非药物干预作为疫苗佐剂对人类的影响:系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2021-06-01 Epub Date: 2020-12-03 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2020.1854050
Kavita Vedhara, Simon Royal, Kanchan Sunger, Deborah M Caldwell, Vanessa Halliday, Caroline M Taylor, Lucy Fairclough, Anthony Avery, Nicky J Welton
{"title":"非药物干预作为疫苗佐剂对人类的影响:系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Kavita Vedhara,&nbsp;Simon Royal,&nbsp;Kanchan Sunger,&nbsp;Deborah M Caldwell,&nbsp;Vanessa Halliday,&nbsp;Caroline M Taylor,&nbsp;Lucy Fairclough,&nbsp;Anthony Avery,&nbsp;Nicky J Welton","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2020.1854050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Psychological and behavioural may enhance vaccine effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine the effects of non-pharmacological adjuvants on vaccine effectiveness, as measured by antibody responses to vaccination.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>Electronic databases (EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL) were searched from inception to 6th February 2018. This yielded 100 eligible papers, reporting 106 trials: 79 interventions associated with diet and/or nutrition; 12 physical activity interventions and 9 psychological interventions.Over half (58/106) of trials reported evidence of an enhanced antibody response to vaccination across one or more outcomes. The NMA considered the comparative effects between all intervention types, control and placebo for antibody titres (48 studies), seroconversion (25 studies) and seroprotection (23 studies) separately. The NMA provided weak evidence in support of nutritional formulae and probiotics in increasing antibody titres.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>This review offers a comprehensive summary of the literature on non-pharmacological interventions as vaccine adjuvants. The evidence is characterised by considerable heterogeneity but provides early evidence in support of nutritional formulae and probiotic interventions. Psychological and exercise-based interventions were characterised by limited and unreliable evidence. Large, well-designed studies including consistent core outcomes and measures of intervention adherence and fidelity are required.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":"15 2","pages":"245-271"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17437199.2020.1854050","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of non-pharmacological interventions as vaccine adjuvants in humans: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Kavita Vedhara,&nbsp;Simon Royal,&nbsp;Kanchan Sunger,&nbsp;Deborah M Caldwell,&nbsp;Vanessa Halliday,&nbsp;Caroline M Taylor,&nbsp;Lucy Fairclough,&nbsp;Anthony Avery,&nbsp;Nicky J Welton\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17437199.2020.1854050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Psychological and behavioural may enhance vaccine effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine the effects of non-pharmacological adjuvants on vaccine effectiveness, as measured by antibody responses to vaccination.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>Electronic databases (EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL) were searched from inception to 6th February 2018. This yielded 100 eligible papers, reporting 106 trials: 79 interventions associated with diet and/or nutrition; 12 physical activity interventions and 9 psychological interventions.Over half (58/106) of trials reported evidence of an enhanced antibody response to vaccination across one or more outcomes. The NMA considered the comparative effects between all intervention types, control and placebo for antibody titres (48 studies), seroconversion (25 studies) and seroprotection (23 studies) separately. The NMA provided weak evidence in support of nutritional formulae and probiotics in increasing antibody titres.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>This review offers a comprehensive summary of the literature on non-pharmacological interventions as vaccine adjuvants. The evidence is characterised by considerable heterogeneity but provides early evidence in support of nutritional formulae and probiotic interventions. Psychological and exercise-based interventions were characterised by limited and unreliable evidence. Large, well-designed studies including consistent core outcomes and measures of intervention adherence and fidelity are required.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48034,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"15 2\",\"pages\":\"245-271\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17437199.2020.1854050\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2020.1854050\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/12/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2020.1854050","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/12/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

导言:心理和行为可增强疫苗效力。我们进行了一项系统综述和网络荟萃分析(NMA)来研究非药物佐剂对疫苗有效性的影响,通过对疫苗接种的抗体反应来衡量。涵盖领域:检索了从成立到2018年2月6日的电子数据库(EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL)。本研究共获得100篇符合条件的论文,报告了106项试验:79项与饮食和/或营养相关的干预措施;12项身体活动干预和9项心理干预。超过一半(58/106)的试验报告有证据表明,在一种或多种结局中,接种疫苗后抗体反应增强。NMA分别考虑了所有干预类型、对照组和安慰剂在抗体滴度(48项研究)、血清转化(25项研究)和血清保护(23项研究)方面的比较效果。NMA提供了微弱的证据支持营养配方和益生菌提高抗体滴度。专家意见:本综述对非药物干预作为疫苗佐剂的文献进行了全面总结。证据具有相当大的异质性,但提供了支持营养配方和益生菌干预的早期证据。心理和运动干预的特点是证据有限和不可靠。需要大型的、设计良好的研究,包括一致的核心结果和干预依从性和保真度的测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of non-pharmacological interventions as vaccine adjuvants in humans: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Introduction: Psychological and behavioural may enhance vaccine effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine the effects of non-pharmacological adjuvants on vaccine effectiveness, as measured by antibody responses to vaccination.

Areas covered: Electronic databases (EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL) were searched from inception to 6th February 2018. This yielded 100 eligible papers, reporting 106 trials: 79 interventions associated with diet and/or nutrition; 12 physical activity interventions and 9 psychological interventions.Over half (58/106) of trials reported evidence of an enhanced antibody response to vaccination across one or more outcomes. The NMA considered the comparative effects between all intervention types, control and placebo for antibody titres (48 studies), seroconversion (25 studies) and seroprotection (23 studies) separately. The NMA provided weak evidence in support of nutritional formulae and probiotics in increasing antibody titres.

Expert opinion: This review offers a comprehensive summary of the literature on non-pharmacological interventions as vaccine adjuvants. The evidence is characterised by considerable heterogeneity but provides early evidence in support of nutritional formulae and probiotic interventions. Psychological and exercise-based interventions were characterised by limited and unreliable evidence. Large, well-designed studies including consistent core outcomes and measures of intervention adherence and fidelity are required.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信