Effect of age at vaccination on the measles vaccine effectiveness and immunogenicity: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Carazo S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7104533 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Effect of age at vaccination on the measles vaccine effectiveness and immunogenicity: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Carazo Sara S Billard Marie-Noëlle MN Boutin Amélie A De Serres Gaston G
BMC infectious diseases 20200329 1
<h4>Background</h4>The objectives of this review were to evaluate the effect of age at administration of the first dose of a measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) on protection against measles and on antibody response after one- and two-dose measles vaccinations.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases (1964-2017) to identify observational studies estimating vaccine effectiveness and/or measles attack rates by age at first ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn settings where measles has been eliminated, vaccine-derived immunity may in theory wane more rapidly due to a lack of immune boosting by circulating measles virus. We aimed to assess whether measles vaccine effectiveness (VE) waned over time, and if so, whether differentially in measles-eliminated and measles-endemic settings.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review of studies that reported VE and time since vaccination with measles-containing vaccine (MCV). We extracted information on case definition (clinical symptoms and/or laboratory diagnosis), method of vaccination status ascertainment (medical record or vaccine registry), as well as any biases which may have arisen from cold chain issues and a lack of an age at first dose of MCV. We then used linear regression to evaluate VE as a function of age at first dose of MCV and time since MCV.ResultsAfter screening 14,782 citations, we identified three full-text articles from measles-eliminated settings and 33 articles from measles-endemic settings. In elimination settings, two-dose VE estimates increased as age at first dose of MCV increased and decreased as time since MCV increased; however, the small number of studies available limited interpretation. In measles-endemic settings, one-dose VE increased by 1.5% (95% CI 0.5, 2.5) for every month increase in age at first dose of MCV. We found no evidence of waning VE in endemic settings.ConclusionsThe paucity of data from measles-eliminated settings indicates that additional studies and approaches (such as studies using proxies including laboratory correlates of protection) are needed to answer the question of whether VE in measles-eliminated settings wanes. Age at first dose of MCV was the most important factor in determining VE. More VE studies need to be conducted in elimination settings, and standards should be developed for information collected and reported in such studies.
| S-EPMC6970218 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMeasles is an important cause of death in children, despite the availability of safe and cost-saving measles-containing vaccines (MCVs). The first MCV dose (MCV1) is recommended at 9 months of age in countries with ongoing measles transmission, and at 12 months in countries with low risk of measles. To assess whether bringing forward the age of MCV1 is beneficial, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits and risks of MCV1 in infants younger than 9 months.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Proquest, Global Health, the WHO library database, and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing database, and consulted experts. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, outbreak investigations, and cohort and case-control studies without restriction on publication dates, in which MCV1 was administered to infants younger than 9 months. We did the literature search on June 2, 2015, and updated it on Jan 14, 2019. We assessed: proportion of infants seroconverted, geometric mean antibody titre, avidity, cellular immunity, duration of immunity, vaccine efficacy, vaccine effectiveness, and safety. We used random-effects models to derive pooled estimates of the endpoints, where appropriate. We assessed methodological quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines.FindingsOur search identified 1156 studies, of which 1071 were screened for eligibility. 351 were eligible for full-text screening, and data from 56 studies that met all inclusion criteria were used for analysis. The proportion of infants who seroconverted increased from 50% (95% CI 29-71) for those vaccinated with MCV1 at 4 months of age to 85% (69-97) for those were vaccinated at 8 months. The pooled geometric mean titre ratio for infants aged 4-8 months vaccinated with MCV1 compared with infants vaccinated with MCV1 at age 9 months or older was 0·46 (95% CI 0·33-0·66; I2=99·9%, p<0·0001). Only one study reported on avidity and suggested that there was lower avidity and a shorter duration of immunity following MCV1 administration at 6 months of age than at 9 months of age (p=0·0016) or 12 months of age (p<0·001). No effect of age at MCV1 administration on cellular immunity was found. One study reported that vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed measles virus infection was 94% (95% CI 74-98) in infants vaccinated with MCV1 at 4·5 months of age. The pooled vaccine effectiveness of MCV1 in infants younger than 9 months against measles was 58% (95% CI 9-80; I2=84·9%, p<0·0001). The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimate from within-study comparisons of infants younger than 9 months vaccinated with MCV1 were 51% (95% CI -44 to 83; I2=92·3%, p<0·0001), and for those aged 9 months and older at vaccination it was 83% (76-88; I2=93·8%, p<0·0001). No differences in the risk of adverse events after MCV1 administration were found between infants younger than 9 months and those aged 9 months of older. Overall, the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.InterpretationMCV1 administered to infants younger than 9 months induces a good immune response, whereby the proportion of infants seroconverted increases with increased age at vaccination. A large proportion of infants receiving MCV1 before 9 months of age are protected and the vaccine is safe, although higher antibody titres and vaccine effectiveness are found when MCV1 is administered at older ages. Recommending MCV1 administration to infants younger than 9 months for those at high risk of measles is an important step towards reducing measles-related mortality and morbidity.FundingWHO.
