Vaccine: X最新文献

{"title":"Trust in the science behind COVID-19 vaccines as a driver of vaccine acceptance in the United States, 2021–2023","authors":"Trenton M. White ,&nbsp;Katarzyna Wyka ,&nbsp;Kenneth Rabin ,&nbsp;Ayman El-Mohandes","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100576","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100576","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To evaluate changes in public trust in the science behind COVID-19 vaccines in the United States (US) from 2021 to 2023, and to assess how loss of a family member or close friend to COVID-19, influences this trust and vaccine acceptance.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Using stratified random sampling for key demographic variables, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, region, and education level, the study analyzes data from a series of cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021, 2022 and 2023. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents and their levels of trust in science and vaccine acceptance. Weighted logistic regression models were applied to assess the relationships between trust in science, vaccine acceptance, and socio-demographic factors. These models controlled for potential confounding variables and allowed for the estimation of adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), highlighting the key predictors of vaccine acceptance and willingness to receive future recommended boosters.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The results indicate that trust in science remained relatively stable over the study period and continued to be a strong predictor of vaccine acceptance, which was higher among male respondents, those with university degrees, and those with higher than median income. Notably, the experience of personal loss was significantly related to an individual’s trust in science and vaccine acceptance.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Trust in the science behind COVID-19 vaccines appears to have been a crucial factor in US vaccine acceptance, with respondents who expressed higher trust being significantly more likely to accept the vaccine and express willingness to take future boosters. To maintain and enhance public trust in vaccination programs, trust in health communication from public sources, particularly the CDC, must be strengthened, as trust in the CDC was also found to be significantly correlated with both vaccine acceptance and future booster uptake. Personal experiences of loss due to COVID-19 were important predictors of trust in science and vaccine acceptance, highlighting the need for public health communications to be sensitive to the emotional impact of loss and grief along with the diverse socio-economic and educational backgrounds of the US population.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 100576"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142573340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Social network characteristics of COVID-19 vaccination and preventive health behaviors: Cross-sectional findings from the US northeast during the early COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"Aditya S. Khanna ,&nbsp;Mollie A. Monnig ,&nbsp;Samantha E. Clark ,&nbsp;Peter M. Monti","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100577","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100577","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The link between individuals’ vaccine attitudes and their social networks has been widely studied, but less is known about how these networks impact broader health behaviors like precautionary measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Egocentric social network data were collected from June 7–21, 2021, via an online survey by researchers based at the Brown University School of Public Health. The sample (n = 173) was recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. Participants reported their COVID-19 precautionary behaviors and those of up to 5 of their closest social network contacts (SNCs, n = 851). The primary outcome was the mean of 13 CDC-recommended precautionary behaviors (PBS). Covariates included SNCs’ COVID-19 testing, hospitalization, vaccination, disease experiences, social distancing adherence, and encouragement of participants’ testing and vaccination. Associations between PBS and SNC attributes were assessed using chi-square tests, t-tests, and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eighty percent of participants had received at least one vaccine dose. The PBS ranged from 0.38 to 3.00 (M = 2.3) and was positively associated with SNCs’ adherence to social distancing guidelines (0.33, p &lt; 0.001), encouragement of social distancing (0.33, p &lt; 0.001), encouragement of vaccination (0.25, p = 0.001), mask-wearing behavior (0.20, p = 0.008), receiving the vaccine (0.20, p = 0.01), and encouragement of testing (0.17, p &lt; 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>The clustering of precautionary behaviors in social networks highlights the potential of leveraging these networks to promote public health interventions. The identification of clusters of unprotected communities at risk underscores the need to address disparities and integrate interpersonal factors into future pandemic responses.