ABSTRACT
In May 2022, mpox began to spread worldwide, posing a serious threat to human public health. Modified Vaccinia Ankara-Bavaria Nordic (MVA-BN) is a live attenuated orthopoxvirus vaccine that has been authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as the vaccine of choice for the prevention of mpox. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis of all currently published literature on the efficacy and safety of the MVA-BN vaccine in the real world, showing that the MVA-BN vaccine is effective and safe, with efficacy of up to 75% with a single dose and up to 80% with a two-dose vaccine. Meanwhile, we found that subcutaneous injection has lower local and systemic adverse events than intradermal injection, regardless of single- or two-dose vaccination, and subcutaneous injection is better tolerated in children, the elderly, or people with underlying medical conditions. These results have important reference value for clinical practice.
Subject(s)
Vaccine Efficacy , Vaccines, Attenuated , Humans , Vaccines, Attenuated/immunology , Vaccines, Attenuated/administration & dosage , Vaccines, Attenuated/adverse effects , Poxviridae Infections/prevention & control , Poxviridae Infections/immunology , Vaccinia virus/immunology , Vaccinia virus/genetics , Vaccination , Injections, Subcutaneous , Injections, Intradermal , Viral Vaccines/adverse effects , Viral Vaccines/immunology , Viral Vaccines/administration & dosage , Orthopoxvirus/immunology , Orthopoxvirus/genetics , ChildABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: A notable research gap exists in the systematic review and meta-analysis concerning the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prefusion F vaccine. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search across PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov to retrieve articles related to the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of RSV prefusion F vaccines, published through September 8, 2023. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 22 randomized controlled trials involving 78,990 participants were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The RSV prefusion F vaccine exhibited a vaccine effectiveness of 68% (95% CI: 59-75%) against RSV-associated acute respiratory illness, 70% (95% CI: 60-77%) against medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness, and 87% (95% CI: 71-94%) against medically attended severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness. Common reported local adverse reactions following RSV prefusion F vaccination include pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, and systemic reactions such as fatigue, headache, myalgia, arthralgia, nausea, and chills. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that vaccines using the RSV prefusion F protein as antigen exhibit appears broadly acceptable efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety in the population. In particular, it provides high protective efficiency against severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease.
Subject(s)
Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines , Humans , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/prevention & control , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines/immunology , Vaccine Efficacy , Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human/immunology , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
Background: Recent research highlights the contribution of co-infections to elevated disease severity and mortality among COVID-19 patients. Given China's decision to ease epidemic prevention policies in December 2022, a comprehensive exploration of the risks and characteristics of co-infections with respiratory pathogens becomes imperative. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 716 COVID-19 patients admitted to a primary hospital in China. The detection of twelve respiratory pathogens was conducted using qPCR, and the potential risk factors were analyzed through Cox regression analysis. Results: Within this cohort, 76.82% of cases exhibited co-infection involving eleven distinct pathogens. Among these, bacterial co-infections were observed in 74% of cases, with Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae emerging as the most prevalent bacterial co-infection agents. Additionally, 15% of cases presented with viral co-infections, predominantly involving influenza A virus and respiratory syncytial virus. Nevertheless, our investigation suggested that there might be some inappropriate antibiotic use in treatments. Furthermore, risk analysis unveiled dyspnea, hypoproteinemia, low lymphocyte counts, and co-infection with Mycoplasma pneumoniae as prominent risk factors for COVID-19 inpatients. Conclusion: Our findings underscore a significant occurrence of co-infections among COVID-19 patients during the epidemic, emphasizing the need for enhanced antibiotic stewardship. Effective management strategies should encompass respiratory status, nutritional aspects, and vigilance towards co-infections involving M. pneumoniae during COVID-19 treatment. This study underscores the significance of comprehensive management protocols to address the multifaceted challenges presented by co-infections in COVID-19 patients.