| S-EPMC6838664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A combined measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccine is expected to facilitate universal immunization against these 4 diseases. This study was undertaken to synthesize current research findings of the immunogenicity and safety of MMRV in healthy children.We searched PubMed, Embase, BIOSIS Previews, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and other databases through September 9, 2014. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected and collected independently by 2 reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 12.0 and RevMan 5.3.Twenty-four RCTs were included in qualitative synthesis. Nineteen RCTs compared single MMRV dose with measles-mumps-rubella vaccine with or without varicella vaccine (MMR?+?V/MMR). Similar seroconversion rates of these 4 viruses were found between comparison groups. There were comparable geometric mean titers (GMTs) against mumps and varicella viruses between MMRV group and MMR?+?V/MMR group. MMRV group achieved enhanced immune response to measles component, with GMT ratio of 1.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48, 1.86; P?<?0.001) for MMRV versus MMR and 1.62 (95% CI 1.51, 1.70; P?<?0.001) for MMRV versus MMR?+?V. Meanwhile, immune response to rubella component in MMRV group was slightly reduced, GMT ratios were 0.81 (95% CI 0.78, 0.85; P?<?0.001) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.76, 0.83; P?<?0.001), respectively. Well tolerated safety profiles were demonstrated except higher incidence of fever (relative risks 1.12-1.60) and measles/rubella-like rash (relative risks 1.44-1.45) in MMRV groups.MMRV had comparable immunogenicity and overall safety profiles to MMR?+?V/MMR in healthy children based on current evidence.
| S-EPMC4915870 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundVaccinating infants with a first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) before 9 months of age in high-risk settings has the potential to reduce measles-related morbidity and mortality. However, there is concern that early vaccination might blunt the immune response to subsequent measles vaccine doses. We systematically reviewed the available evidence on the effect of MCV1 administration to infants younger than 9 months on their immune responses to subsequent MCV doses.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, outbreak investigations, and cohort and case-control studies without restriction on publication dates, in which MCV1 was administered to infants younger than 9 months. We did the literature search on June 2, 2015, and updated it on Jan 14, 2019. We included studies reporting data on strength or duration of humoral and cellular immune responses, and on vaccine efficacy or vaccine effectiveness after two-dose or three-dose MCV schedules. Our outcome measures were proportion of seropositive infants, geometric mean titre, vaccine efficacy, vaccine effectiveness, antibody avidity index, and T-cell stimulation index. We used random-effects meta-analysis to derive pooled estimates of the outcomes, where appropriate. We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.FindingsOur search retrieved 1156 records and 85 were excluded due to duplication. 1071 records were screened for eligibility, of which 351 were eligible for full-text screening and 21 were eligible for inclusion in the review. From 13 studies, the pooled proportion of infants seropositive after two MCV doses, with MCV1 administered before 9 months of age, was 98% (95% CI 96-99; I2=79·8%, p<0·0001), which was not significantly different from seropositivity after a two-dose MCV schedule starting later (p=0·087). Only one of four studies found geometric mean titres after MCV2 administration to be significantly lower when MCV1 was administered before 9 months of age than at 9 months of age or later. There was insufficient evidence to determine an effect of age at MCV1 administration on antibody avidity. The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimate derived from two studies of a two-dose MCV schedule with MCV1 vaccination before 9 months of age was 95% (95% CI 89-100; I2=12·6%, p=0·29). Seven studies reporting on measles virus-specific cellular immune responses found that T-cell responses and T-cell memory were sustained, irrespective of the age of MCV1 administration. Overall, the quality of evidence was moderate to very low.InterpretationOur findings suggest that administering MCV1 to infants younger than 9 months followed by additional MCV doses results in high seropositivity, vaccine effectiveness, and T-cell responses, which are independent of the age at MCV1, supporting the vaccination of very young infants in high-risk settings. However, we also found some evidence that MCV1 administered to infants younger than 9 months resulted in lower antibody titres after one or two subsequent doses of MCV than when measles vaccination is started at age 9 months or older. The clinical and public-health relevance of this immunity blunting effect are uncertain.FundingWHO.
