Psychiatric disorders, and especially severe mental illness, are associated with an increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and COVID-19-related morbidity and ...mortality. People with severe mental illness should therefore be prioritised in vaccine allocation strategies. Here, we discuss the risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes in this vulnerable group, the effect of severe mental illness and psychotropic medications on vaccination response, the attitudes of people with severe mental illness towards vaccination, and, the potential barriers to, and possible solutions for, an efficient vaccination programme in this population.
Due to the high prevalence and long incubation periods often without symptoms, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected millions of individuals globally, causing ...the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Even with the recent approval of the anti-viral drug, remdesivir, and Emergency Use Authorization of monoclonal antibodies against S protein, bamlanivimab and casirimab/imdevimab, efficient and safe COVID-19 vaccines are still desperately demanded not only to prevent its spread but also to restore social and economic activities via generating mass immunization. Recent Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer and BioNTech’s mRNA vaccine may provide a pathway forward, but monitoring of long-term immunity is still required, and diverse candidates are still under development. As the knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis and interactions with the immune system continues to evolve, a variety of drug candidates are under investigation and in clinical trials. Potential vaccines and therapeutics against COVID-19 include repurposed drugs, monoclonal antibodies, antiviral and antigenic proteins, peptides, and genetically engineered viruses. This paper reviews the virology and immunology of SARS-CoV-2, alternative therapies for COVID-19 to vaccination, principles and design considerations in COVID-19 vaccine development, and the promises and roles of vaccine carriers in addressing the unique immunopathological challenges presented by the disease.
Display omitted
Abstract Introduction The WHO recommends annual influenza vaccination to prevent influenza illness in high-risk groups. Little is known about national influenza immunization policies globally. ...Material and Methods The 2014 WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form (JRF) on Immunization was adapted to capture data on influenza immunization policies. We combined this dataset with additional JRF information on new vaccine introductions and strength of immunization programmes, as well as publicly available data on country economic status. Data from countries that did not complete the JRF were sought through additional sources. We described data on country influenza immunization policies and used bivariate analyses to identify factors associated with having such policies. Results Of 194 WHO Member States, 115 (59%) reported having a national influenza immunization policy in 2014. Among countries with a national policy, programmes target specific WHO-defined risk groups, including pregnant women (42%), young children (28%), adults with chronic illnesses (46%), the elderly (45%), and health care workers (47%). The Americas, Europe, and Western Pacific were the WHO regions that had the highest percentages of countries reporting that they had national influenza immunization policies. Compared to countries without policies, countries with policies were significantly more likely to have the following characteristics: to be high or upper middle income ( p < 0.0001); to have introduced birth dose hepatitis B virus vaccine ( p < 0.0001), pneumococcal conjugate vaccine ( p = 0.032), or human papilloma virus vaccine ( p = 0.002); to have achieved global goals for diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine coverage ( p < 0.0001); and to have a functioning National Immunization Technical Advisory Group ( p < 0.0001). Conclusions The 2014 revision of the JRF permitted a global assessment of national influenza immunization policies. The 59% of countries reporting that they had policies are wealthier, use more new or under-utilized vaccines, and have stronger immunization systems. Addressing disparities in public health resources and strengthening immunization systems may facilitate influenza vaccine introduction and use.
Several vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are on the cusp of regulatory approval. Their safety and efficacy in older people is critical to their success. Even though care home ...residents and older people are likely to be amongst the first to be vaccinated, these patient groups are usually excluded from clinical trials. Data from several Phase II trials have given cause for optimism, with strong antibody responses and reassuring safety profiles but, with the exception of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, recruited few older people. Overall, the sparse data from Phase II trials suggest a reduction in both antibody responses and mild to moderate adverse events in well older people compared to younger participants. Many of the Phase III trials have made a conscious effort to recruit older people, and interim analyses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine have led to press releases announcing high degrees of efficacy. However, older people with co-morbidities and frailty have once again been largely excluded and there are no published data on safety and efficacy in this group. Although the speed and impact of the pandemic on older people with frailty justify an approach where they are offered vaccination first, patients and their carers and supervising health care professionals alike will need to make a decision on accepting vaccination based on limited evidence. Here we review the main candidate vaccines that may become available, with a focus on the evidence of safety and efficacy in older people.
Immunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of ...immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care, and large demands on primary care providers, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. One common theme across immunization programs in many nations involves the challenge of implementing a population-based approach and identifying all eligible recipients, for example the children who should receive the measles vaccine. However, this issue is gradually being addressed through the availability of immunization registries and electronic health records. A second common theme is identifying the best strategies to promote high vaccination rates. Three types of strategies have been studied: (1) patient-oriented interventions, such as patient reminder or recall, (2) provider interventions, and (3) system interventions, such as school laws. One of the most prominent intervention strategies, and perhaps best studied, involves patient reminder or recall systems. This is an update of a previously published review.
To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various types of patient reminder and recall interventions to improve receipt of immunizations.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2017. We also searched grey literature and trial registers to January 2017.
We included randomized trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating immunization-focused patient reminder or recall interventions in children, adolescents, and adults who receive immunizations in any setting. We included no-intervention control groups, standard practice activities that did not include immunization patient reminder or recall, media-based activities aimed at promoting immunizations, or simple practice-based awareness campaigns. We included receipt of any immunizations as eligible outcome measures, excluding special travel immunizations. We excluded patients who were hospitalized for the duration of the study period.
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We present results for individual studies as relative rates using risk ratios, and risk differences for randomized trials, and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before-after studies. We present pooled results for randomized trials using the random-effects model.
The 75 included studies involved child, adolescent, and adult participants in outpatient, community-based, primary care, and other settings in 10 countries.Patient reminder or recall interventions, including telephone and autodialer calls, letters, postcards, text messages, combination of mail or telephone, or a combination of patient reminder or recall with outreach, probably improve the proportion of participants who receive immunization (risk ratio (RR) of 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.35; risk difference of 8%) based on moderate certainty evidence from 55 studies with 138,625 participants.Three types of single-method reminders improve receipt of immunizations based on high certainty evidence: the use of postcards (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30; eight studies; 27,734 participants), text messages (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.44; six studies; 7772 participants), and autodialer (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; five studies; 11,947 participants). Two types of single-method reminders probably improve receipt of immunizations based on moderate certainty evidence: the use of telephone calls (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.54; seven studies; 9120 participants) and letters to patients (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; 27 studies; 81,100 participants).Based on high certainty evidence, reminders improve receipt of immunizations for childhood (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.29; risk difference of 8%; 23 studies; 31,099 participants) and adolescent vaccinations (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.42; risk difference of 7%; 10 studies; 30,868 participants). Reminders probably improve receipt of vaccinations for childhood influenza (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.99; risk difference of 22%; five studies; 9265 participants) and adult influenza (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.43; risk difference of 9%; 15 studies; 59,328 participants) based on moderate certainty evidence. They may improve receipt of vaccinations for adult pneumococcus, tetanus, hepatitis B, and other non-influenza vaccinations based on low certainty evidence although the confidence interval includes no effect of these interventions (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.78; four studies; 8065 participants).
Patient reminder and recall systems, in primary care settings, are likely to be effective at improving the proportion of the target population who receive immunizations.
The successful Programa Nacional de Imunizações do Brasil (Brazilian National Immunization Program) has been experiencing a major challenge with regard to vaccination coverage for children, which has ...been dropping. Several aspects are related, but certainly vaccine hesitancy has been strengthening itself as one of the main concerns of Brazilian public administrators and researchers. Vaccine hesitancy is the delay in acceptance or refusal despite having the recommended vaccines available in health services, being a phenomenon that varies over time, over location and over types of vaccines. Hesitant individuals are between the two poles of total acceptance and refusal of vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy is nothing new in European and North-American countries, and even in Brazil, it has been studied even if under another name. The drop of vaccination coverage observed from 2016 on reiterates the relevance of the theme, which must be better understood through scientific research.
•This article presents a review of the WHO Tailoring Immunization Programmes approach.•Understanding the perspectives of susceptible populations is crucial to improve programmes.•TIP provides a ...framework that successfully facilitated this in four countries consulted in the review.•Strengths of TIP are interdisciplinary approach, community engagement and qualitative research.