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 100577"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142573341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"COVID-19 vaccine evidence monitoring assisted by artificial Intelligence: An emergency system implemented by the Public Health Agency of Canada to capture and describe the trajectory of evolving pandemic vaccine literature","authors":"Su Hyun Lim ,&nbsp;Mona Hersi ,&nbsp;Ramya Krishnan ,&nbsp;Joshua Montroy,&nbsp;Bonnie Rook,&nbsp;Kelly Farrah,&nbsp;Yung-En Chung,&nbsp;Adrienne Stevens,&nbsp;Joseline Zafack,&nbsp;Eva Wong,&nbsp;Nicole Forbes,&nbsp;April Killikelly,&nbsp;Kelsey Young,&nbsp;Matthew Tunis","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100575","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100575","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid accumulation of novel vaccine research evidence. As a means to monitor this evidence, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) created the <strong>E</strong>vidence e<strong>X</strong>traction <strong>T</strong>eam for <strong>R</strong>esearch <strong>A</strong>nalysis (<strong>EXTRA</strong>), which contributed to situational awareness in Canada through a bibliographic repository used to support decision-making by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization. We describe the process by which this literature was identified and catalogued, and provide an overview of characteristics in the identified literature.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>To expedite the process, PHAC leveraged an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to assist in the screening and selection of relevant articles. Literature search results were initially screened by AI, then manually reviewed for relevance. Relevant articles were tagged using controlled vocabulary and stored in a bibliographic repository. This repository was analyzed to identify trends in vaccine research over time according to several key characteristics.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>As of December 31, 2023, EXTRA’s repository contained 19,050 articles relevant to PHAC’s immunization mandate. The majority of these articles (63.9 %) were identified between August 2021 and January 2023, with an average of 20 relevant articles added daily during this period. Nearly 14,000 articles reported on mRNA vaccines. Safety outcomes were most frequently reported (n = 8,289), followed by immunogenicity (n = 7,269) and efficacy/effectiveness (n = 3,246). COVID-19 vaccine literature output started to decrease in mid-2023, two years after the initial dramatic increase in mid-2021.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This hybrid (AI and human) approach was critical for PHAC situational awareness and the development of timely vaccine guidance in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the volume of data and analyses required, the AI-augmented processes made this massive undertaking manageable. Analysis of COVID-19 vaccine research patterns supports projections of research volume, type, and rate that will help predict resourcing and information needs to plan future emergency vaccine guidance activities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 100575"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142555568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Pulmonary embolism after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination","authors":"Björn Zethelius ,&nbsp;Sofia Attelind ,&nbsp;Gabriel Westman ,&nbsp;Rickard Ljung ,&nbsp;Anders Sundström","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100571","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100571","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Sweden, pulmonary embolism (PE) was a frequently reported suspected serious adverse drug reaction. The aim was to estimate risk of PE following vaccination for COVID-19 in the Swedish population aged 18 to 84 years.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Population-based cohort study using the CoVacSafe-SE established platform including national registers. PE-case definition: Individuals discharged from inpatient-care or visiting specialized outpatient-care with a main diagnosis of PE occurring between 27-Dec-2020 and 31-Dec-2022 without simultaneous diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. Time-to-event analysis was performed using multi-variable Cox’ proportional hazard’s models. Hazard Ratios (HR) adjusted for age, sex and co-morbidities were modelled.</div><div>The vaccines were BNT162b2/Comirnaty®, mRNA1273/Spikevax® and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/Vaxzevria® without regard to variants. Doses number one to five were studied.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eighty percent of the study-population (≈6.1 million people) received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. A total of 12,456 cases of PE were identified. Twenty-eight days after vaccinations we observed 99 cases after 701,455 1st doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, HR_adj, 1.29 (95%-CI, 1.05–1.59). Corresponding for BNT162b2 was 361 cases after 4,708,284 1st doses of BNT162b2 HR_adj of 1.19 (95%-CI, 1.06–1.34) driven by age group 65–84; HR _adj, 1.24 (95%-CI, 1.07–1.44). No increased risks were observed for mRNA1273.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In this nation-wide study, no strong associations were found between COVID-19 vaccinations and pulmonary embolism. Small increases in relative risk for the earliest doses of vaccines may be associated with prioritizing the frailest groups of people in the vaccination campaign, thus selection bias or unmeasured residual confounding is possible.