Search

Influenza affects millions of people worldwide each year and can lead to severe complications, hospitalizations, and even death, especially among vulnerable populations such as older adults and those with chronic medical conditions. Annual vaccination is considered the most effective measure for preventing influenza and its complications. Despite the widespread availability of influenza vaccines, however, vaccination coverage rates remain suboptimal in several countries. Based on the latest scientific evidence and expert opinions on influenza vaccination in older people and patients with chronic disease, the Portuguese Society of Pulmonology (SPP), the Portuguese Society of Diabetology (SPD), the Portuguese Society of Cardiology (SPC), the Portuguese Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology (SPGG), the Study Group of Geriatrics of the Portuguese Society of Internal Medicine (NEGERMI-SPMI), and the Portuguese Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SPDIMC) discussed best practices for promoting vaccination uptake and coverage and drew up several recommendations to mitigate the impact of influenza. These recommendations focus on the efficacy and safety of available vaccines; the impact of influenza vaccination on older adults; patients with chronic medical conditions, namely cardiac and respiratory conditions, diabetes, and immunosuppressive diseases; and health care professionals, optimal vaccination timing, and strategies to increase vaccination uptake and coverage. The resulting position paper highlights the critical role that vaccinations play in promoting public health, raising awareness, and encouraging more people to get vaccinated., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest FF received personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, MSD, AstraZeneca and GSK. AT has no interests to declare. BA received lecture fees and honoraria from Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Menarini Diagnostic, Roche Diagnostic, Sanofi and Novonordisk. JFR received personal fees from Sanofi JO received lecture and scientific consultancy fees from Gilead Sciences, Sanofi Portugal, MSD and Viiv HealthCare SD received lecture fees and honoraria from Sanofi, GSK and Pfizer. MC received personal fees from GKS, Ferrer, Sanofi and Tecnimede. AM received personal fees and non-financial support from Boheringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, MSD, AstraZeneca and Bial., (Copyright © 2023 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction In accordance with its mandate to provide normative guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations [...]

Routine childhood vaccinations are key for the protection of children from a variety of serious and potentially fatal diseases. Current pediatric vaccine schedules mainly cover active vaccines. Active vaccination in infants is a highly effective approach against several infectious diseases; however, thus far, for some important viral pathogens, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), vaccine development and license by healthcare authorities have not been accomplished. Nirsevimab is a human-derived, highly potent monoclonal antibody (mAb) with an extended half-life for RSV prophylaxis in all infants. In this manuscript, we consider the potential implications for the introduction of an anti-viral mAb, such as nirsevimab, into the routine pediatric vaccine schedule, as well as considerations for coadministration. Specifically, we present evidence on the general mechanism of action of anti-viral mAbs and experience with palivizumab, the only approved mAb for the prevention of RSV infection in preterm infants, infants with chronic lung disease of prematurity and certain infants with hemodynamically significant heart disease. Palivizumab has been used for over two decades in infants who also receive routine vaccinations without any alerts concerning the safety and efficacy of coadministration. Immunization guidelines (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization, National Advisory Committee on Immunization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Academy of Pediatrics, The Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany) support coadministration of palivizumab with routine pediatric vaccines, noting that immunobiologics, such as palivizumab, do not interfere with the immune response to licensed live or inactivated active vaccines. Based on the mechanism of action of the new generation of anti-viral mAbs, such as nirsevimab, which is highly specific targeting viral antigenic sites, it is unlikely that it could interfere with the immune response to other vaccines. Taken together, we anticipate that nirsevimab could be concomitantly administered to infants with routine pediatric vaccines during the same clinic visit., Competing Interests: SE: Research support from GSK, Sanofi, and Vifor. Speaker’s fees from GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, and MSD in the past 3 years. BA is supported by the Canadian Health and Research Institute Vanier Canada scholarship. PB received grants for epidemiological and HTA research projects from GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Sanofi Pasteur, Pfizer, Seqirus and Astra Zeneca, and fees for taking part in advisory boards on different vaccines from the same companies plus Janssen. FM has received honoraria from GSK, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, MSD, Seqirus, and Janssen for taking part in advisory boards and expert meetings, and for acting as speaker in congresses outside the scope of the submitted work. FM has also acted as principal investigator in RCTs of the above-mentioned companies as well as Ablynx, Regeneron, Roche, Abbot, Novavax, and Medimmune, with honoraria paid to his institution. FM research activities received support from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Proyecto de Investigación en Salud, Acción Estratégica en Salud): project ReSVinext ISCIII/PI16/01569/Cofinanciado FEDER and project Enterogen (ISCIII/PI19/01090). KF is a member of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) but the views in this manuscript are her own and not necessarily those of ATAGI. KF has received honoraria as a member of the vaccine advisory boards for Seqiris and Sanofi Pasteur in the last 5 years. AM has received research grants from NIH, Janssen and Merck AND fees for participation in advisory boards from Janssen, Sanofi-Pasteur, Merck and Roche. MS reports research grants and personal fees for advisory boards from GSK, Pfizer, Sanofi-Pasteur, Janssen and Seqirus. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Esposito, Abu-Raya, Bonanni, Cahn-Sellem, Flanagan, Martinon Torres, Mejias, Nadel, Safadi and Simon.)

