Vaccine最新文献

The rapid development of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has helped mitigate the initial impact of the pandemic. However, in order to reduce transmission rates and protect more vulnerable and immunocompromised individuals unable to mount an effective immune response, development of a next-generation of mucosal vaccines is necessary. Here, we developed an intranasal Newcastle disease virus (NDV)-based vaccine expressing the spike of the XBB.1.5 variant stabilized in its pre-fusion conformation (NDV-HXP-S). We demonstrated that one or two intranasal immunizations with live NDV-HXP-S expressing the XBB.1.5 spike induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice and protects them from a challenge with the XBB.1.5 variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Furthermore, one or two intranasal vaccinations with NDV-HXP-S XBB.1.5 protected hamsters from variant matched infection and reduced virus emission, thereby providing complete protection to naïve animals in a direct contact transmission study. The data shown in this study supports the notion that intranasal vaccination with variant-adapted NDV-HXP-S induces protective mucosal immunity and reduces transmission rates, highlighting the robust protective efficacy of a single mucosal vaccination in mice and hamsters.

Germany primarily relies on a practice-based, opportunistic immunisation system. Despite the introduction of the Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine into the German vaccination schedule in 2007, coverage remains low. International experience suggests that school-based vaccination can increase HPV coverage. Therefore, in 2013/14 Bremen's public health department offered HPV vaccinations within a school programme, targeting all 8th-graders. We aimed to evaluate the programme, with a focus on vulnerable groups. In a retrospective cohort design, we analysed vaccination status and uptake among all 8th-graders from 2015/16 to 2018/19 (girls) and 2022/23 (girls and boys). Sub-analyses were based on the School Social Index (SSI), which ranges from 1 (higher socio-economic position, SEP) to 5 (lower SEP), considering factors like poverty, migration, and living environment. The study included 13,550 students from 1,440 classes in 56 schools. Among previously unvaccinated students, 26-35 % of girls and 39 % of boys annually accepted and received the school-based HPV vaccination. Uptake was higher among students from lower as compared to higher SEP schools (SSI 5: 37 % vs. SSI 1: 30 %, p = 0.022). Vaccine uptake among unvaccinated students remained stable over time, with one-third receiving at least one HPV vaccination at school. The remaining two-thirds of unvaccinated did not make use of the vaccination offer at school. It needs to be investigated if this is possibly due to vaccine hesitancy or a preference for practice-based vaccinations. While school vaccination programmes can improve uptake, implementing a nationwide programme in Germany will be challenging and may not address all existing major uptake barriers.

Introduction: Acceptance of recommended vaccines is lower among pregnant people compared to non-pregnant adults, yet no tool has specifically measured prenatal vaccine hesitancy. We evaluated the performance of an existing adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (aVHS) in measuring vaccine hesitancy toward routinely recommended prenatal vaccines.

Methods: Between December 2021 and April 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional national online survey with 917 US postpartum adults 18-49 years old who had given birth in the past six months. Vaccine hesitancy was measured using the aVHS, a 10-item scale previously validated among the adult general population. Scores range from 10 to 50, with higher scores indicating greater vaccine hesitancy. Structural equation modeling (SEM) with weighted least squares means and variances adjusted (WLSMV) estimator was used to assess the fit of the aVHS structure. Construct validity was assessed by examining the correlation between the aVHS score and the self-reported receipt of recommended prenatal vaccines.

Results: SEM indicated acceptable fit (RMSEA: 0.098; CFI: 0.983; TLI: 0.978; SRMR: 0.040) of the data to the two-factor model: (1) lack of vaccine confidence, and (2) perceived vaccine risks. For the paths from the two factors to the vaccine acceptance, lack of vaccine confidence was significantly correlated with influenza vaccine acceptance (β = -0.41, p < 0.001) and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance (β = -0.64, p < 0.001), while perceived vaccine risk was significantly linked with Tdap vaccine acceptance (β = -0.57, p < 0.001) and influenza vaccine acceptance (β = -0.25, p < 0.001). Additionally, pregnant people with higher aVHS scores were less likely to receive recommended prenatal vaccines.