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 100571"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142533565","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sex differences in COVID-19 vaccine confidence in people living with HIV in Canada","authors":"Jessica Lu ,&nbsp;Branka Vulesevic ,&nbsp;Ann N. Burchell ,&nbsp;Joel Singer ,&nbsp;Judy Needham ,&nbsp;Yanbo Yang ,&nbsp;Hong Qian ,&nbsp;Catharine Chambers ,&nbsp;Hasina Samji ,&nbsp;Ines Colmegna ,&nbsp;Sugandhi del Canto ,&nbsp;Guy-Henri Godin ,&nbsp;Muluba Habanyama ,&nbsp;Sze Shing Christian Hui ,&nbsp;Abigail Kroch ,&nbsp;Enrico Mandarino ,&nbsp;Shari Margolese ,&nbsp;Carrie Martin ,&nbsp;Maureen Owino ,&nbsp;Elisa Lau ,&nbsp;Cecilia T. Costiniuk","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100566","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100566","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Background&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Understanding the roots of vaccine confidence in vulnerable populations, such as persons living with HIV (PLWH), is important to facilitate vaccine uptake, thus mitigating infection and spread of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases. In an online survey of PLWH conducted in Canada during winter 2022 (&lt;em&gt;AIDS and Behav 2023&lt;/em&gt;), we reported that the overall COVID-19 vaccination uptake rate in PLWH was similar by sex. Here, we examined attitudes and beliefs towards vaccination against COVID-19 based on sex.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Methods&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Between February and May 2022, PLWH across Canada were recruited via social media and community-based organizations to complete an online survey consisting of a modified Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS) questionnaire with items from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization Acceptability Matrix. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics and responses to the VHS questionnaire by sex. The effect of biological sex on total VHS score, two subscales (“lack of confidence” and “perceived risk”) was assessed separately by linear regression adjusting for other key baseline variables.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Results&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Of 259 PLWH, 69 (27 %) were females and 189 (73 %) were males. Sixty-six (26 %) of participants self-identified as a woman, 163(63 %) as a man and 28(11 %) as trans/two-spirited/queer/non-binary/agender/other. The mean age (SD) was 47 ± 14 years. Females were less likely to believe that COVID-19 vaccination was: important for his/her own health (71 % vs. 86 %); a good way to protect themselves from infection (68 % vs. 86 %); that getting the COVID-19 vaccine was important for the health of others in his/her community (78 % vs. 91 %); believed recommendations by their doctor/health care provider about COVID-19 vaccines (78 % vs. 88 %); that information about COVID-19 vaccines from public health officials was reliable and trustworthy (56 % vs. 75 % vs); COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19 infections (61 % vs. 82 %) and that all COVID-19 vaccines offered by government programs in their communities were important for good health (70 % vs. 87 %). Although more males than females felt that new vaccines generally carry more risks than older vaccines (19 % vs 16 %,), fewer males than females endorsed concern about serious side effects of COVID-19 vaccines (33 % vs 45 %).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;The linear regression model showed females had a significantly higher VHS total score than males (adjusted mean difference 0.38; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.13–0.64; p = 0.004), indicating greater COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among females. It was observed that females had a greater “lack of confidence in vaccines” score than males (adjusted mean difference 0.43; 95 % CI 0.14–0.73; p = 0.004). We did not observe a significant difference in “perceived risk in vaccines” between males and females (adjusted mean difference 0.20; 95 % CI −0.07–0.46;","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 100566"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142655347","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Influenza vaccine effectiveness against influenza-associated hospitalizations in children, Hong Kong, November 2023 to June 2024","authors":"So-Lun Lee ,&nbsp;Mike Y.W. Kwan ,&nbsp;Caitriona Murphy ,&nbsp;Eunice L.Y. Chan ,&nbsp;Joshua S.C. Wong ,&nbsp;Sheena G. Sullivan ,&nbsp;Malik Peiris ,&nbsp;Benjamin J. Cowling","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100570","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100570","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We conducted a test negative study from November 2023 to June 2024, enrolling 4,367 children hospitalized with acute respiratory illness in Hong Kong. Among the children who tested negative for influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2, 56.8 % had received influenza vaccination. Between November 2023 and March 2024, influenza A(H3N2) predominated and the VE against influenza A(H3N2) was estimated as 55 % (95 % CI: 29.6 %, 71.8 %). VE point estimates were higher for younger children than older children. In February to June 2024 influenza A(H1N1) predominated and VE against influenza A(H1N1) was 54 % (95 % CI: 33 %, 69 %) during this period. Influenza B/Victoria circulated at low