Reconsidering the inclusion of Ladapo's work in the meta-analysis: Validity concerns and implications.

This is a response to Marchand & Masoud's response letter regarding my criticism "Response to Dr. Somovilla del Saz's letter to the editor regarding "Risk of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality after vaccination against COVID-19: A meta-analysis of self-controlled case series studies."" The response is a defense of the initial criticism to the paper regarding the validity of the inclusion of Ladapo´s paper.

Sustaining the momentum for adult vaccination post-COVID-19 to leverage the global uptake of life-course immunisation: A scoping review and call to action.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic changed the adult vaccination landscape, possibly permanently. This review attempts to quantitate the magnitude of those changes. METHODS: PubMed was searched for studies on adult / life-course vaccination between 1 January 2020 until 8 November 2022. RESULTS: Twenty-one articles were identified and observations summarised as positive developments/impediments to life-course immunisation, and areas needing policy and structural reform. Unprecedented funding, international co-operation and technical advances led to COVID-19 vaccines authorised in record time. Investments in infrastructure and an expanded healthcare workforce streamlined vaccine delivery to adults. Constant media coverage and targeted messaging have improved health literacy. Conversely, the speed of vaccine development was perceived as a safety risk, and an 'infodemic' of misinformation propagated through social media negatively influenced vaccine uptake. Vaccine access and affordability remains inequitable among older adults and minority groups. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID pandemic led to an opportunity to permanently change policies, attitudes, and systems for vaccine delivery to adults to establish a global life-course approach to immunisation. This is a call for action to sustain the momentum triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Addressing inequalities, improving health literacy and optimally using social media are critical to sustain adult vaccinations in post-COVID-19 era.

Takotsubo syndrome and vaccines: a systematic review.

