Effectiveness and duration of protection of primary and booster immunisation against meningococcal serogroup C disease with meningococcal conjugate C and ACWY vaccines: Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) and duration of protection of single primary and booster immunisation with meningococcal C (MenC) and ACWY (MenACWY) conjugate vaccines in preventing MenC invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). METHODS: We performed a systematic review on studies of VE and immunogenicity (rSBA/hSBA titers) of participants aged 12-23 months for primary and 6-18 years for booster immunisation (last search: 18 August 2023). Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated (PROSPERO: CRD42020178773). RESULTS: We identified 10 studies. Two studies reported VE of primary immunisation with MenC vaccines ranging between 90% (74.9 - 96.1) and 84.1% (41.5 - 95.7) for periods of 2 and 7 years, respectively. Eight studies reported immunogenicity of primary immunisation with MenC and/or MenACWY vaccines, of which two reported -in addition- on booster immunisation. The percentage of participants with protective rSBA titers was high after primary immunisation but waned over the following 6 years. A single booster at the age of 7 years or older seems to prolong protection for several years. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of MenC or MenACWY vaccine at 12-23 months of age provides robust protection against MenC IMD. Data on booster immunisation are sparse, but indicate prolonged protection for three years at least.

Guidance on how to efficiently find, choose, and use available systematic reviews was developed.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper is to provide clinicians and authors of clinical guidelines or patient information with practical guidance on searching and choosing systematic reviews(s) (SR[s]) and, where adequate, on making use of SR(s). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: At the German conference of the Evidence-Based Medicine Network (EbM Network) a workshop on the topic was held to identify the most important areas where guidance for practice appears necessary. After the workshop, we established working groups. These included SR users with different backgrounds (eg, information specialists, epidemiologists) and working areas. Each working group developed and consented a draft guidance based on their expert knowledge and experiences. The results were presented to the entire group and finalized in an iterative process. RESULTS: We developed a practical guidance that answers questions that usually arise when choosing and using SR(s). (1) How to efficiently find high-quality SRs? (2) How to choose the most appropriate SR? (3) What to do if no SR of sufficient quality could be identified? In addition, we developed an algorithm that links these steps and accounts for their interaction. The resulting guidance is primarily directed at clinicians and developers of clinical practice guidelines or patient information resources. CONCLUSION: We suggest practical guidance for making the best use of SRs when answering a specific research question. The guidance may contribute to the efficient use of existing SRs. Potential benefits when using existing SRs should be always weighted against potential limitations.

Correction: Nygren et al. Tick-Borne Encephalitis Risk Increases with Dog Ownership, Frequent Walks, and Gardening: A Case-Control Study in Germany 2018-2020. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 690.

In the original publication [...].

Prevalence of vaccine-derived hepatitis B surface antibodies in children and adolescents in Germany: results from a population-based survey, 2014-2017.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood vaccination against hepatitis B has been recommended in Germany since 1995. WHO defines a primary vaccination series as successful if the initial hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) level is ≥ 10 IU/L directly after vaccination. Anti-HBs levels vary depending on the number of doses, type of vaccine, and time interval between the last two doses. In 2021, Germany began to recommend three instead of four doses of polyvalent hepatitis-B-containing vaccines. Our aim was to estimate the proportion of vaccinated children in Germany with anti-HBs levels < 10 IU/L, 10-99 IU/L, and ≥ 100 IU/L by number and type of vaccine, and assess if number of doses and compliance with recommended time interval between the last two doses are associated with an anti-HBs level ≥ 10 IU/L when considering type of vaccine and time since last dose. METHODS: We used data from a national cross-sectional study (2014-2017) of children (3-17 years). We excluded participants with unknown vaccination dates, unreadable or incomplete vaccination cards, and hepatitis B virus (HBV)-positive participants. We defined a recommended schedule as a vaccination series with at least six months between the two last doses and having three doses or more. We calculated weighted anti-HBs sero-prevalence for three anti-HBs levels: < 10 IU/L, 10-99 IU/L and ≥ 100 IU/L. We fitted two logistic regression models to examine the relationship between number of doses and recommended schedule on anti-HBs levels (≥ 10 IU/L and ≥ 100 IU/L) considering time since last dose and type of vaccine (Infanrix, Hexavac, Monovalent). RESULTS: We included 2,489 participants. The weighted proportion of vaccinated children per anti-HBs level was < 10 IU/L: 36.3% [95%CI 34.0-38.7%], 10-99 IU/L: 35.7% [33.2-38.2%] and ≥ 100 IU/L: 28.0% [25.9-30.2%]. We did not find an association between a recommended schedule of three versus four doses and anti-HBs ≥ 10 IU/L or ≥ 100 IU/L. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-HBs levels in later childhood were about equal, whether children received three or four doses. This implies that the change in the recommendations does not affect the anti-HBs level among children in Germany. Future studies are needed on the association of anti-HBs levels and adequate sustained protection against HBV.

