Literature DB >> 19588375

Combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine versus separately administered DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines for primary prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae B (HIB).

Edna S Bar-On1, Elad Goldberg, Abigail Fraser, Liat Vidal, Sarah Hellmann, Leonard Leibovici.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Advantages to combining childhood vaccines include reducing the number of visits, injections and patient discomfort, increasing compliance, and optimizing prevention. The World Health Organization recommends that routine infant immunization programs include a vaccination against Haemophilus influenza type B (HIB) in the combined diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTP)-hepatitis B (HBV) vaccination. The effectiveness and safety of the combined vaccine should be carefully and systematically assessed to ensure their acceptability by the community.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine with DTP-HBV and HIB vaccinations. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 1) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialized Register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2009) and EMBASE (January 1990 to March 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing vaccination with any combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine, with or without three types of inactivated poliovirus (IPV) or concomitant oral polio vaccine (OPV) in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with separate vaccines or placebo, administered to infants aged up to two years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently inspected references identified by the searches and evaluated them against the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included trials. MAIN
RESULTS: Meta-analysis was performed to pool the results of 18 studies. There were no data on clinical outcomes for the primary outcome and all studies used immunogenicity and reactogenicity (adverse events). In two immunological responses the combined vaccine achieved lower responses than the separate vaccines for HIB and HBV. Comparison found little heterogeneity. No significant differences in immunogenicity were found for pertussis, diphtheria, polio and tetanus. Serious adverse events were comparable. Minor adverse events were more common in children given the combined vaccine. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: We could not conclude that the immune responses elicited by the combined vaccine were different from, or equivalent to, the separate vaccines. Data for the primary outcome (prevention of disease) were lacking. There was significantly less immunological response for HIB and HBV, and more local reactions in the combined injections. However, these differences rely mostly on one study each. Studies did not use an intention-to-treat analysis and we were uncertain about the risk of bias in many of the studies. These results are therefore inconclusive. Studies addressing clinical end-points whenever possible, using correct methodology and a large enough sample size should be conducted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19588375     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005530.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  11 in total

1.  Comparison of the tolerability of newly introduced childhood vaccines in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Jeanet M Kemmeren; Nicoline At van der Maas; Hester E de Melker
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.183

Review 2.  Immune reconstitution and vaccination outcome in HIV-1 infected children: present knowledge and future directions.

Authors:  Alberto Cagigi; Nicola Cotugno; Carlo Giaquinto; Luciana Nicolosi; Stefania Bernardi; Paolo Rossi; Iyadh Douagi; Paolo Palma
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Immune Responses in U.S. Military Personnel Who Received Meningococcal Conjugate Vaccine (MenACWY) Concomitantly with Other Vaccines Were Higher than in Personnel Who Received MenACWY Alone.

Authors:  Michael P Broderick; Sandra Romero-Steiner; Gowrisankar Rajam; Scott E Johnson; Andrea Milton; Ellie Kim; Lisa J Choi; Jennifer M Radin; Daniel S Schmidt; George M Carlone; Nancy Messonnier; Dennis J Faix
Journal:  Clin Vaccine Immunol       Date:  2016-08-05

Review 4.  Translation of biomedical prevention strategies for HIV: prospects and pitfalls.

Authors:  Sten H Vermund; José A Tique; Holly M Cassell; Megan E Pask; Philip J Ciampa; Carolyn M Audet
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 3.731

5.  Introducing pentavalent vaccine in EPI in India: a counsel for prudence in interpreting scientific literature.

Authors:  Madhu Gupta; Shankar Prinja; Dinesh Kumar; Rajesh Kumar
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 6.  Management of the polyallergic patient with allergy immunotherapy: a practice-based approach.

Authors:  Pascal Demoly; Giovanni Passalacqua; Oliver Pfaar; Joaquin Sastre; Ulrich Wahn
Journal:  Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 3.406

7.  Adverse events following immunization with pentavalent vaccine: experiences of newly introduced vaccine in Iran.

Authors:  Manoochehr Karami; Pegah Ameri; Jalal Bathaei; Zeinab Berangi; Tahereh Pashaei; Ali Zahiri; Seyed Mohsen Zahraei; Hussein Erfani; Koen Ponnet
Journal:  BMC Immunol       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 3.615

8.  A Comparative Phase I Study of Combination, Homologous Subtype-C DNA, MVA, and Env gp140 Protein/Adjuvant HIV Vaccines in Two Immunization Regimes.

Authors:  Sarah Joseph; Killian Quinn; Aldona Greenwood; Alethea V Cope; Paul F McKay; Peter J Hayes; Jakub T Kopycinski; Jill Gilmour; Aleisha N Miller; Christof Geldmacher; Yuka Nadai; Mohamed I M Ahmed; David C Montefiori; Len Dally; George Bouliotis; David J M Lewis; Roger Tatoud; Ralf Wagner; Mariano Esteban; Robin J Shattock; Sheena McCormack; Jonathan Weber
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2017-02-22       Impact factor: 7.561

9.  A roller-coaster ride: Introduction of pentavalent vaccine in India.

Authors:  Harish Nair; Indrajit Hazarika; Ashok Patwari
Journal:  J Glob Health       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.413

10.  Surveillance on the adverse events following immunization with the pentavalent vaccine in Zhejiang, China.

Authors:  Xuejiao Pan; Huakun Lv; Hui Liang; Ying Wang; Linzhi Shen; Fuxing Chen; Yaping Chen; Yu Hu
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.