AIMS: Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) is a rare complication of vaccination. In this study, we sought to provide insight into the characteristics of reported TTS induced by vaccination. METHODS AND RESULTS: We did a systematic review, searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, Journals@Ovid, and Scopus databases up to 26 April 2023 to identify case reports or case series of vaccine-induced TTS. We then extracted and summarized the data from these reports. Eighteen reports were identified, with a total of 19 patients with TTS associated with vaccinations. Of the 19 included patients, the majority were female (n = 13, 68.4%) with a mean age of 56.6 ± 21.9 years. Seventeen patients developed TTS after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, 14 of whom received an mRNA vaccination. Two cases of TTS occurred after influenza vaccination. Among the 19 patients, 17 (89.5%) completed transthoracic echocardiography and 16 (84.2%) underwent angiography procedures. Seven patients (36.8%) completed cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. The median time to symptom onset was 2 (inter-quartile range, 1-4) days. The most common symptoms were chest pain (68.4%), dyspnoea (57.9%), and digestive symptoms (31.6%). A total of 57.9% of patients developed nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, myalgia, diaphoresis, and fever. Among the 16 reported cases of TTS, 15 patients (93.8%) exhibited elevated cardiac troponin levels, while among the nine reported cases, eight patients (88.9%) had elevated natriuretic peptide levels. All patients had electrocardiographic changes: ST-segment change (47.1%), T-wave inversion (58.8%), and prolonged corrected QT interval (35.3%). The most common TTS type was apical ballooning (88.2%). Treatment during hospitalization typically included beta-blockers (44.4%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (33.3%), and diuretics (22.2%). After treatment, 81.3% of patients were discharged with improved symptoms. Among this group, nine patients (56.3%) were reported to have recovered ventricular wall motion during follow-up. Two patients (12.5%) died following vaccination without resuscitation attempts. CONCLUSIONS: TTS is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication of vaccination. Typical TTS symptoms such as chest pain and dyspnoea should be considered alarming symptoms, though nonspecific symptoms are common. The risks of such rare adverse events should be balanced against the risks of infection.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of influenza illness and vaccination in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review from 2012 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: Historically, lack of data on cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination has been identified as a barrier to vaccine use in low- and middle-income countries. We conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations describing (1) costs of influenza illness; (2) costs of influenza vaccination programs; and (3) vaccination cost-effectiveness from low- and middle-income countries to assess if gaps persist that could hinder global implementation of influenza vaccination programs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a systematic search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Scopus in January 2022 and October 2023 using a combination of the following key words: "influenza" AND "cost" OR "economic." The search included studies with publication years 2012 through 2022. Studies were eligible if they (1) presented original, peer-reviewed findings on cost of illness, cost of vaccination program, or cost-effectiveness of vaccination for seasonal influenza; and (2) included data for at least 1 low- or middle-income country. We abstracted general study characteristics and data specific to each of the 3 study types. Of 54 included studies, 26 presented data on cost-effectiveness, 24 on cost-of-illness, and 5 on program costs. Represented countries were classified as upper-middle income (UMIC; n = 12), lower-middle income (LMIC; n = 7), and low-income (LIC; n = 3). The most evaluated target groups were children (n = 26 studies), older adults (n = 17), and persons with chronic medical conditions (n = 12); fewer studies evaluated pregnant persons (n = 9), healthcare workers (n = 5), and persons in congregate living settings (n = 1). Costs-of-illness were generally higher in UMICs than in LMICs/LICs; however, the highest national economic burden, as a percent of gross domestic product and national health expenditure, was reported from an LIC. Among studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccine introduction, most (88%) interpreted at least 1 scenario per target group as either cost-effective or cost-saving, based on thresholds designated in the study. Key limitations of this work included (1) heterogeneity across included studies; (2) restrictiveness of the inclusion criteria used; and (3) potential for missed influenza burden from use of sentinel surveillance systems. CONCLUSIONS: The 54 studies identified in this review suggest an increased momentum to generate economic evidence about influenza illness and vaccination from low- and middle-income countries during 2012 to 2022. However, given that we observed substantial heterogeneity, continued evaluation of the economic burden of influenza illness and costs/cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination, particularly in LICs and among underrepresented target groups (e.g., healthcare workers and pregnant persons), is needed. Use of standardized methodology could facilitate pooling across settings and knowledge sharing to strengthen global influenza vaccination programs.

Predictive models for health outcomes due to SARS-CoV-2, including the effect of vaccination: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The interaction between modelers and policymakers is becoming more common due to the increase in computing speed seen in recent decades. The recent pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus was no exception. Thus, this study aims to identify and assess epidemiological mathematical models of SARS-CoV-2 applied to real-world data, including immunization for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). METHODOLOGY: PubMed, JSTOR, medRxiv, LILACS, EconLit, and other databases were searched for studies employing epidemiological mathematical models of SARS-CoV-2 applied to real-world data. We summarized the information qualitatively, and each article included was assessed for bias risk using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and PROBAST checklist tool. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022344542. FINDINGS: In total, 5646 articles were retrieved, of which 411 were included. Most of the information was published in 2021. The countries with the highest number of studies were the United States, Canada, China, and the United Kingdom; no studies were found in low-income countries. The SEIR model (susceptible, exposed, infectious, and recovered) was the most frequently used approach, followed by agent-based modeling. Moreover, the most commonly used software were R, Matlab, and Python, with the most recurring health outcomes being death and recovery. According to the JBI assessment, 61.4% of articles were considered to have a low risk of bias. INTERPRETATION: The utilization of mathematical models increased following the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Stakeholders have begun to incorporate these analytical tools more extensively into public policy, enabling the construction of various scenarios for public health. This contribution adds value to informed decision-making. Therefore, understanding their advancements, strengths, and limitations is essential.