HPV vaccination has been introduced in clinical practice in recent years and represents the most effective strategy of primary prevention of cervical carcinoma and of female genital preneoplastic conditions. One of the major issues of the subject is represented by vaccination coverage of the target population. Since its introduction, HPV vaccine efficacy has been progressively demonstrated also towards extragenital HPV-correlated conditions and in males too. Moreover, even subjects of older age groups or subjects who already had HPV infections have been demonstrated to received benefits from vaccination, due to improvements of their immunological response. Recently, vaccine efficacy has also been investigated in terms of adjuvant administration after treatments of preneoplastic or benign conditions of the female lower genital tract caused by HPVs; preliminary results indicate an interesting and promising field of application. On this basis, in this article an analysis of the state of the art has been performed, with specific regard to the Italian scenario and with the focus of future perspectives of implementation of the HPV vaccination policy. From the available evidences, the Italian HPV Study Group recommends the extension of systematic HPV vaccination to males too, to adult subjects and also after conservative treatment of genital HPV correlated conditions.

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccines excerpted from the WHO position paper on tetanus vaccines - February 2017, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper replaces the May 2006 WHO position paper on tetanus vaccines (Tetanus vaccines: WHO position paper, 2006). The position paper summarizes the recent developments in the field of tetanus prevention and provides revised guidance on the optimal timing of recommended tetanus vaccine booster doses. 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 table. 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 TT-containing vaccines (TTCVs) were discussed by SAGE in October 2016; evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at: http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2016/october/presentations_background_docs/en/., (Copyright © 2017 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Many questions are raised, and challenges faced in the new era of (intranasal) bovine respiratory disease complex vaccination. An increase in vaccination rate is expected, due to its positive impact on cattle health, reduction of antimicrobial use and economic factors. However, engagement of farmers and veterinarians with regard to vaccination is often affected by limitations, resulting in the development of barriers to vaccination, but also opportunities to overcome these. The objective of the report is to provide practical recommendations and a consensus on best practises for BRDC vaccination, addressing barriers faced by veterinarians and farmers. The report combines an evidence review with expert opinions and includes discussions on different vaccination approaches, such as intranasal and systemic protocols. As result of the discussions, several barriers to BRDC vaccination were identified, including a lack of knowledge or visibility of the disease’s impact, the preference for blanket antibiotic use over vaccination, resistance to change, the need for visible success, uncertainty about the best time to vaccinate, and concerns about adverse reactions and vaccine efficacy in the presence of maternal antibodies. While these barriers seem substantial, they provide opportunities for the veterinary sector. Indeed, veterinarians are encouraged to use the argumentation presented, along with local case studies and diagnostic testing to highlight the impact of disease, while conducting calf health audits, ensuring expectations are managed to achieve visible success. Overall, this consensus paper aims to provide practical recommendations and support for veterinarians and farmers to overcome barriers and increase BRDC vaccination rates in cattle.