intensity throughout the 2023/24 season and VE against influenza B was 66 % (95 % CI: 42 %, 80 %). Since its introduction in 2018/19 the school-based influenza vaccination program has substantially increased vaccine uptake in children in Hong Kong and prevented influenza-associated hospitalizations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100570"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142423271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Association of the belief in conspiracy narratives with vaccination status and recommendation behaviours of German physicians","authors":"Frederike Taubert ,&nbsp;Philipp Schmid ,&nbsp;Dawn Holford ,&nbsp;Pierre Verger ,&nbsp;Angelo Fasce ,&nbsp;Linda C. Karlsson ,&nbsp;Anna Soveri ,&nbsp;Stephan Lewandowsky ,&nbsp;Cornelia Betsch","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100560","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100560","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Vaccine hesitancy has been identified as one of the top ten threats to global health by the World Health Organization (WHO). The belief in conspiracy narratives is repeatedly discussed as a major driver of vaccine hesitancy among the general population. However, there is a lack of research investigating the role of the belief in conspiracy narratives in vaccination decisions and recommendation behaviours of physicians. This is particularly relevant as physicians are one of the major and trusted sources of information for patients’ vaccination decisions. This study therefore investigated the association between believing in COVID-19-related conspiracy narratives and physicians’ own COVID-19 vaccination status and their recommendation behavior for COVID-19 and other vaccines (e.g., HPV or flu). In a cross-sectional survey among German physicians (N = 602, April 2022) two conspiracy narratives were assessed, stating that the coronavirus is a hoax or that it is human-made. Additional control variables included trust in health institutions, the rejection of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility) and demographic variables. Hierarchical regressions indicated that greater belief in the conspiracy narrative claiming that the coronavirus is a hoax was associated with lower COVID-19 vaccination uptake and fewer COVID-19 vaccination recommendations among physicians. The results for recommendation behavior remain robust even when controlling for other variables. Contrary to our assumption, believing that the coronavirus is human-made was not related to vaccination status nor vaccine recommendation behavior. In conclusion, believing in conspiracy narratives that question the existence and thus also the danger of the virus is an important independent predictor of vaccine hesitancy among physicians that should be addressed in future public health interventions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100560"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142423274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A literature review and evidence-based evaluation of the Dutch national immunisation schedule yield possibilities for improvements","authors":"A.J.M. Pluijmaekers ,&nbsp;A. Steens ,&nbsp;H. Houweling ,&nbsp;N.Y. Rots ,&nbsp;K.S.M. Benschop ,&nbsp;R.S. van Binnendijk ,&nbsp;R. Bodewes ,&nbsp;J.G.M. Brouwer ,&nbsp;A. Buisman ,&nbsp;E. Duizer ,&nbsp;C.A.C.M. van Els ,&nbsp;J.M. Hament ,&nbsp;G. den Hartog ,&nbsp;P. Kaaijk ,&nbsp;K. Kerkhof ,&nbsp;A.J. King ,&nbsp;F.R.M. van der Klis ,&nbsp;H. Korthals Altes ,&nbsp;N.A.T. van der Maas ,&nbsp;D.L. van Meijeren ,&nbsp;H.E. de Melker","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100556","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100556","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>National Immunisation Programmes (NIPs) develop historically. Its performance (disease incidences, vaccination coverage) is monitored. Reviewing the schedule as a whole could inform on further optimisation of the programme, i.e., providing maximal protection with the lowest number of doses. We systematically evaluated the performance and strategies of the Dutch pathogen-specific NIP schedules through literature review, assessment of surveillance data and expert opinions.</div><div>Pathogen-specific vaccinations were categorised according to their strategy of protection: I) elimination or eradication, II) herd immunity or III) ‘only’ individual protection. The schedule of each vaccine-component was evaluated based on fixed criteria: 1. Is the achieved protection adequate? 2. Is the intended protection achieved? 3. Does the programme include too many or too few doses? 4. Is the timing optimal or acceptable? and 5. Are there drawbacks of the NIP for (part of) the population? Identified issues were explored using surveillance data and literature.</div><div>Using fixed criteria facilitated comparison between pathogens and revealed opportunities to optimise the Dutch NIP by: i. Reducing the number of polio and tetanus vaccinations; ii. prolonging the interval between diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, hepatitis B, and Hib vaccine doses for improved effectiveness; iii. Expedite the second measles vaccination from 9 to 2–4 years of age to offer unvaccinated children and primary vaccine failures an earlier chance to be protected; and iv. Delaying the second mumps vaccination to enhance protection in adolescents/young adults. No schedule adaptations were deemed necessary for the vaccines against HPV, rubella, pneumococcal disease, and meningococcal disease. Based on this evaluation the NITAG advised to move the DTaP-IPV-HBV-Hib-booster from age 11 to 12 months, the second MMR-dose from 9 to 2–4 years, replace the Tdap-IPV at 4 years with a Tdap at 5–6 years and move the dt-IPV from 9 to 14 years. Implementation of these changes is planned for 2025.