The effect of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination on serum anti-Mullerian hormone: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The current study aims to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 infection and vaccination on ovarian reserve by detecting the anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) level. METHOD: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus has been searched for studies assessing the effect of COVID-19 infection and/or vaccination on AMH levels up to February 27, 2023. Based on PRISMA 2020 statement criteria, a systematic review and meta-analysis of included studies were performed. The studies' quality was assessed by the National Institute of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool. The standardized mean difference (MD) of the AMH level was used and the quantitative values of each study were pooled separately by using a random effect model. RESULTS: Out of 246 studies screened, 18 were included in the systematic review and 14 in the meta-analysis. Included studies were published between 2021 and 2022 and were conducted in different countries, including the USA (n = 3), China (n = 2), Russia (n = 2), Turkey (n = 5), Israel (n = 3), Czech (n = 2), and Spain (n = 1). Eight studies investigated the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on AMH levels, and ten studies investigated the possible effect of COVID-19 vaccination on AMH levels. The pooled analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in AMH levels after COVID-19 infection (SMD: -0.24; 95% CI: -0.36 to -0.11; I2 = 0%; p = .0003). Vaccination analysis showed a nonstatistically significant change in AMH levels after COVID-19 vaccination (SMD: -0.11; 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.04; I2 = 35%; p = .14). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 infection can result in ovarian reserve injury by reducing the AMH level but getting vaccinated against COVID-19 has no impact on the AMH level.

Risk of flare or relapse in patients with immune-mediated diseases following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with autoimmune and immune-mediated diseases (AI-IMD) are at greater risk of COVID-19 infection; therefore, they should be prioritized in vaccination programs. However, there are concerns regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in terms of disease relapse, flare, or exacerbation. In this study, we aimed to provide a more precise and reliable vision using systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed-MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for original articles reporting the relapse/flare in adult patients with AI-IMD between June 1, 2020 and September 25, 2022. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate the sources of heterogeneity. Statistical analysis was performed using R software. RESULTS: A total of 134 observations of various AI-IMDs across 74 studies assessed the rate of relapse, flare, or exacerbation in AI-IMD patients. Accordingly, the crude overall prevalence of relapse, flare, or exacerbation was 6.28% (95% CI [4.78%; 7.95%], I2 = 97.6%), changing from 6.28% (I2 = 97.6%) to 6.24% (I2 = 65.1%) after removing the outliers. AI-IMD patients administering mRNA, vector-based, and inactive vaccines showed 8.13% ([5.6%; 11.03%], I2 = 98.1%), 0.32% ([0.0%; 4.03%], I2 = 93.5%), and 3.07% ([1.09%; 5.9%], I2 = 96.2%) relapse, flare, or exacerbation, respectively (p-value = 0.0086). In terms of disease category, nephrologic (26.66%) and hematologic (14.12%) disorders had the highest and dermatologic (4.81%) and neurologic (2.62%) disorders exhibited to have the lowest crude prevalence of relapse, flare, or exacerbation (p-value < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The risk of flare/relapse/exacerbation in AI-IMD patients is found to be minimal, especially with vector-based vaccines. Vaccination against COVID-19 is recommended in this population.

Maternal pertussis immunization and the blunting of routine vaccine effectiveness: a meta-analysis and modeling study.

A key goal of pertussis control is to protect infants too young to be vaccinated, the age group most vulnerable to this highly contagious respiratory infection. In the last decade, maternal immunization has been deployed in many countries, successfully reducing pertussis in this age group. Because of immunological blunting, however, this strategy may erode the effectiveness of primary vaccination at later ages. Here, we systematically reviewed the literature on the relative risk (RR) of pertussis after primary immunization of infants born to vaccinated vs. unvaccinated mothers. The four studies identified had ≤6 years of follow-up and large statistical uncertainty (meta-analysis weighted mean RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.38-1.32). To interpret this evidence, we designed a new mathematical model with explicit blunting mechanisms and evaluated maternal immunization's short- and long-term impact on pertussis transmission dynamics. We show that transient dynamics can mask blunting for at least a decade after rolling out maternal immunization. Hence, the current epidemiological evidence may be insufficient to rule out modest reductions in the effectiveness of primary vaccination. Irrespective of this potential collateral cost, we predict that maternal immunization will remain effective at protecting unvaccinated newborns, supporting current public health recommendations.