| S-EPMC6838663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHIV-infected and HIV-exposed uninfected (HEU) children have an increased risk of measles that may be due to altered immune responses or suboptimal timing of measles vaccination. We aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of measles vaccination in HIV-infected and HEU children.MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Global Health Library and IndMED on May 9, 2018. Studies were included if they reported on safety or seroresponse (either seroprotection/seropositivity/seroconversion) after measles vaccination in HIV-infected or HEU children. We calculated pooled estimates to compare immunogenicity outcomes between HIV-infected, HEU and HIV-unexposed children, using risk ratios [RRs] (with 95%CIs). PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017057411.FindingsSeventy-one studies met the inclusion criteria (15,363 children). Twenty-eight studies reported on safety; vaccine-associated adverse events and deaths were uncommon. Sixty-two studies reported on immunogenicity, 27 were included in the meta-analysis. HIV-infected children had lower seroresponse rates after primary vaccination compared with HIV-unexposed (RR 0.74; 95%CI: 0.61-0.90, I 2 ?=?85.9%) and HEU children (0.78; 0.69-0.88, I 2 ?=?77.1%), which was mitigated by antiretroviral therapy and time interval between vaccination and serology. HEU and HIV-unexposed children had similar seroresponses. Vaccination at 6-months resulted in similar proportions of HIV-infected children having seroresponse compared with HIV-unexposed (0.96; 0.77-1.19) and HEU children (1.00; 0.73-1.37, I 2 ?=?63.7%).InterpretationPrimary measles vaccination at 6-months of age may provide protection against measles during early infancy in settings with high prevalence of maternal HIV-infection, however, further studies are needed to evaluate this strategy in HEU children and HIV-infected children receiving antiretroviral therapy.FundingSouth African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation in Vaccine Preventable Diseases; Medical Research Council: Respiratory and Meningeal Pathogens Research Unit.
| S-EPMC6537570 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConflicting results regarding the impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may cause confusion regarding the benefits of receiving the current season's vaccine.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from database inception to August 17, 2016, for observational studies published in English that reported VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza for the following four vaccination groups: current season only, prior season only, both seasons, and neither season. We pooled differences in VE (?VE) between vaccination groups by influenza season and type/subtype using a random-effects model. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42016037241).ResultsWe identified 3435 unique articles, reviewed the full text of 634, and included 20 for meta-analysis. Compared to prior season vaccination only, vaccination in both seasons was associated with greater protection against influenza H1N1 (?VE?=?25%; 95% CI 14%, 35%) and B (?VE?=?18%; 95% CI 3%, 33%), but not H3N2 (?VE?=?7%; 95% CI -?7%, 21%). Compared to no vaccination for either season, individuals who received the current season's vaccine had greater protection against H1N1 (?VE?=?62%; 95% CI 51%, 70%), H3N2 (?VE?=?45%; 95% CI 35%, 53%), and B (?VE?=?64%; 95% CI 57%, 71%). We observed no differences in VE between vaccination in both seasons and the current season only for H1N1 (?VE?=?3%; 95% CI -?8%, 13%), but less protection against influenza H3N2 (?VE?=?-?20%; 95% CI -?36%, -?4%), and B (?VE?=?-?11%; 95% CI -?20%, -?2%).ConclusionsOur results support current season vaccination regardless of prior season vaccination because VE for vaccination in the current season only is higher compared to no vaccination in either season for all types/subtypes, and for H1N1 and influenza B, vaccination in both seasons provides better VE than vaccination in the prior season only. Although VE was lower against H3N2 and B for individuals vaccinated in both seasons compared to those vaccinated in the current season only, it should be noted that past vaccination history cannot be altered and this comparison disregards susceptibility to influenza during the prior season among those vaccinated in the current season only. In addition, our results for H3N2 were particularly influenced by the 2014-2015 influenza season and the impact of repeated vaccination for all types/subtypes may vary from season to season. It is important that future VE studies include vaccination history over multiple seasons to evaluate repeated vaccination in more detail.
| S-EPMC6327561 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConflicting results regarding the impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) may cause confusion regarding the benefits of receiving the current season's vaccine.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from database inception to August 17, 2016, for observational studies published in English that reported VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza for four vaccination groups, namely current season only, prior season only, both seasons, and neither season. We pooled differences in VE (∆VE) between vaccination groups by influenza season and type/subtype using a random effects model. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42016037241).ResultsWe identified 3435 unique articles, reviewed the full text of 634, and included 20 for meta-analysis. Compared to prior season vaccination only, vaccination in both seasons was associated with greater protection against influenza H1N1 (∆VE = 26%; 95% CI, 15% to 36%) and B (∆VE = 24%; 95% CI, 7% to 42%), but not H3N2 (∆VE = 10%; 95% CI, -6% to 25%). Compared to no vaccination for either season, individuals who received the current season's vaccine had greater protection against H1N1 (∆VE = 61%; 95% CI, 50% to 70%), H3N2 (∆VE = 41%; 95% CI, 33% to 48%), and B (∆VE = 62%; 95% CI, 54% to 68%). We observed no differences in VE between vaccination in both seasons and the current season only for H1N1 (∆VE = 4%; 95% CI, -7% to 15%), H3N2 (∆VE = -12%; 95% CI, -27% to 4%), or B (∆VE = -8%; 95% CI, -17% to 1%).ConclusionsFrom the patient perspective, our results support current season vaccination regardless of prior season vaccination. We found no overall evidence that prior season vaccination negatively impacts current season VE. It is important that future VE studies include vaccination history over multiple seasons in order to evaluate repeated vaccination in more detail.