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100556"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142423275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Time-course analysis of antibody and cytokine response after the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose","authors":"Hyeon Hwa Kim ,&nbsp;Hye Kyung Lee ,&nbsp;Lothar Hennighausen ,&nbsp;Priscilla A. Furth ,&nbsp;Heungsup Sung ,&nbsp;Jin Won Huh","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100565","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100565","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The widespread administration of an additional dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has been promoted across adult populations, demonstrating a robust immune response against COVID-19. Longitudinal studies provide crucial data on the durability of immune response after the third vaccination. This study aims to explore the antibody response, neutralizing activity, and cytokine response against the SARS-CoV-2 ancestral strain (wild-type) and its variants during the timeline before and after the administration of the third vaccine dose. Anti-spike antibody titers and neutralizing antibodies blocking ACE2 binding to spike antigens were measured in 62 study participants at baseline, and on days 7, 21, and 180 post-vaccination. Cytokine levels were assessed at the same points except for day 180, with an additional measurement on day 3 post-vaccination. The analysis revealed no substantial variation in anti-spike antibody titer against the SARS-CoV-2 ancestral strain between the pre-vaccination phase and three days following the third dose. However, a significant nine-fold increase in these titers was observed by day 7, maintained until day 21. Although a decrease was observed by day 180, all participants still had detectable antibody levels. A similar trend was noted for neutralizing antibodies, with a four-fold rise by day 7 post-vaccination. At day 180, a diminution of neutralizing antibody titers was evident for both wild-type and all variants, including Omicron subvariant. A transient increase in cytokine activity, notably involving components of the Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducers and activators of transcription (STAT) pathway, such as CXCL10 and IL-10, was observed within three days after the third dose. This study underscores a distinct amplification of humoral immune response seven days following the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose and observes a decline in neutralizing antibody titers 180 days following the third dose, thus indicating the temporal humoral effectiveness of booster vaccination. A short-term cytokine surge, notably involving the JAK/STAT pathway, highlights the dynamic immune modulation post-vaccination.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100565"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142358181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Typhoid conjugate vaccine implementation in India: A review of supportive evidence","authors":"Vijayalaxmi V. Mogasale ,&nbsp;Anish Sinha ,&nbsp;Jacob John ,&nbsp;Habib Hasan Farooqui ,&nbsp;Arindam Ray ,&nbsp;Tracey Chantler ,&nbsp;Vittal Mogasale ,&nbsp;Bhim Gopal Dhoubhadel ,&nbsp;W John Edmunds ,&nbsp;Andrew Clark ,&nbsp;Kaja Abbas","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100568","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100568","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Typhoid conjugate vaccines are available in the private market in India and are also recommended by the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (NTAGI) for inclusion in India’s Universal Immunisation Programme in 2022 to control and prevent typhoid fever. Our study aims to synthesise the supportive evidence for typhoid conjugate vaccine implementation in the routine immunisation programme of India.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a literature review to identify supportive evidence for typhoid conjugate vaccine implementation in India based on the key criteria of the World Health Organisation’s Evidence-to-Recommendation framework for National Immunisation Technical Advisory Groups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We synthesised evidence on typhoid disease burden, benefits and harms of typhoid conjugate vaccine, cost-effectiveness analysis, and implementation feasibility. However, the in-country evidence on budget impact analysis, vaccine demand and supply forecast, equity analysis, target population values and preferences, immunisation service providers’ acceptability, co-administration safety, and antimicrobial resistance tracking were limited.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Based on the literature review, we identified evidence gaps. We recommend identifying research priorities for supporting typhoid conjugate vaccine implementation decision-making in India by combining evidence gaps with the perceived importance of the same evidence criteria and factors among immunisation stakeholders.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 100568"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142533566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}