What risk do Brucella vaccines pose to humans? A systematic review of the scientific literature on occupational exposure.

BACKGROUND: Currently, vaccination of livestock with attenuated strains of Brucella remains an essential measure for controlling brucellosis, although these vaccines may be dangerous to humans. The aim of this study was to review the risk posed to humans by occupational exposure to vaccine strains and the measures that should be implemented to minimize this risk. METHODS: This article reviewed the scientific literature indexed in PubMed up to September 30, 2023, following "the PRISMA guidelines". Special emphasis was placed on the vaccine strain used and the route of exposure. Non-occupational exposure to vaccine strains, intentional human inoculation, publications on exposure to wild strains, and secondary scientific sources were excluded from the study. RESULTS: Nineteen primary reports were found and classified in three subgroups: safety accidents in vaccine factories that led to an outbreak (n = 2), survellaince studies on vaccine manufacturing workers with a serologic diagnosis of Brucella infection (n = 3), and publications of infection by vaccine strains during their administration, including case reports, records of occupational accidents and investigations of outbreaks in vaccination campaigns (n = 14). Although accidental exposure during vaccine manufacturing were uncommon, they could provoke large outbreaks through airborne spread with risk of spread to the neighboring population. Besides, despite strict protection measures, a percentage of vaccine manufacturing workers developed positive Brucella serology without clinical infection. The most frequent type of exposure with symptomatic infection was needle injury during vaccine administration. Prolonged contact with the pathogen, lack of information and a low adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) use in the work environment were commonly associated with infection. CONCLUSIONS: Brucella vaccines pose occupational risk of contagion to humans from their production to their administration to livestock, although morbidity is low and deaths were not reported. Recommended protective measures and active surveillance of exposed workers appeared to reduce this risk. It would be advisable to carry out observational studies and/or systematic registries using solid diagnostic criteria.

COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and adverse perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We aimed to estimate the associations between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination during pregnancy and the risks of adverse perinatal outcomes. We performed a literature search in PubMed, Web of Science and Embase to identify eligible studies published up to 24 September 2023, yielding 39 included studies. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with a random effects model. The pooled results showed that COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy (any type or dose of COVID-19 vaccination during any trimester) was not associated with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. In particular, COVID-19 vaccination in the third trimester was associated with a decreased risk of preterm birth (<37 weeks) (RR 0.85 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.98]), 5-min Apgar <7 (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.78 to 0.97]) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.90 [95% CI 0.86 to 0.95]). The inverse associations were also found in analysis of one-dose vaccination during pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage (RR 0.83 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.96]) and preterm birth (<37 weeks) (RR 0.90 [95% CI 0.80 to 1.00]) and two-dose vaccination during pregnancy and the risk of NICU admission (RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.76 to 0.96]). COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy does not increase the risk of negative outcomes for the mother or baby.

The clinical effectiveness of one-dose vaccination with an HPV vaccine: A meta-analysis of 902,368 vaccinated women.

BACKGROUND: The comprehensive effectiveness of the HPV vaccine has been widely acknowledged. However, challenges such as dosing adherence and limited budgets have led to delays in HPV vaccination implementation in many countries. A potential solution to these issues could lie in a one-dose vaccination with an HPV vaccine, as indicated by promising outcomes in multiple studies. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examine the comparative effectiveness of the one-dose vaccination with an HPV vaccine against two- and three-dose regimens. Our investigation focuses on clinical efficacy, encompassing the prevention of HPV16, HPV18, and hrHPV infections, HSIL or ASC-H incidence, and CIN2/3 incidence. RESULTS: Our analysis suggests that a single-dose HPV vaccine may offer effectiveness on par with two- or three-dose schedules. This conclusion is drawn from its capacity to confer immunogenic protection for at least 8 years of follow-up, coupled with its ability to mitigate infections and pre-cancerous occurrences. CONCLUSION: While our findings underscore the potential of the one-dose vaccination with an HPV vaccine, further research and prolonged study durations are necessary to establish robust evidence supporting this recommendation. As such, continued investigation will be critical for informing vaccination strategies.

