Search

Background: Information on the magnitude and duration of antibody levels after COVID-19 vaccination in different groups may be useful for prioritizing of additional vaccinations., Methods: Serum samples were collected every six months in a prospective cohort study among adults in the Netherlands. Geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were calculated after the primary series, first, and second booster vaccinations. Effects of age (18-59 vs 60-85 years) and medical risk conditions on GMC 2-6 weeks and 21-25 weeks after each vaccination, and on waning during 3-25 weeks after each vaccination, were estimated by linear regression., Results: We included 20,640, 15,229 and 8,392 samples collected after primary, first and second booster vaccination, respectively. GMCs at 2-6 and 21-25 weeks after primary series were lower in participants with older age or medical risk conditions. After the first booster, older age was associated with lower GMC at 2-6 weeks and at 21-25 weeks. Waning after the first and second boosters (only 60-85) was not associated with age or medical risk conditions., Conclusions: Since antibody differences by age and medical risk groups have become small with increasing number of doses, other factors such as COVID-19 disease severity rather than antibody levels are useful for prioritization of additional vaccinations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 mortality, and to explore whether an increased risk of non-COVID-19 mortality exists in the weeks following a COVID-19 vaccine dose., Methods: National registries of causes of death, COVID-19 vaccination, specialized health care and long-term care reimbursements were linked by a unique person identifier using data from 1 January 2021 to 31 January 2022. We used Cox regression with calendar time as underlying time scale to, firstly, estimate VE against COVID-19 mortality after primary and first booster vaccination, per month since vaccination and, secondly, estimate risk of non-COVID-19 mortality in the 5 or 8 weeks following a first, second or first booster dose, adjusting for birth year, sex, medical risk group and country of origin., Results: VE against COVID-19 mortality was > 90 % for all age groups two months after completion of the primary series. VE gradually decreased thereafter, to around 80 % at 7-8 months post-primary series for most groups, and around 60 % for elderly receiving a high level of long-term care and for people aged 90+ years. Following a first booster dose, the VE increased to > 85 % in all groups. The risk of non-COVID-19 mortality was lower or similar in the 5 or 8 weeks following a first dose compared to no vaccination, as well as following a second dose compared to one dose and a booster compared to two doses, for all age and long-term care groups., Conclusion: At the population level, COVID-19 vaccination greatly reduced the risk of COVID-19 mortality and no increased risk of death from other causes was observed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vaccines against COVID-19 have proven effective in preventing COVID-19 hospitalisation. In this study, we aimed to quantify part of the public health impact of COVID-19 vaccination by estimating the number of averted hospitalisations. We present results from the beginning of the vaccination campaign ('entire period', January 6, 2021) and a subperiod starting at August 2, 2021 ('subperiod') when all adults had the opportunity to complete their primary series, both until August 30, 2022., Methods: Using calendar-time specific vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates and vaccine coverage (VC) by round (primary series, first booster and second booster) and the observed number of COVID-19 associated hospitalisations, we estimated the number of averted hospitalisations per age group for the two study periods. From January 25, 2022, when registration of the indication of hospitalisation started, hospitalisations not causally related to COVID-19 were excluded., Results: In the entire period, an estimated 98,170 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 96,123-99,928) hospitalisations were averted, of which 90,753 (95 % CI 88,790-92,531) were in the subperiod, representing 57.0 % and 67.9 % of all estimated hospital admissions. Estimated averted hospitalisations were lowest for 12-49-year-olds and highest for 70-79-year-olds. More admissions were averted in the Delta period (72.3 %) than in the Omicron period (63.4 %)., Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccination prevented a large number of hospitalisations. Although the counterfactual of having had no vaccinations while maintaining the same public health measures is unrealistic, these findings underline the public health importance of the vaccination campaign to policy makers and the public., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Senna van Iersel reports financial support was provided by Netherlands Ministry of Health Welfare and Sport., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neonatal invasive Group B Streptococcus (GBS) infection causes considerable disease burden in the Netherlands. Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) prevents early-onset disease (EOD), but has no effect on late-onset disease (LOD). A potential maternal GBS vaccine could prevent both EOD and LOD by conferring immunity in neonates., Objective: Explore under which circumstances maternal vaccination against GBS would be cost-effective as an addition to, or replacement for the current risk factor-based IAP prevention strategy in the Netherlands., Methods: We assessed the maximum cost-effective price per dose of a trivalent (serotypes Ia, Ib, and III) and hexavalent (additional serotypes II, IV, and V) GBS vaccine in addition to, or as a replacement for IAP. To project the prevented costs and disease burden, a decision tree model was developed to reflect neonatal GBS disease and long-term health outcomes among a cohort based on 169,836 live births in the Netherlands in 2017., Results: Under base-case conditions, maternal immunization with a trivalent vaccine would gain 186 QALYs and prevent more than €3.1 million in health care costs when implemented in addition to IAP. Immunization implemented as a replacement for IAP would gain 88 QALYs compared to the current prevention strategy, prevent €1.5 million in health care costs, and avoid potentially ~ 30,000 IAP administrations. The base-case results correspond to a maximum price of €58 per dose (vaccine + administration costs; using a threshold of €20,000/QALY). Expanding the serotype coverage to a hexavalent vaccine would only have a limited additional impact on the cost-effectiveness in the Netherlands., Conclusions: A maternal GBS vaccine could be cost-effective when implemented in addition to the current risk factor-based IAP prevention strategy in the Netherlands. Discontinuation of IAP would save costs and prevent antibiotic use, however, is projected to lead to a lower health gain compared to vaccination in addition to IAP., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Rubella containing vaccines (RCV) prevent rubella virus infection and subsequent congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). To update the evidence on immunogenicity, duration of protection, effectiveness and safety of RCV, we conducted a systematic literature review., Methods: We searched EMBASE and SCOPUS, using keywords for rubella vaccine in combination with immunogenicity (seroconversion and seropositivity), duration of protection, efficacy/effectiveness, and safety. Original research papers involving at least one dose of RCV (at any age), published between 1-1-2010 and 17-5-2019 were included. Where appropriate, meta-analyses were performed. Quality of included studies was assessed using GRADE methodology., Results: We included 36 papers (32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 observational studies) on immunogenicity (RA27/3 strain) in children and adolescent girls, 14 papers (5 RCTs and 9 observational studies) on duration of protection, one paper on vaccine effectiveness (VE) (BRDII strain), and 74 studies on safety, including three on safety in pregnancy. Meta-analysis of immunogenicity data showed 99% seroconversion (95% CI: 98-99%) after a single dose of RCV in children, independent of co-administration with other vaccines. Seroconversion after RCV1 below 9 months of age (BRDII strain, at 8 months) was 93% (95% CI: 92-95%). For duration of protection, the included studies showed a seropositivity of 88%-100% measured 1-20 years after one or two RCV doses. The single study on VE of BRDII strain, reported 100% VE after one and two doses. Among 34,332 individuals participating in the RCTs, 140 severe adverse events (SAEs) were reported as possibly related to RCV. Among the case reports on SAEs, the association with RCV was confirmed in one report (on fulminant encephalitis). Among 3,000 pregnant women who were inadvertently vaccinated, no SAEs were reported., Conclusions: One and two doses of RCV are highly immunogenic for a long period of time, effective in preventing rubella and CRS, and safe., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vaccinating infants with a first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) before 9 months of age in high-risk settings has the potential to reduce measles-related morbidity and mortality. However, there is concern that early vaccination might blunt the immune response to subsequent measles vaccine doses. We systematically reviewed the available evidence on the effect of MCV1 administration to infants younger than 9 months on their immune responses to subsequent MCV doses., Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, outbreak investigations, and cohort and case-control studies without restriction on publication dates, in which MCV1 was administered to infants younger than 9 months. We did the literature search on June 2, 2015, and updated it on Jan 14, 2019. We included studies reporting data on strength or duration of humoral and cellular immune responses, and on vaccine efficacy or vaccine effectiveness after two-dose or three-dose MCV schedules. Our outcome measures were proportion of seropositive infants, geometric mean titre, vaccine efficacy, vaccine effectiveness, antibody avidity index, and T-cell stimulation index. We used random-effects meta-analysis to derive pooled estimates of the outcomes, where appropriate. We assessed the methodological quality of included studies using Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines., Findings: Our search retrieved 1156 records and 85 were excluded due to duplication. 