鼠疫疫苗的有效性、安全性和免疫原性:系统文献综述。

Q4 Immunology and Microbiology
Louise Hartley, Sydney Harold, Emma Hawe
{"title":"鼠疫疫苗的有效性、安全性和免疫原性:系统文献综述。","authors":"Louise Hartley,&nbsp;Sydney Harold,&nbsp;Emma Hawe","doi":"10.1016/j.crimmu.2023.100072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Plague remains endemic in many parts of the world, and despite efforts, no preventative vaccine is available. We performed a systemic review of available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of live, attenuated, or killed plague vaccines vs. placebo, no intervention, or other plague vaccine to evaluate their efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library; clinical trial registers; and reference lists of included studies. Primary outcomes were efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations tool. Only 2 RCTs, both on subunit vaccines, were included out of the 75 screened articles. The 2 trials included 240 participants with a follow-up of 3 months and 60 participants with a follow-up of 13 months, respectively. Safety evidence was limited, but both vaccines were well tolerated, with only mild to moderate adverse events. Both vaccines were immunogenic in a dose-dependent manner. However, given the limited data identified in this systematic review, we are unable to quantify the efficacy of vaccines to prevent plague, as well as their long-term safety and immunogenicity. More trials of plague vaccines are needed to generate additional evidence of their long-term effects.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72750,"journal":{"name":"Current research in immunology","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100072"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10637890/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of plague vaccines: A systematic literature review\",\"authors\":\"Louise Hartley,&nbsp;Sydney Harold,&nbsp;Emma Hawe\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.crimmu.2023.100072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Plague remains endemic in many parts of the world, and despite efforts, no preventative vaccine is available. We performed a systemic review of available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of live, attenuated, or killed plague vaccines vs. placebo, no intervention, or other plague vaccine to evaluate their efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library; clinical trial registers; and reference lists of included studies. Primary outcomes were efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations tool. Only 2 RCTs, both on subunit vaccines, were included out of the 75 screened articles. The 2 trials included 240 participants with a follow-up of 3 months and 60 participants with a follow-up of 13 months, respectively. Safety evidence was limited, but both vaccines were well tolerated, with only mild to moderate adverse events. Both vaccines were immunogenic in a dose-dependent manner. However, given the limited data identified in this systematic review, we are unable to quantify the efficacy of vaccines to prevent plague, as well as their long-term safety and immunogenicity. More trials of plague vaccines are needed to generate additional evidence of their long-term effects.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72750,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current research in immunology\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100072\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10637890/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current research in immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590255523000185\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Immunology and Microbiology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current research in immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590255523000185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Immunology and Microbiology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鼠疫在世界许多地方仍然流行,尽管作出了努力,但没有可用的预防性疫苗。我们对现有的鼠疫活疫苗、减毒疫苗或灭活疫苗与安慰剂、无干预或其他鼠疫疫苗的随机对照试验(rct)进行了系统回顾,以评估其有效性、安全性和免疫原性。数据来源包括MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane图书馆;临床试验注册;以及纳入研究的参考文献列表。主要结局是疗效、安全性和免疫原性。使用Cochrane协作工具评估偏倚风险。在筛选的75篇文章中,只有2篇关于亚单位疫苗的随机对照试验被纳入。这两项试验分别纳入了240名参与者,随访3个月,60名参与者随访13个月。安全性证据有限,但两种疫苗耐受性良好,只有轻度至中度不良事件。两种疫苗均呈剂量依赖性免疫原性。然而,鉴于本系统评价中确定的数据有限,我们无法量化疫苗预防鼠疫的功效,以及它们的长期安全性和免疫原性。需要对鼠疫疫苗进行更多的试验,以获得有关其长期影响的更多证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of plague vaccines: A systematic literature review

The efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of plague vaccines: A systematic literature review

Plague remains endemic in many parts of the world, and despite efforts, no preventative vaccine is available. We performed a systemic review of available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of live, attenuated, or killed plague vaccines vs. placebo, no intervention, or other plague vaccine to evaluate their efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library; clinical trial registers; and reference lists of included studies. Primary outcomes were efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations tool. Only 2 RCTs, both on subunit vaccines, were included out of the 75 screened articles. The 2 trials included 240 participants with a follow-up of 3 months and 60 participants with a follow-up of 13 months, respectively. Safety evidence was limited, but both vaccines were well tolerated, with only mild to moderate adverse events. Both vaccines were immunogenic in a dose-dependent manner. However, given the limited data identified in this systematic review, we are unable to quantify the efficacy of vaccines to prevent plague, as well as their long-term safety and immunogenicity. More trials of plague vaccines are needed to generate additional evidence of their long-term effects.

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
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
42 days
×
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