Vaccination against influenza viruses reduces infection, not hospitalization or death, from respiratory COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and has brought a huge burden in terms of human lives. Strict social distance and influenza vaccination have been recommended to avoid co-infections between influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2. Scattered reports suggested a protective effect of influenza vaccine on COVID-19 development and severity. We analyzed 51 studies on the capacity of influenza vaccination to affect infection with SARS-CoV-2, hospitalization, admission to Intensive Care Units (ICU), and mortality. All subjects taken into consideration did not receive any anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, although their status with respect to previous infections with SARS-CoV-2 is not known. Comparison between vaccinated and not-vaccinated subjects for each of the four endpoints was expressed as odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); all analyses were performed by DerSimonian and Laird model, and Hartung-Knapp model when studies were less than 10. In a total of 61 029 936 subjects from 33 studies, influenza vaccination reduced frequency of SARS-CoV-2 infection [OR plus 95% CI = 0.70 (0.65-0.77)]. The effect was significant in all studies together, in health care workers and in the general population; distance from influenza vaccination and the type of vaccine were also of importance. In 98 174 subjects from 11 studies, frequency of ICU admission was reduced with influenza vaccination [OR (95% CI) = 0.71 (0.54-0.94)]; the effect was significant in all studies together, in pregnant women and in hospitalized subjects. In contrast, in 4 737 328 subjects from 14 studies hospitalization was not modified [OR (95% CI) = 1.05 (0.82-1.35)], and in 4 139 660 subjects from 19 studies, mortality was not modified [OR (95% CI) = 0.76 (0.26-2.20)]. Our study emphasizes the importance of influenza vaccination in the protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Factors influencing HPV vaccine implementation in South Asia: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The HPV vaccine is characterized by its significant effectiveness in preventing the occurrence of cervical cancer. However, the South Asian countries face multiple challenges in implementing the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) at scale. Implementation of human papillomavirus vaccination for eliminating cervical cancer necessitates investigating the factors that impact the health system of these nations. Hence, this review will map the evidence on factors influencing the scaling up of human papillomavirus vaccination in South Asia. METHODS: The proposed scoping review will follow the steps given by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. The search approach will follow McGowan et al. (14) evidence-based manual for Peer Analysis of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS 2015) for systematic searches. Using a comprehensive search, the literature from 2006 onward will be identified from PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. The search strategy will include terms relating to the HPV vaccine and implementation. A predefined criterion for the inclusion and exclusion of studies will be adopted by three review authors independently to determine the eligible studies. The results will be narratively synthesized and examined in addition to being quantitatively presented to provide an outline. The review will be presented per the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR)" guidelines. CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION: The evaluation is anticipated to map the barriers and enablers influencing the rollout of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Lessons learned from the South Asian countries, where the vaccine has been implemented, may contribute to aiding the implementation of the vaccine in countries with similar health systems in an effective manner. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol was prospectively registered on the "open science framework". The registration DOI is https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/T5SW9 .

How well does vaccine literacy predict intention to vaccinate and vaccination status? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This review quantified the association of vaccine literacy (VL) and vaccination intention and status. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Any study, published until December 2022, that investigated the associations of interest were eligible. For each outcome, articles were grouped according to the vaccine administrated and results were narratively synthesized. Inverse-variance random-effect models were used to compare standardized mean values in VL domain(s) between the two groups: individuals willing vs. unwilling to get vaccinated, and individuals vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. This review of 18 studies shows that VL strongly predicts the vaccination intention while its association with vaccination status is attenuated and barely significant, suggesting that other factors influence the actual vaccination uptake. However, given the scarce evidence available, the heterogeneity in the methods applied and some limitations of the studies included, further research should be conducted to confirm the role of VL in the vaccination decision-making process.