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of malaria vaccine excerpted from the WHO position paper on malaria vaccine published in the Weekly epidemiological Record in January 2016 [1]. The current document is the first WHO position paper on malaria vaccination and focuses primarily on the available evidence concerning the only malaria vaccine having received a positive regulation assessment from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) [2]. The position paper gives consideration to the epidemiological features of the disease and assesses the potential use of the vaccine for public health benefits. 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 table. 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. This paper reflects the joint recommendation of the WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization and the Malaria Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC). These recommendations were discussed by SAGE and MPAC at the October 2015 SAGE meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) updated recommendations on the use of meningococcal vaccines excerpted from the WHO position paper on Meningococcal A conjugate vaccine: updated guidance, February 2015, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. A position paper on meningococcal vaccines was published in 2011 and its recommendations remain valid [2]. This update adds to the previous recommendations specifically concerning routine immunization of infants and young children in the African meningitis belt with meningococcal A conjugate vaccine. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references including references to grading tables that assess the quality of the scientific evidence. 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 the Meningococcal A conjugate vaccine were discussed by SAGE in October 2014; evidence presented at these meetings can be accessed at: http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2014/october/presentations_background_docs/en/., (Copyright © 2017 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of cholera vaccines excerpted from the Cholera vaccines: WHO position paper, August 2017, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record (Cholera vaccine, 2017) [1]. This position paper replaces the 2010 WHO position paper on cholera vaccines (Cholera vaccine, 2010) [2]. It incorporates the most recent evidence on cholera vaccination and provides revised recommendations on the target populations for cholera immunization. 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 table. 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 April 2017; evidence presented at these meetings can be accessed at: www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2017/April/presentations_background_docs/en/., (Copyright © 2017 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to elucidate household and community-level shedding and transmission of trivalent oral polio vaccine (tOPV) in communities with inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) routine immunization after tOPV is administered during a national health week (NHW)., Methods: We conducted a 3-arm, randomized trial with data collected at baseline through 10 weeks post-NHW in households with at least 1 child <5 years old in 3 semi-rural communities in Orizaba, Mexico. Selected communities were geographically isolated but socio-demographically similar. Each community was assigned an oral polio vaccine (OPV) immunization rate: 10, 30, or 70% of participating households. From 2653 households in the 3 communities, ~150 households per community were selected, for 466 in total. Households were randomized as vaccinated or unvaccinated, with only 1 child under 5 in the vaccinated household receiving OPV during the February 2015 NHW. No other community members received OPV during this NHW. Stool samples were collected up to 10 weeks post-vaccination for all members of the 466 study households and were analyzed for the presence of OPV serotypes using a multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay., Results: We will report on the factors associated with, and incidence and duration of, household and community shedding and transmission of OPV. The secondary outcomes will characterize temporal and geospatial OPV serotype shedding patterns., Conclusions: The current global polio eradication plan relies on transitioning away from OPV to IPV. This study contributes to understanding patterns of OPV shedding and transmission dynamics in communities with primary IPV immunity, in order to optimize the reduction of OPV transmission.