Discussion: Although the aVHS offered acceptable measurement of prenatal vaccine hesitancy, a scale that measures pregnancy-specific concerns may offer more tailored measurement for this unique population.

Background: The safety of the COVID-19 inactivated vaccine on pregnancy outcomes in couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology remains uncertain due to limited and speculative evidence. Existing studies primarily focus on the vaccination status of females, with scant information available regarding the vaccination status of male partners. Moreover, there is minimal research tracking live birth outcomes.

Objective(s): The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 inactivated vaccine administration on the outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in infertile couples in China.

Methods: This prospective cohort study involved couples undergoing IVF treatment at Sichuan Jinxin Xinan Women & Children's Hospital from August 2021 to September 2022. Based on whether they received vaccination before ovarian stimulation, the couples were divided into the vaccination group and the non-vaccination group. We compared the laboratory parameters and pregnancy outcomes between the two groups.

Results: After performing propensity score matching (PSM), we observed similar live birth rates (41.23% vs. 44.08%, P = 0.555), clinical pregnancy rates (52.61% vs. 54.98%, P = 0.625), biochemical pregnancy (62.56% vs. 63.98%, P = 0.762), and ongoing pregnancy rates (49.76% vs. 51.18%, P = 0.770) between the vaccinated and unvaccinated women. Also, no significant disparities were found in terms of embryo development and laboratory parameters between the groups. Moreover, male vaccination had no impact on patients' pregnancy outcomes in assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments (all P > 0.05). Additionally, there were no observable effects of vaccination on embryo development and pregnancy outcomes among couples undergoing ART (all P > 0.05).

Conclusion(s): The findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccination did not have a significant effect on patients undergoing IVF/ICSI with fresh embryo transfer. Therefore, it is recommended that couples should receive COVID-19 vaccination as scheduled to help mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a common cause of hospitalisation in infants worldwide, causing significant morbidity and mortality. Recently, the antiviral treatment, Ziresovir, has shown promising results in a Phase III trial conducted on infants hospitalised with RSV. Based on these topline results, this study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of Ziresovir in the United Kingdom (UK).

Methods: The cost-effective analysis (CEA) uses a proportional outcomes model using data from topline reports by the AIRFLO trial and published data to explore the effect of Ziresovir administration on hospitalised infants aged <24 months at admission. We estimated the reduction in ICU bed days and deaths and the maximum cost-effective price (MCEP) per treated individual, assuming a threshold of £20,000 per Quality-adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained.

Results: Administering Ziresovir to all hospitalised infants averts four deaths (range: 2.8-4.5), 216 ICU admissions (range:160-260) and 3169 ICU bed-days (range: 2348-3804) per annum, the MCEP for Ziresovir per hospitalised infant is £429.65 (95 % CrI: £236-£771). If preterm infants are targeted, then the MCEP increases to £2108.38 (95 % Crl: £870-£3540). The MCEP for exclusively treating Infants with Chronic Lung Disease (CLD) and Congenital Heart Disease (CHD) is £6557.24 (95 % Crl: £1250 - £14,920) and £9459.44 (95 % Crl £3350-£20,300) respectively. The model is highly sensitive to changes in the efficacy of Ziresovir and the risk of ICU admission and mortality.

Conclusion: Ziresovir is a cost-effective intervention for all infants hospitalised with RSV if priced below £430 per dose and strategies that exclusively treat high-risk- with CLD and CHD infants justify a higher price of £6558 and £9460 respectively. The outcomes are highly sensitive to the efficacy of Ziresovir and can be improved when the full results of the AIRFLO trial are available.