Guillain-Barré syndrome and COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Case-reports/series and cohorts of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 vaccination have been reported. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies of GBS after COVID-19 vaccination was carried out. Incidence and incidence rate ratio for a number of vaccine doses and risk of GBS, also considering the specific vaccine technology, were calculated in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Of 554 citations retrieved, 518 were discarded as irrelevant. We finally included 15 studies. The random effect model yielded, regardless of the vaccine technology, 1.25 (95%CI 0.21; 2.83) GBS cases per million of COVID-19 vaccine doses, 3.93 (2.54; 5.54) cases per million doses for adenovirus-vectored vaccines and 0.69 (0.38; 1.06) cases per million doses for mRNA vaccines. The GBS risk was 2.6 times increased with the first dose. Regardless of the vaccine technology, the GBS risk was not increased but disaggregating the data it was 2.37 (1.67; 3.36) times increased for adenovirus-vectored vaccines and 0.32 (0.23; 0.47) for mRNA vaccines. Mortality for GBS after vaccination was 0.10 per million doses and 4.6 per GBS cases. CONCLUSIONS: Adenovirus-vectored vaccines showed a 2.4 times increased risk of GBS that was about seven times higher compared with mRNA-based vaccines. The decreased GBS risk associated with mRNA vaccines was possibly due to an elicited reduction of infections, including SARS-CoV-2, associated with GBS during the vaccination period. How adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines may trigger GBS is unclear and further studies should investigate the relationship between vaccine technologies and GBS risk.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Maternal Vaccination in Infants below 6 Months of Age: Meta-Analysis of Safety, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy.

INTRODUCTION: Severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease is most prevalent during infancy, particularly in those born prematurely, who benefit least from maternal antibody transfers. Maternal immunization is an attractive prevention leading to vaccine clinical trials. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate recent maternal RSV vaccine trials. METHODS: Following PRISMA-P guidelines for systematic reviews and registered at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, this study shortlisted six randomized clinical trials of suitable quality from four databases. Meta-analysis evaluated vaccine safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy in infants and their mothers. RESULTS: From random-effects and fixed-effects meta-analysis between trial and control arms, the maternal post-vaccination geometric antibody (Ab) titers showed pooled standard mean differences (SMDs [95% CI]) at delivery of (4.14 [2.91-5.37]), (3.95 [2.79-5.11]), and (12.20 [7.76, 16.64]) for RSV neutralizing Ab A, B, and F IgG, respectively. Vaccine administration was more likely than placebo to cause local pain, erythema, swelling, and systemic myalgia. Furthermore, the Ab levels in infants at birth showed pooled SMDs of each RSV A (3.9 [2.81-4.99]), RSV B (1.86 [1.09-2.62]), and RSV F IgG (2.24 [1.24-3.23]). The overall reduction of RSV-related lower respiratory tract infections and hospitalizations in the first 6 months of life was 52% and 48%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Not only does antenatal RSV vaccination look safe and immunogenic in vaccinated mothers, but it also reliably provides effective antibody levels in infants and diminishes RSV-related severe disease in infants under 6 months of age.

Oral killed cholera vaccines for preventing cholera.

