2021. The survey captured demographic characteristics as well as attitudes and perspectives of COVID-19 and available vaccines using modified Likert rating questions adapted from previously used tools. The DCE was embedded within the survey tool and varied critical COVID-19 vaccine programme characteristics to calculate relative utilities (preferences) and determine trade-offs. A total of 1836 staff and students participated in the study (541 staff, 1262 students, 33 undisclosed). A total of 1145 (62%) respondents reported that they had been vaccinated against COVID-19. Vaccination against COVID-19 was less prevalent among students compared with staff (79% of staff vs. 57% of students). The vaccine’s effectiveness (22%), and its safety (21%), ranked as the two dominant reasons for not getting vaccinated. These concerns were also evident from the DCE, with staff and students being significantly influenced by vaccine effectiveness, with participants preferring highly effective vaccines (90% effective) as compared with those listed as being 70% or 50% effective (β = −3.72, 95% CI = −4.39 to −3.04); this characteristic had the strongest effect on preferences of any attribute. The frequency of vaccination doses was also found to have a significant effect on preferences with participants deriving less utility from choice alternatives requiring two initial vaccine doses compared with one dose (β = −1.00, 95% CI = −1.42 to −0.58) or annual boosters compared with none (β = −2.35, 95% CI = −2.85 to −1.86). Notably, an incentive of ZAR 350 (USD 23.28) did have a positive utility (β = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.53) as compared with no incentive. Given the slow take-up of vaccination among youth in South Africa, this study offers valuable insights into the factors that drive hesitancy among this population. Concerns have been raised around the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, although there remains a predilection for efficient services. Respondents were not enthusiastic about the prospect of having to take boosters, and this has played out in the roll-out data. Financial incentives may increase both the uptake of the initial dose of vaccines and see a more favourable response to subsequent boosters. Universities should consider tailored messaging regarding vaccine effectiveness and facilitate access to vaccines, to align services with the stated preferences of staff and students.
36
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
37
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
38
Markelova, E. V., S. V. Knysh, and M. P. Kostinov. "Vaccination against COVID-19 Patients with Allergic Diseases. The Position of the Allergologist-Immunologist. Literature review." Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention 21, no. 2 (May 11, 2022): 91–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.31631/2073-3046-2022-21-2-91-97.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Relevance. Currently, the development of vaccines against COVID-19, their clinical trials are actively continuing, and the effectiveness of the vaccines used is being analyzed. A very important issue will be how and when to vaccinate patients with various chronic diseases, what are the relative and absolute contraindications for vaccination, how various diseases can affect the effectiveness of vaccination.Aims. To present an overview of the most significant published materials on the issue of vaccination against COVID19 patients with allergic diseases, as well as the likelihood of developing adverse events of an allergic nature in response to the introduction of the vaccine. Conclusions. An active study of vaccines, their effectiveness and safety, demonstrates to us the high reliability of these drugs and the absence of high risks of adverse events in comparison with other vaccines. Anaphylactic reactions to the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines are not more common than for any other vaccines used in international medical practice.
39
Pizza, Mariagrazia, Rafik Bekkat-Berkani, and Rino Rappuoli. "Vaccines against Meningococcal Diseases." Microorganisms 8, no. 10 (October 3, 2020): 1521. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8101521.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Neisseria meningitidis is the main cause of meningitis and sepsis, potentially life-threatening conditions. Thanks to advancements in vaccine development, vaccines are now available for five out of six meningococcal disease-causing serogroups (A, B, C, W, and Y). Vaccination programs with monovalent meningococcal serogroup C (MenC) conjugate vaccines in Europe have successfully decreased MenC disease and carriage. The use of a monovalent MenA conjugate vaccine in the African meningitis belt has led to a near elimination of MenA disease. Due to the emergence of non-vaccine serogroups, recommendations have gradually shifted, in many countries, from monovalent conjugate vaccines to quadrivalent MenACWY conjugate vaccines to provide broader protection. Recent real-world effectiveness of broad-coverage, protein-based MenB vaccines has been reassuring. Vaccines are also used to control meningococcal outbreaks. Despite major improvements, meningococcal disease remains a global public health concern. Further research into changing epidemiology is needed. Ongoing efforts are being made to develop next-generation, pentavalent vaccines including a MenACWYX conjugate vaccine and a MenACWY conjugate vaccine combined with MenB, which are expected to contribute to the global control of meningitis.