1071 records were screened for eligibility, of which 351 were eligible for full-text screening and 21 were eligible for inclusion in the review. From 13 studies, the pooled proportion of infants seropositive after two MCV doses, with MCV1 administered before 9 months of age, was 98% (95% CI 96-99; I 2 =79·8%, p<0·0001), which was not significantly different from seropositivity after a two-dose MCV schedule starting later (p=0·087). Only one of four studies found geometric mean titres after MCV2 administration to be significantly lower when MCV1 was administered before 9 months of age than at 9 months of age or later. There was insufficient evidence to determine an effect of age at MCV1 administration on antibody avidity. The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimate derived from two studies of a two-dose MCV schedule with MCV1 vaccination before 9 months of age was 95% (95% CI 89-100; I 2 =12·6%, p=0·29). Seven studies reporting on measles virus-specific cellular immune responses found that T-cell responses and T-cell memory were sustained, irrespective of the age of MCV1 administration. Overall, the quality of evidence was moderate to very low., Interpretation: Our findings suggest that administering MCV1 to infants younger than 9 months followed by additional MCV doses results in high seropositivity, vaccine effectiveness, and T-cell responses, which are independent of the age at MCV1, supporting the vaccination of very young infants in high-risk settings. However, we also found some evidence that MCV1 administered to infants younger than 9 months resulted in lower antibody titres after one or two subsequent doses of MCV than when measles vaccination is started at age 9 months or older. The clinical and public-health relevance of this immunity blunting effect are uncertain., Funding: WHO., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Measles is an important cause of death in children, despite the availability of safe and cost-saving measles-containing vaccines (MCVs). The first MCV dose (MCV1) is recommended at 9 months of age in countries with ongoing measles transmission, and at 12 months in countries with low risk of measles. To assess whether bringing forward the age of MCV1 is beneficial, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits and risks of MCV1 in infants younger than 9 months., Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Proquest, Global Health, the WHO library database, and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing database, and consulted experts. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, outbreak investigations, and cohort and case-control studies without restriction on publication dates, in which MCV1 was administered to infants younger than 9 months. We did the literature search on June 2, 2015, and updated it on Jan 14, 2019. We assessed: proportion of infants seroconverted, geometric mean antibody titre, avidity, cellular immunity, duration of immunity, vaccine efficacy, vaccine effectiveness, and safety. We used random-effects models to derive pooled estimates of the endpoints, where appropriate. We assessed methodological quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines., Findings: Our search identified 1156 studies, of which 1071 were screened for eligibility. 351 were eligible for full-text screening, and data from 56 studies that met all inclusion criteria were used for analysis. The proportion of infants who seroconverted increased from 50% (95% CI 29-71) for those vaccinated with MCV1 at 4 months of age to 85% (69-97) for those were vaccinated at 8 months. The pooled geometric mean titre ratio for infants aged 4-8 months vaccinated with MCV1 compared with infants vaccinated with MCV1 at age 9 months or older was 0·46 (95% CI 0·33-0·66; I 2 =99·9%, p<0·0001). Only one study reported on avidity and suggested that there was lower avidity and a shorter duration of immunity following MCV1 administration at 6 months of age than at 9 months of age (p=0·0016) or 12 months of age (p<0·001). No effect of age at MCV1 administration on cellular immunity was found. One study reported that vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed measles virus infection was 94% (95% CI 74-98) in infants vaccinated with MCV1 at 4·5 months of age. The pooled vaccine effectiveness of MCV1 in infants younger than 9 months against measles was 58% (95% CI 9-80; I 2 =84·9%, p<0·0001). The pooled vaccine effectiveness estimate from within-study comparisons of infants younger than 9 months vaccinated with MCV1 were 51% (95% CI -44 to 83; I 2 =92·3%, p<0·0001), and for those aged 9 months and older at vaccination it was 83% (76-88; I 2 =93·8%, p<0·0001). No differences in the risk of adverse events after MCV1 administration were found between infants younger than 9 months and those aged 9 months of older. Overall, the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low., Interpretation: MCV1 administered to infants younger than 9 months induces a good immune response, whereby the proportion of infants seroconverted increases with increased age at vaccination. A large proportion of infants receiving MCV1 before 9 months of age are protected and the vaccine is safe, although higher antibody titres and vaccine effectiveness are found when MCV1 is administered at older ages. Recommending MCV1 administration to infants younger than 9 months for those at high risk of measles is an important step towards reducing measles-related mortality and morbidity., Funding: WHO., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)