BACKGROUND: Cholera causes acute watery diarrhoea and death if not properly treated. Outbreaks occur in areas with poor sanitation, including refugee camps. Several vaccines have been developed and tested over the last 50 years. This is an update of a Cochrane review, originally published in 1998, which explored the effects of all vaccines for preventing cholera. This review examines oral vaccines made from killed bacteria. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of the available World Health Organization (WHO)-prequalified oral killed cholera vaccines among children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; CENTRAL, MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; and two trials registers (February 2023). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs. There were no restrictions on the age and sex of the participants or the setting of the study. We considered any available WHO-prequalified oral killed cholera vaccine as an intervention. The control group was given a placebo, another vaccine, or no vaccine. The outcomes were related to vaccine effectiveness and safety. We included articles published in English only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted data from included studies. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane ROB 1 assessment tool. We used the generic inverse variance and a random-effects model meta-analysis to estimate the pooled effect of the interventions. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For vaccine effectiveness (VE), we converted the overall risk ratio (RR) to vaccine effectiveness using the formula: VE = (1 - RR) x 100%. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs, reported in 12 records, with 462,754 participants, met the inclusion criteria. We identified trials on whole-cell plus recombinant vaccine (WC-rBS vaccine (Dukoral)) from Peru and trials on bivalent whole-cell vaccine (BivWC (Shanchol)) vaccine from India and Bangladesh. We did not identify any trials on other BivWC vaccines (Euvichol/Euvichol-Plus), or Hillchol. Two doses of Dukoral with or without a booster dose reduces cases of cholera at two-year follow-up in a general population of children and adults, and at five-month follow-up in an adult male population (overall VE 76%; RR 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.65; 2 trials, 16,423 participants; high-certainty evidence). Two doses of Shanchol reduces cases of cholera at one-year follow-up (overall VE 37%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.85; 2 trials, 241,631 participants; high-certainty evidence), at two-year follow-up (overall VE 64%; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.81; 2 trials, 168,540 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and at five-year follow-up (overall VE 80%; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.26; 1 trial, 54,519 participants; high-certainty evidence). A single dose of Shanchol reduces cases of cholera at six-month follow-up (overall VE 40%; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.77; 1 trial, 204,700 participants; high-certainty evidence), and at two-year follow-up (overall VE 39%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.70; 1 trial, 204,700 participants; high-certainty evidence). A single dose of Shanchol also reduces cases of severe dehydrating cholera at six-month follow-up (overall VE 63%; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.50; 1 trial, 204,700 participants; high-certainty evidence), and at two-year follow-up (overall VE 50%; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.60; 1 trial, 204,700 participants; high-certainty evidence). We found no differences in the reporting of adverse events due to vaccination between the vaccine and control/placebo groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of Dukoral reduces cases of cholera at two-year follow-up. Two doses of Shanchol reduces cases of cholera at five-year follow-up, and a single dose of Shanchol reduces cases of cholera at two-year follow-up. Overall, the vaccines were safe and well-tolerated. We found no trials on other BivWC vaccines (Euvichol/Euvichol-Plus). However, BivWC products (Shanchol, Euvichol/Euvichol-Plus) are considered to produce comparable vibriocidal responses. Therefore, it is reasonable to apply the results from Shanchol trials to the other BivWC products (Euvichol/Euvichol-Plus).

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination and Assisted Reproduction Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and female assisted reproduction outcomes through a systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline (OVID), EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov on January 11, 2023, for original articles on assisted reproduction outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination. The primary outcome was rates of clinical pregnancy; secondary outcomes included number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live-birth rate. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened citations for relevance, extracted pertinent data, and rated study quality. Only peer-reviewed published studies were included. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Our query retrieved 216 citations, of which 25 were studies with original, relevant data. Nineteen studies reported embryo transfer outcomes, with a total of 4,899 vaccinated and 13,491 unvaccinated patients. Eighteen studies reported data on ovarian stimulation outcomes, with a total of 1,878 vaccinated and 3,174 unvaccinated patients. There were no statistically significant results among our pooled data for any of the primary or secondary outcomes: clinical pregnancy rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-1.01, P =.10), number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference -0.26, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.15, P =.21), number of mature oocytes retrieved (mean difference 0.31, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.75, P =.18), fertilization rate (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.11, P =.83), implantation rate (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-1.00, P =.06), ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.06, P =.40), or live-birth rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78-1.17, P =.63). A subanalysis based on country of origin and vaccine type was also performed for the primary and secondary outcomes and did not change the study results. CONCLUSION: Vaccination against COVID-19 is not associated with different fertility outcomes in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technologies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42023400023.