Malignant catarrhal fever (MCF), caused by alcelaphine herpesvirus-1 (AIHV-1) transmitted from wildebeest, is a lethal cattle disease with significant impacts on East African pastoralists. Development of a live attenuated MCF vaccine has prompted research into its use in communities at risk. This study reports results from the first utilisation of the MCF vaccine in locally-owned cattle under field conditions. The study involved a primary two-dose course vaccination of 1634 cattle, followed a year later, by boost vaccination of 385 of these cattle. It aimed to: (a) evaluate the antibody response to a two-dose AlHV-1 primary vaccination course, including initial response, antibody levels after one year, and clinical events post-vaccination; (b) assess how factors like age, reproductive status, body condition, and breed influence the initial response; and (c) compare antibody responses to single- and two-dose booster protocols one year after primary vaccination. Analyses were carried out using linear mixed-effects models and paired t-tests. Clinical incidents were reported in 11/1634 cattle vaccinated during the primary course and in 0/385 cattle during the boost regimens. The primary vaccination resulted in a 9-fold increase in comparison to pre-vaccination antibody levels and the response was consistent across animals of different ages, reproductive statuses and body conditions. While antibody levels declined 11 months after primary vaccination, they remained high, and a single-dose booster vaccination was sufficient to elicit a strong immune response, with only marginal increases after a second booster. The study provides evidence of high immunogenicity and low incidences of clinical events of the vaccine in cattle across individual host factors and immunologically vulnerable groups, under prevailing environmental conditions. It also indicates the utility of a single-dose booster regimen. These findings will support progress towards commercial production and larger-scale adoption which could generate important benefits for the livelihoods, and sustainability of pastoral livestock systems.

Brucella abortus S19 and RB51 are the most used vaccines to control bovine brucellosis worldwide; therefore, this study aimed to perform a systematic review on the effectiveness of these two vaccine strains in field studies. The literature review was conducted on April 3rd 2020 on six databases (CABI, Cochrane, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus and Web of Science) and included papers published between 1976 and 2016. The search strategy recovered a total of 5846 papers on databases and 6 papers were included due to specialists' suggestions. After selection, 17 papers were included, in which 33 trials were identified. Most trials [63.63 % (21/33)] used prevalence panel design (cross-sectional), while the others were cohort studies. S19 strain was used in most of the trials [75.76 % (25/33)], mainly by subcutaneous route [84.00 % (21/25)] and in adult cattle [76.00 % (19/25)]. RB51 strain was administrated only by the subcutaneous route and in both young and adult animals. For case definition, complement fixation [60.60 % (20/33)] and rivanol [30.30 % (10/33)] were the most used tests. Twenty of the 33 trials (60.61 %) showed significant effect of vaccination on brucellosis control, with lower incidence of infection in the vaccinated groups (in cohort trials) or reduced prevalence after vaccination (in prevalence panels); however, the great heterogeneity observed among the studies precluded a meta-analysis from the data extracted. In addition, most trials [57.57 % (19/33)] adopted other control measures (test-and-slaughter or isolation of positive animals from the herd) in association with vaccination, which harmed the better understand of the isolated effect of vaccination for brucellosis control in field in these studies. In conclusion, the result from this review suggests that both S19 and RB51 vaccine strains are effective in reducing brucellosis incidence in both calves and adults, as well as abortion rates, mainly when associated to other control policies.

Objectives: SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine reactogenicity has raised concerns regarding the risk of rejection in solid organ transplant recipients. We explored whether SOT recipients diagnosed with acute rejection had previously received a vaccine injection within a timeframe consistent with a causal link.

Methods: We identified all SOT recipients with a diagnosis of acute rejection from 2020 to 2022 and who had previously received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and analysed whether the delay between vaccination and rejection was constant.

Results: In the 45 identified patients, median delay between the last SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and the rejection was 102 days [IQR 48-178]; the continuous distribution of this delay, with no identifiable time pattern, is not in favor of a role of vaccination in rejection.

Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination is unlikely to trigger rejection in SOT recipients.