40
Alamer, Edrous, Faisal Hakami, Sulaiman Hamdi, Afnan Alamer, Mohammed Awaf, Hussam Darraj, Yumna Abutalib, et al. "Knowledge, Attitudes and Perception toward COVID-19 Vaccines among Adults in Jazan Province, Saudi Arabia." Vaccines 9, no. 11 (November 1, 2021): 1259. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9111259.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Background: Saudi Arabia is one of the countries that initiated early vaccination programs despite the global challenges concerning the availability of COVID-19 vaccines. Massive vaccination campaigns have been undertaken in the country; however, negative perception and hesitancy toward vaccines may exist which could reduce public response to vaccination. Further, studies evaluating the current perception and attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines are scarce. Thus, this study aims to assess the community attitudes and perceptions toward COVID-19 vaccines in Jazan Province, Saudi Arabia. Methods: A cross-sectional, retrospective study using an online questionnaire was conducted among the public in Jazan, the southern region of Saudi Arabia. General and demographic data were collected, and perception and attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated. Results: Most participants in this study were female (67%) with a median age of 23 years. The majority held a bachelor’s degree, and they trusted the Saudi healthcare system. Our survey showed that 67% of the study participants had positive perceptions toward COVID-19 vaccines, a finding that is significantly associated with receiving the influenza vaccine in the past, the existence of trust on the current healthcare system and holding positive beliefs toward the effectiveness of the current COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the risk of infection, complication, and mortality. Conclusions: The proportion of the public in Jazan who believed in the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness is not inferior from similar international reports. Thus, national awareness programs toward the effectiveness of the vaccine could be enhanced to accelerate vaccination coverage. Further, nationwide surveys are warranted to include larger populations from different communities to assess the overall perception toward COVID-19 vaccines in the whole country.
41
Mentzer, Alexander J., Daniel O'Connor, Andrew J. Pollard, and Adrian V. S. Hill. "Searching for the human genetic factors standing in the way of universally effective vaccines." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370, no. 1671 (June 19, 2015): 20140341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0341.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Vaccines have revolutionized modern public health. The effectiveness of some vaccines is limited by the variation in response observed between individuals and across populations. There is compelling evidence that a significant proportion of this variability can be attributed to human genetic variation, especially for those vaccines administered in early life. Identifying and understanding the determinants of this variation could have a far-reaching influence upon future methods of vaccine design and deployment. In this review, we summarize the genetic studies that have been undertaken attempting to identify the genetic determinants of response heterogeneity for the vaccines against hepatitis B, measles and rubella. We offer a critical appraisal of these studies and make a series of suggestions about how modern genetic techniques, including genome-wide association studies, could be used to characterize the genetic architecture of vaccine response heterogeneity. We conclude by suggesting how the findings from such studies could be translated to improve vaccine effectiveness and target vaccination in a more cost-effective manner.
42
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
43
&NA;. "Pneumococcal vaccines: effectiveness in adults." Inpharma Weekly &NA;, no. 1297 (July 2001): 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00128413-200112970-00008.
Повний текст джерела
44
Walker, Damian, and Richard Rheingans. "Cost–effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines." Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 5, no. 5 (October 2005): 593–601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1586/14737167.5.5.593.
Повний текст джерела
45
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.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
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.
46
Drácz, Bálint, Veronika Müller, István Takács, Krisztina Hagymási, Elek Dinya, Pál Miheller, Attila Szijártó, and Klára Werling. "Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination with mRNA Vaccines for Patients with Cirrhosis in Hungary: Multicentre Matched Cohort Study." Vaccines 11, no. 1 (December 26, 2022): 50. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11010050.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Patients with cirrhosis are vulnerable to hepatic decompensation events and death following COVID-19 infection. Therefore, primary vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines is fundamental to reducing the risk of COVID-19 related deaths in patients with cirrhosis. However, limited data are available about the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines compared to other vaccines. The aim of our study was to investigate the efficacy of mRNA vaccines versus other vaccines in cirrhosis. In this retrospective study, we compared clinical characteristics and vaccine effectiveness of 399 COVID-19 patients without cirrhosis (GROUP A) to 52 COVID-19 patients with cirrhosis (GROUP B). 54 hospitalised cirrhosis controls without COVID-19 (GROUP C) were randomly sampled 1:1 and matched by gender and age. Of the cirrhosis cases, we found no difference (p = 0.76) in mortality rates in controls without COVID-19 (11.8%) compared to those with COVID-19 (9.6%). However, COVID-19 patients with cirrhosis were associated with higher rates of worsening hepatic encephalopathy, ascites and esophageal varices. Patients with cirrhosis receiving mRNA vaccines had significantly better survival rates compared to viral vector or inactivated vaccines. Primary vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine was the most effective in preventing acute hepatic decompensating events, COVID-19 infection requiring hospital admission and in-hospital mortality.