Needs and feasibility of living systematic reviews (LSRs): Experience from LSRs on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.

During 2021 and 2023, a team of researchers at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and partnering institutions conducted two living systematic reviews (LSRs) on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in different age groups to inform recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany (Ständige Impfkommission, STIKO). Based on our experience from the realization of these LSRs, we developed certain criteria to assess the needs and feasibility of conducting LSRs. Combining these with previously established criteria, we developed the following set to inform future planning of LSRs for STIKO: Needs criterion (N)1: Relevance of the research question, N2: Certainty of evidence (CoE) at baseline; N3: Expected need for Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) adaptations; N4: Expected new evidence over time; N5: Expected impact of new evidence on CoE; Feasibility criterion (F)1: Availability of sufficient human resources; F2: Feasibility of timely dissemination of the results to inform decision-making. For each criterion we suggest rating options which may support the decision to conduct an LSR or other forms of evidence synthesis when following the provided flowchart. The suggested criteria were developed on the basis of the experiences from exemplary reviews in a specific research field (i.e., COVID-19 vaccination), and did not follow a formal development or validation process. However, these criteria might also be useful to assess whether questions from other research fields can and should be answered using the LSR approach, or assist in determining whether the use of an LSR is sensible and feasible for specific questions in health policy and practice.

[Development of criteria for the prospective assessment of the need for updating guideline recommendations: The AGIL criteria]. / Entwicklung von Kriterien für die prospektive Einschätzung des Aktualisierungsbedarfs von Leitlinienempfehlungen: AGIL-Kriterien.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guideline and vaccination recommendations should continuously be updated to appropriately support health care decisions. However, resources for updating guidelines are often limited. The aim of this project was to develop a list of criteria for the prospective assessment of the need for updating individual guideline or vaccination recommendations, which can be applied from the time a guideline or guideline update is finalised. METHODS: In this article we describe the development of the AGIL criteria (Assessment of Guidelines for Updating Recommendations). The AGIL criteria were developed by experienced scientists and experts in the field of guideline development in a multi-step process. The five steps included: 1) development of an initial list of criteria by the project team; 2) online survey of guideline experts on the initial version of the criteria list; 3) revision of the criteria list based on the results of the online survey; 4) workshop on the criteria list at the EbM Congress 2023; 5) creation of version 1.0 of the AGIL criteria based on the workshop results. RESULTS: The initial list included the following three criteria: 1) relevance of the question 2) availability of new relevant evidence, and 3) impact of potentially new evidence. The response rate of the online survey for fully completed questionnaires was 31.0% (N=195; 630 guideline experts were contacted by email). For 90.3% (n=176) of the respondents, the criteria list included all essential aspects for assessing the need for updating guideline recommendations. More than three quarters of respondents rated the importance of the three criteria as "very important" or "important" (criteria 1-3: 75.3%, 86.1%, 85.2%) and - with the exception of criterion 1 - comprehensibility as "very comprehensible" or "comprehensible" (criteria 1-3: 58.4%, 75.9%, 78.5%). The results of the online survey and the workshop generally confirmed the three criteria with their two sub-questions. The incorporation of all feedback resulted in the AGIL criteria (version 1.0), recapping: 1) relevance of the question regarding a) PICO components and b) other factors, e.g. epidemiological aspects; 2) availability of new evidence a) on health-related benefits and harms and b) on other decision factors, e.g. feasibility, acceptability; 3) impact of new evidence a) on the certainty of evidence on which the recommendation is based and b) on the present recommendation, e.g. DISCUSSION: The moderate response rate of the online survey may have limited its representativeness. Nevertheless, we consider the response rate to be satisfactory in this research context. The inclusion of many experts in the online survey and the EbM Congress workshop is a strength of the project and supports the quality of the results. CONCLUSIONS: The AGIL criteria provide a structured guidance for the prospective assessment of the need for updating individual guideline recommendations and other evidence-based recommendations. The implementation and evaluation of the AGIL criteria 1.0 in a field test is planned.