| S-EPMC5563917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence suggests that repeated influenza vaccination may reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE). Using influenza vaccination program maturation (PM; number of years since program inception) as a proxy for population-level repeated vaccination, we assessed the impact on pooled adjusted end-season VE estimates from outpatient test-negative design studies.MethodsWe systematically searched and selected full-text publications from January 2011 to February 2020 (PROSPERO: CRD42017064595). We obtained influenza vaccination program inception year for each country and calculated PM as the difference between the year of deployment and year of program inception. We categorized PM into halves (cut at the median), tertiles, and quartiles and calculated pooled VE using an inverse-variance random-effects model. The primary outcome was pooled VE against all influenza.ResultsWe included 72 articles from 11 931 citations. Across the 3 categorizations of PM, a lower pooled VE against all influenza for all patients was observed with PM. Substantially higher reductions were observed in older adults (≥65 years). We observed similar results for A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2), and influenza B.ConclusionsThe evidence suggests that influenza VE declines with vaccination PM. This study forms the basis for further discussions and examinations of the potential impact of vaccination PM on seasonal VE.
| S-EPMC7953658 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the universal use of the two-dose trivalent measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in the past two decades, outbreaks of these diseases still occur in countries with high vaccine uptake, giving rise to concerns about primary and secondary failure of MMR vaccine components. We aimed to provide seroconversion and waning rate estimates for the measles, mumps, and rubella components of MMR vaccines.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched PubMed (including MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Embase for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, or longitudinal studies reporting the immunogenicity and persistence of MMR vaccines, published in English from database inception to Dec 31, 2019. Studies were included if they investigated vaccine-induced immunity in healthy individuals who received a trivalent MMR vaccine, including different dosages and timepoints of vaccine administration. Studies featuring coadministration of MMR with other vaccines, maternal immunity to the MMR vaccine, or non-trivalent formulations of the vaccine were excluded. Pooled seroconversion and waning rates were estimated by random-effects meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019116705.FindingsWe identified 3615 unique studies, 62 (1·7%) of which were eligible for analysis. Estimated overall seroconversion rates were 96·0% (95% CI 94·5-97·4; I2=91·1%) for measles, 93·3% (91·1-95·2; I2=94·9%) for mumps when excluding the Rubini strain, 91·1% (87·4-94·1; I2=96·6%) for mumps when including the Rubini strain, and 98·3% (97·3-99·2; I2=93·0%) for rubella. Estimated overall annual waning rates were 0·009 (95% CI 0·005-0·016; I2=85·2%) for measles, 0·024 (0·016-0·039; I2=94·7%) for mumps, and 0·012 (0·010-0·014; I2=93·3%) for rubella.InterpretationOur meta-analysis provides estimates of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which are essential to improve the accuracy of mathematical and statistical modelling to understand and predict the occurrence of future measles, mumps, and rubella outbreaks in countries with high vaccine uptake.FundingEuropean Research Council.
| S-EPMC9665966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization has recommended that all 124 countries currently using only oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) introduce at least 1 dose of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) before the global withdrawal of serotype 2 OPV in 2016. A 1- or 2-dose schedule, potentially administered intradermally with reduced antigen content, may make this affordable.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of studies documenting seroconversion after 1 or 2, full or fractional (1/5) doses of enhanced-potency IPV was performed. Studies reporting the clinical efficacy of IPV were also reviewed.ResultsTwenty study arms from 12 published articles were included in the analysis of seroconversion. One full dose of intramuscular IPV seroconverted 33%, 41%, and 47% of infants against serotypes 1, 2, and 3 on average, whereas 2 full doses seroconverted 79%, 80%, and 90%, respectively. Seroconversion increased with age at administration. Limited data from case-control studies indicate clinical efficacy equivalent to the proportion seroconverting. One fractional dose of intradermal IPV gave lower seroconversion (10%-40%), but after 2 doses seroconversion was comparable to that with full-dose IPV.ConclusionsRoutine immunization with 2 full or fractional doses of IPV given after 10 weeks of age is likely to protect >80% of recipients against poliomyelitis if poliovirus reemerges after withdrawal of OPV serotypes.
| S-EPMC4197908 | biostudies-literature