Vaccine
-
The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, describe and assess the potential effectiveness of strategies to respond to issues of vaccine hesitancy that have been implemented and evaluated across diverse global contexts. ⋯ Across the literature, few strategies to address vaccine hesitancy were found to have been evaluated for impact on either vaccination uptake and/or changes in knowledge, awareness or attitude (only 14% of peer reviewed and 25% of grey literature). The majority of evaluation studies were based in the Americas and primarily focused on influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV) and childhood vaccines. In low- and middle-income regions, the focus was on diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, and polio. Across all regions, most interventions were multi-component and the majority of strategies focused on raising knowledge and awareness. Thirteen relevant studies were used for the GRADE assessment that indicated evidence of moderate quality for the use of social mobilization, mass media, communication tool-based training for health-care workers, non-financial incentives and reminder/recall-based interventions. Overall, our results showed that multicomponent and dialogue-based interventions were most effective. However, given the complexity of vaccine hesitancy and the limited evidence available on how it can be addressed, identified strategies should be carefully tailored according to the target population, their reasons for hesitancy, and the specific context.
-
Dengue has become the most rapidly expanding mosquito-borne infectious disease on the planet, surpassing malaria and infecting at least 390 million people per year. There is no effective treatment for dengue illness other than supportive care, especially for severe cases. Symptoms can be mild or life-threatening as in dengue hemorrhagic fever and dengue shock syndrome. ⋯ This review summarizes the current status of all dengue vaccine candidates in clinical evaluation. Currently five candidate vaccines are in human clinical trials. One has completed two Phase III trials, two are in Phase II trials, and three are in Phase I testing.
-
Typhoid vaccination is an important component of typhoid fever prevention and control, and is recommended for public health programmatic use in both endemic and outbreak settings. We reviewed experiences with various vaccination strategies using the currently available typhoid vaccines (injectable Vi polysaccharide vaccine [ViPS], oral Ty21a vaccine, and injectable typhoid conjugate vaccine [TCV]). We assessed the rationale, acceptability, effectiveness, impact and implementation lessons of these strategies to inform effective typhoid vaccination strategies for the future. ⋯ TCVs have recently become available and none are WHO-prequalified yet; no program experience with TCVs was found in published literature. Despite the demonstrated success of several typhoid vaccination strategies, typhoid vaccines remain underused. Implementation lessons should be applied to design optimal vaccination strategies using TCVs which have several anticipated advantages, such as potential for use in infant immunization programs and longer duration of protection, over the ViPS and Ty21a vaccines for typhoid prevention and control.
-
Review
Comparing vaccines: a systematic review of the use of the non-inferiority margin in vaccine trials.
Non-inferiority (NI) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aim to demonstrate that a new treatment is no worse than a comparator that has already shown its efficacy over placebo within a pre-specified margin. However, clear guidelines on how the NI margin should be determined are lacking for vaccine trials. A difference (seroprevalence/risk) of 10% or a geometric mean titre/concentration (GMT) ratio of 1.5 or 2.0 in antibody levels is implicitly recommended for vaccine trials. We aimed to explore which NI margins were used in vaccine RCTs and how they were determined. ⋯ Most NI vaccine RCTs used an NI margin of 10% for difference or a GMT ratio of 1.5 or 2.0 without a clear rationale. Most articles presented enough information for the reader to make a judgement about the NI margin used and the conclusions. The reporting on the design, margins used and results of NI vaccine trials could be improved; more explicit guidelines may help to achieve this end.
-
Review
Comparing vaccines: a systematic review of the use of the non-inferiority margin in vaccine trials.
Non-inferiority (NI) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aim to demonstrate that a new treatment is no worse than a comparator that has already shown its efficacy over placebo within a pre-specified margin. However, clear guidelines on how the NI margin should be determined are lacking for vaccine trials. A difference (seroprevalence/risk) of 10% or a geometric mean titre/concentration (GMT) ratio of 1.5 or 2.0 in antibody levels is implicitly recommended for vaccine trials. We aimed to explore which NI margins were used in vaccine RCTs and how they were determined. ⋯ Most NI vaccine RCTs used an NI margin of 10% for difference or a GMT ratio of 1.5 or 2.0 without a clear rationale. Most articles presented enough information for the reader to make a judgement about the NI margin used and the conclusions. The reporting on the design, margins used and results of NI vaccine trials could be improved; more explicit guidelines may help to achieve this end.