Two centuries of immunisation in the UK (part II).

The centrally coordinated response that controlled the polio epidemics of the 1950s through immunisation led to the development of a national immunisation strategy in the UK and the formation of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in 1963, which oversees the immunisation programme and advises the UK Department of Health on new vaccine introductions. As a result of technological advances in vaccine development and scientific advances in immunology and microbiology over the 56 years since then, and the formation of a comprehensive public health surveillance system for vaccine-preventable disease, the National Health Service immunisation programme now covers 18 serious diseases of childhood, with an astonishing impact on child health. Here we consider the formation of the JCVI and the development of the national immunisation programme and review the introduction of vaccines over the past half century to defend public health.

Two centuries of immunisation in the UK (part 1).

The impact of immunisation is best understood through a historical lens, since so many of the diseases which placed a burden on our population have been eliminated or controlled through immunisation. The United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS), which celebrated its 70th birthday in 2018, is responsible for delivering the highly successful universal national immunisation programme. However, the first vaccines used in the UK were not part of a centrally coordinated programme until the 1960s. Resources that summarise the first 200 years of immunisation in the UK are not readily accessible. Here we provide a two part chronological insight into the history of the UK immunisation programme from primary sources. In Part I, we highlight the importance of wartime conditions, unprecedented vaccine development, and the polio outbreaks in the in driving developments in immunisation and discuss subsequent changes in the use of the original vaccines of the immunisation programme, namely, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio. In Part 2, we discuss the formation of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and its role, working with public health agencies and advising the UK Governments on vaccine policy, to bring a comprehensive programme to defend the health of the population against serious infectious diseases, highlighting the importance of programme organisation and leadership.

Bacterial Load and Molecular Markers Associated With Early-onset Group B Streptococcus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of neonatal group B Streptococcus (GBS) is poorly understood. Little is known about the bacterial factors influencing the transmission of GBS from mother to neonate, or the development of invasive early-onset GBS disease (EOGBS) in colonized neonates. We reviewed whether bacterial load and molecular markers are associated with GBS vertical transmission and progression to EOGBS. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science from inception to October 10, 2016, for observational studies in English. We also hand-searched reference lists of relevant publications and experts cross-checked included studies. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and appraised the quality of included studies using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses where possible and narratively synthesized the evidence in text and tables. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included from 1107 records retrieved from electronic databases and publication references. Meta-analyses of 3 studies showed that neonates colonized by serotype III had a higher risk of developing EOGBS than serotype Ia (pooled risk ratio: 1.51, 95% confidence interval: 1.12-2.03) and serotype II (risk ratio: 1.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-3.45). Eleven studies showed that in heavily colonized mothers, 2-3 times more neonates were colonized, and in heavily colonized neonates, up to 15 times more neonates had EOGBS, compared with light colonization. Most evidence was published before 2000 and was at risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the difficulty of natural history studies, well-controlled studies are needed to assess the predictive value of pathogen subtype and heavy load; they may be useful for better-targeted prevention.

Adverse events in women and children who have received intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis treatment: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events from intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) are poorly documented yet essential to inform clinical practice for neonatal group B Streptococcus (GBS) disease prevention. In this systematic review, we appraised and synthesised the evidence on the adverse events of IAP in the mother and/or her child. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Science Citation Index from date of inception until October 16th 2016. Reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched. We included primary studies in English that reported any adverse events from intrapartum antibiotics for any prophylactic purpose compared to controls. The search was not restricted to prophylaxis for GBS but excluded women with symptoms of infection or undergoing caesarean section. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of studies, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomised Studies. Results were synthesised narratively and displayed in text and tables. RESULTS: From 2364 unique records, 30 studies were included. Despite a wide range of adverse events reported in 17 observational studies and 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the evidence was inconsistent and at high risk of bias. Only one RCT investigated the long-term effects of IAP reporting potentially serious outcomes such as cerebral palsy; however, it had limited applicability and unclear biological plausibility. Seven observational studies showed that IAP for maternal GBS colonisation alters the infant microbiome. However, study populations were not followed through to clinical outcomes, therefore clinical significance is unknown. There was also observational evidence for increased antimicrobial resistance, however studies were at high or unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base to determine the frequency of adverse events from intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for neonatal GBS disease prevention is limited. As RCTs may not be possible, large, better quality, and longitudinal observational studies across countries with widespread IAP could fill this gap. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42016037195 .