47
Lisitskaya, L. A., A. V. Kolesnikov, A. V. Kozyr, I. G. Shemyakin, A. K. Ryabko, O. N. Krasavtseva, and LA Dyatlov. "PROTEINS AND OTHER CARRIERS FOR CREATION OF CONJUGATED VACCINES: PROPERTIES AND APPLICATION." Journal of microbiology, epidemiology and immunobiology, no. 4 (August 28, 2016): 115–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.36233/0372-9311-2016-4-115-124.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Vaccination is a key element in prophylaxis of infectious diseases. Effective vaccines based on polysaccharide capsules were developed for a number of microorganisms. Effectiveness of polysaccharides as antigens, however, is low in the main risk groups - infants and patients with immunedeficiency conditions. Use of polysaccharide antigens conjugated with protein carriers as vaccines became a principal step forward. Though use of carriers became a breakthrough for vaccine effectiveness increase, mechanisms of interaction of proteins and carbohydrate components of the vaccines in T-cell immune response induction and immunological memory remains studied incompletely. Lack of theoretical base complicates execution of directed engineering of conjugated vaccines with the goal of expansion of their nomenclature and effectiveness increase. Despite significant volume of new information in the field of interaction of various antigens, and significant expansion of spectrum of potential carriers, including of non-protein nature, the number of pathogens, for which conjugated vaccines are introduced into clinical practice, remains insignificant. Information regarding problems and perspectives of use of carriers for conjugated polysaccharide vaccines is summarized in the review.
48
Wen, Frank, Sidney Bell, Trevor Bedford, and Sarah Cobey. "Estimating Vaccine-Driven Selection in Seasonal Influenza." Viruses 10, no. 9 (September 18, 2018): 509. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/v10090509.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Vaccination could be an evolutionary pressure on seasonal influenza if vaccines reduce the transmission rates of some (“targeted”) strains more than others. In theory, more vaccinated populations should have a lower prevalence of targeted strains compared to less vaccinated populations. We tested for vaccine-induced selection in influenza by comparing strain frequencies between more and less vaccinated human populations. We defined strains in three ways: first as influenza types and subtypes, next as lineages of type B, and finally as clades of influenza A/H3N2. We detected spatial differences partially consistent with vaccine use in the frequencies of subtypes and types and between the lineages of influenza B, suggesting that vaccines do not select strongly among all these phylogenetic groups at regional scales. We did detect a significantly greater frequency of an H3N2 clade with known vaccine escape mutations in more vaccinated countries during the 2014–2015 season, which is consistent with vaccine-driven selection within the H3N2 subtype. Overall, we find more support for vaccine-driven selection when large differences in vaccine effectiveness suggest a strong effect size. Variation in surveillance practices across countries could obscure signals of selection, especially when strain-specific differences in vaccine effectiveness are small. Further examination of the influenza vaccine’s evolutionary effects would benefit from improvements in epidemiological surveillance and reporting.
49
Greener, Mark. "Influenza vaccines: an introduction." Practice Nursing 34, Sup1 (January 2, 2023): 10–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/pnur.2023.34.sup1.s10.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Seasonal influenza is a leading cause of severe respiratory infections and deaths. During an influenza infection, the immune system produces inflammatory mediators, which are largely responsible for the systemic symptoms and complications. Vaccines remain the most effective way to prevent influenza-related respiratory disease and non-respiratory complications despite antivirals. Numerous studies support the benefits of influenza vaccination, especially in high-risk groups. However, the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine varies markedly depending on the match between the circulating strains and those in the vaccine, and the recipient’s characteristics. Influenza vaccines are, in general, well-tolerated. Research could lead to more effective and, potentially, universal influenza vaccines.
50
Ma, Yirui, Jie Deng, Qiao Liu, Min Du, Min Liu, and Jue Liu. "Effectiveness and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccine among Pregnant Women in Real-World Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Vaccines 10, no. 2 (February 6, 2022): 246. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10020246.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for pregnant women in real-world studies. We searched for observational studies about the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccinated pregnant women from inception to 6 November 2021. A total of 6 studies were included. We found that vaccination prevented pregnant women from SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR = 0.50, 95% CI, 0.35–0.79) and COVID-19-related hospitalization (OR = 0.50, 95% CI, 0.31–0.82). Messenger-RNA vaccines could reduce the risk of infection in pregnant women (OR = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.03–0.57). No adverse events of COVID-19 vaccination were found on pregnant, fetal, or neonatal outcomes. Our analysis confirmed the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women. Policy makers should formulate targeted strategies to improve vaccine coverage in pregnant women.