Kavita Vedhara, Simon Royal, Kanchan Sunger, Deborah M Caldwell, Vanessa Halliday, Caroline M Taylor, Lucy Fairclough, Anthony Avery, Nicky J Welton
{"title":"Effects of non-pharmacological interventions as vaccine adjuvants in humans: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Kavita Vedhara, Simon Royal, Kanchan Sunger, Deborah M Caldwell, Vanessa Halliday, Caroline M Taylor, Lucy Fairclough, Anthony Avery, 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}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
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.
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.