The WHO Regional Office for Europe developed the Guide to tailoring immunization programmes (TIP), offering countries a process through which to diagnose barriers and motivators to vaccination in susceptible low vaccination coverage and design tailored interventions. A review of TIP implementation was conducted in the European Region.
The review was conducted during June to December 2016 by an external review committee and was based on visits in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Sweden and the United Kingdom that had conducted a TIP project; review of national and regional TIP documents and an online survey of the Member States in the WHO European Region that had not conducted a TIP project. A review committee workshop was held to formulate conclusions and recommendations.
The review found the most commonly cited strengths of the TIP approach to be the social science research as well as the interdisciplinary approach and community engagement, enhancing the ability of programmes to “listen” and learn, to gain an understanding of community and individual perspectives. National immunization managers in the Region are generally aware that TIP exists and that there is strong demand for the type of research it addresses. Further work is needed to assist countries move towards implementable strategies based on the TIP findings, supported by an emphasis on enhanced local ownership; integrated diagnostic and intervention design; and follow-up meetings, advocacy and incentives for decision-makers to implement and invest in strategies.
Understanding the perspectives of susceptible and low-coverage populations is crucial to improving immunization programmes. TIP provides a framework that facilitated this in four countries. In the future, the purpose of TIP should go beyond identification of susceptible groups and diagnosis of challenges and ensure a stronger focus on the design of strategies and appropriate and effective interventions to ensure long-term change.
Vaccine regulation in China meets World Health Organization standards, but China's vaccine industry and immunization program have some characteristics that differ from other countries. We described ...the history, classification, supply and prices of vaccines available and used in China, compared with high-and middle-incomes countries to illustrate the development of Chinese vaccine industry and immunization program.
Immunization policy documents were obtained from the State Council and the National Health and Family Planning Commission (NHFPC). Numbers of doses of vaccines released in China were obtained from the Biologicals Lot Release Program of the National Institutes for Food and Drug Control (NIFDC). Vaccine prices were obtained from Chinese Central Government Procurement (CCGP). International data were collected from US CDC, Public Health England, European CDC, WHO, and UNICEF.
Between 2007 and 2015, the annual supply of vaccines in China ranged between 666 million and 1,190 million doses, with most doses produced domestically. The government's Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) prevents 12 vaccine preventable diseases (VPD) through routine immunization. China produces vaccines that are in common use globally; however, the number of routinely-prevented diseases is fewer than in high- and middle-income countries. Contract prices for program (EPI) vaccines ranged from 0.1 to 5.7 US dollars per dose - similar to UNICEF prices. Contract prices for private-market vaccines ranged from 2.4 to 102.9 US dollars per dose - often higher than prices for comparable US, European, and UNICEF vaccines.
China is a well-regulated producer of vaccines, but some vaccines that are important globally are not included in China's EPI system in China. Sustained and coordinated effort will be required to bring Chinese vaccine industry and EPI into an era of global leadership.
This article presented the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendations on the use of Rabies vaccines excerpted from the Rabies vaccines: WHO position paper – April 2018 published in the Weekly ...Epidemiological Record 1 This position paper replaces the 2010 WHO position paper on rabies vaccines 2. It presents new evidence in the field of rabies and the use of rabies vaccines, focussing on programmatic feasibility, simplification of vaccination schedules and improved cost-effectiveness. The recommendations concern the 2 main immunization strategies, namely vaccination for post-exposure prophylaxis and vaccination for pre-exposure prophylaxis. In the context of post-exposure prophylaxis, recommendations are also provided on the use of rabies immunoglobulins.
Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence, and to the evidence-to-recommendation tables. In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines against diseases that have an international public health impact. These papers are concerned primarily with the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes; they summarize essential background information on diseases and vaccines, and conclude with WHO’s current position on the use of vaccines in the global context. Recommendations on the use of cholera vaccines were discussed by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) in October 2017; evidence presented at these meetings can be accessed at:
http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2017/october/presentations_background_docs/en/.
PDF
