scholarly journals Acceptance of a pandemic influenza vaccine: a systematic review of surveys of the general public

2011 ◽  
pp. 197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kumanan Wilson ◽  
Nguyen ◽  
Holdt Henningsen ◽  
Brehaut ◽  
Hoe
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Pandemic Influenza ◽  
General Public

scholarly journals Vaccine response following anti-CD20 therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 905 patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 2624-2643
Author(s):  
Abi Vijenthira ◽  
Inna Gong ◽  
Stephen D. Betschel ◽  
Matthew Cheung ◽  
Lisa K. Hicks
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Pandemic Influenza ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vaccine Dose ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Vaccine Response ◽  
Anti Cd20

Abstract The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on vaccine responsiveness in patients who have received anti-CD20 therapy. PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to 4 January 2021 to identify studies of vaccine immunogenicity in patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy, including patients with hematologic malignancy or autoimmune disease. The primary outcomes were seroprotection (SP), seroconversion (SC), and/or seroresponse rates for each type of vaccine reported. As the pandemic influenza vaccine (2009 H1N1) has standardized definitions for SP and SC, and represented a novel primary antigen similar to the COVID-19 vaccine, meta-analysis was conducted for SC of studies of this vaccine. Pooled estimates, relative benefit ratios (RBs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirty-eight studies (905 patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy) were included (19 studies of patients with hematologic malignancies). Patients on active (<3 months since last dose) anti-CD20 therapy had poor responses to all types of vaccines. The pooled estimate for SC after 1 pandemic influenza vaccine dose in these patients was 3% (95% CI, 0% to 9%), with an RB of 0.05 (95% CI, 0-0.73) compared with healthy controls and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.09-0.56) compared with disease controls. SC compared with controls seems abrogated for at least 6 months following treatment (3-6 months post anti-CD20 therapy with an RB of 0.50 [95% CI, 0.24-1.06] compared with healthy and of 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23-0.84] compared with disease controls). For all vaccine types, response to vaccination improves incrementally over time, but may not reach the level of healthy controls even 12 months after therapy.

Evaluation of the cellular immune responses induced by a non-adjuvanted inactivated whole virus A/H5N1/VN/1203 pandemic influenza vaccine in humans

Vaccine ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian A. Crowe ◽  
Peter Brühl ◽  
Marijan Gerencer ◽  
Michael G. Schwendinger ◽  
Andreas Pilz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Responses ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Pandemic Influenza ◽  
Cellular Immune Responses ◽  
Cellular Immune

scholarly journals Retraction Note: The impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Medicine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren C. Ramsay ◽  
Sarah A. Buchan ◽  
Robert G. Stirling ◽  
Benjamin J. Cowling ◽  
Shou Feng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vaccine Effectiveness ◽  
The Impact

Immunogenicity and safety of a novel AS03A-adjuvanted H1N1 2009 pandemic influenza vaccine in adults in Japan

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. 888-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideyuki Ikematsu ◽  
Hideaki Nagai ◽  
Masahiro Kawashima ◽  
Yasunobu Kawakami ◽  
Kazuyoshi Tenjinbaru ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Pandemic Influenza

Influenza Vaccine Efficacy and Effectiveness in Pregnant Women: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trang Ho Thu Quach ◽  
Nicholas Alexander Mallis ◽  
José F. Cordero
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Vaccine Efficacy ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gbadebo Collins Adeyanju ◽  
Elena Engel ◽  
Laura Koch ◽  
Tabea Ranzinger ◽  
Imtiaz Bin Mohammed Shahid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
World Health ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Adequate Knowledge

Abstract Background Pregnant women are at high risk for severe influenza. However, maternal influenza vaccination uptake in most World Health Organization (WHO) European Region countries remains low, despite the presence of widespread national recommendations. An influenza vaccination reduces influenza-associated morbidity and mortality in pregnancy, as well as providing newborns with protection in their first months. Potential determinants of vaccine hesitancy need to be identified to develop strategies that can increase vaccine acceptance and uptake among pregnant women. The primary objective of the systematic review is to identify the individual determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe, and how to overcome the hesitancy. Methods Databases were searched for peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies published between 2009 and 2019 inclusive. Databases included PubMed via MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, SAGE Journals, Taylor and Francis and Springer nature. These covered themes including psychology, medicine, and public health. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, 11 studies were eligible and analyzed for significant determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe. Results The most commonly reported factors were psychological aspects, for example concerns about safety and risks to mother and child, or general low risk perception of becoming ill from influenza. Doubts about the effectiveness of the vaccine and a lack of knowledge about this topic were further factors. There was also influence of contextual factors, such as healthcare workers not providing adequate knowledge about the influenza vaccine or the pregnant lady stating their antivaccine sentiment. Conclusion Health promotion that specifically increases knowledge among pregnant women about influenza and vaccination is important, supporting a valid risk judgment by the pregnant lady. The development of new information strategies for dialogue between healthcare providers and pregnant women should form part of this strategy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document