This article presented the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of on Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine excerpted from the BCG vaccines: WHO position paper - February 2018 published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper replaces the 2004 WHO position paper on Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine [2] and the 2007 WHO revised BCG vaccination guidelines for infants at risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection [3]. It incorporates recent developments in the tuberculosis (TB) field, provides revised guidance on the immunization of children infected with HIV, and re-emphasizes the importance of the birth dose. This position paper also includes recommendations for the prevention of leprosy. 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&#95;background&#95;docs/en/., (Copyright © 2018 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The 1981 Lancet paper by Beasley et al., "Hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatitis B virus. A prospective study of 22707 men in Taiwan" is a seminal publication that clearly demonstrated that chronic infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV), as measured by seropositivity for the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), preceded the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In doing so, this study paved the way for liver cancer prevention efforts through the implementation of hepatitis B vaccination programs. In this commentary, we will describe the discovery of HBV, which led to the study by Beasley et al.; summarize the major findings of the Beasley paper and its implications; discuss the importance of well-designed cohort studies for prevention activities; and consider the ramifications of the Beasley study and the work that has followed since., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Immunization is highly effective in preventing infectious diseases and therefore an indispensable public health measure. Allergic patients deserve access to the same publicly recommended immunizations as non-allergic patients unless risks associated with vaccination outweigh the gains. Whereas the number of reported possible allergic reactions to vaccines is high, confirmed vaccine-triggered allergic reactions are rare. Anaphylaxis following vaccination is rare, affecting <1/100 000, but can occur in any patient. Some patient groups, notably those with a previous allergic reaction to a vaccine or its components, are at heightened risk of allergic reaction and require special precautions. Allergic reactions, however, may occur in patients without known risk factors and cannot be predicted by currently available tools. Unwarranted fear and uncertainty can result in incomplete vaccination coverage for children and adults with or without allergy. In addition to concerns about an allergic reaction to the vaccine itself, there is fear that routine childhood immunization may promote the development of allergic sensitization and disease. Thus, although there is no evidence that routine childhood immunization increases the risk of allergy development, such risks need to be discussed., (© 2017 The Authors. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on the use of fractional doses of yellow fever vaccines excerpted from the "Yellow fever vaccine: WHO position on the use of fractional doses - June 2017, Addendum to Vaccines and vaccination against yellow fever WHO: Position Paper - June 2013″, published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1,2]. This addendum to the 2013 position paper pertains specifically to use of fractional dose YF (fYF) vaccination (fractional dose yellow fever vaccination refers to administration of a reduced volume of vaccine dose, which has been reconstituted as usual per manufacturer recommendations) in the context of YF vaccine supply shortages beyond the capacity of the global stockpile. The current WHO position on the use of yellow fever (YF) vaccine is set out in the 2013 WHO position paper on vaccines and vaccination against YF and those recommendations are unchanged. 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 table. 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 Yellow Fever vaccines were discussed by SAGE in October 2016; evidence presented at these meetings can be accessed at: www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2016/October/presentations&#95;background&#95;docs/en/., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objectives: Allergic patients may be concerned about more frequent and/or more severe adverse events following vaccination, which may lead to the refusal of vaccines among these patients. The aim of this study is to assess whether allergic patients have more frequent adverse events (AEs) after vaccination than healthy individuals., Methods: Study participants (N = 591) underwent vaccination of their choice at a selected Vaccination and Travel Medicine Centre. At a 10 to 14-day interval, they were contacted for a telephone questionnaire survey on the occurrence of AEs after vaccination. A group of allergic patients (n = 188) and healthy controls (n = 403) were followed in the study., Results: No significant difference was found in the occurrence of AEs between study and control group. Only in redness and swelling, which was more common in allergic patients, but only in a few individuals. All side effects were minor, such as pain at the injection site or fatigue. No participant experienced a serious or life-threatening adverse event. In the studied group, no statistically significant differences were found even in the occurrence of AEs after singular vs. simultaneous administration of vaccines (p = 0.094), nor after vaccination with inactivated vs. attenuated vaccines (p = 0.655), or after vaccination against bacterial vs. viral infections (p = 0.140)., Conclusions: Vaccination of allergic patients did not cause more frequent and/or more serious adverse events in our study compared to healthy people. If general contraindications are observed, then vaccination of allergic patients is considered safe.

Introduction In accordance with its mandate to provide normative guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers (1) on vaccines and [...]

Introduction In accordance with its mandate to provide normative guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations [...]

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations for pain mitigation at the time of vaccination from the WHO position paper on reducing pain at the time of vaccination: WHO position paper-September 2015, recently published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record [1]. This position paper summarizes the evidence and integrates information pertaining to the reduction of pain, distress and fear during immunization across all age groups. 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, and on vaccination-related policy questions particularly concerning the use of vaccines in large-scale immunization programmes. They summarize essential background information and conclude with the current WHO position. This position paper addresses a cross-cutting issue which is relevant for all injectable vaccines and reflects the recommendations of WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization. These recommendations were discussed by SAGE at its April 2015 meeting. The evidence presented at the meetings can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2016 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations for the use of vaccines against Bordetella pertussis from the WHO position paper on Pertussis vaccines: WHO position paper--August 2015, recently published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record (Pertussis vaccines: WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2015;90(August(35)):433-60). This position paper summarizes the most recent developments in the field of pertussis disease and its prevention by vaccination. It includes the WHO position on the choice of Pertussis vaccine as well as on the use of additional strategies, particularly vaccination during pregnancy, for prevention of early infant mortality. This document replaces the first WHO position paper on vaccines against disease caused by Pertussis published in 2010 (Pertussis vaccines: WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2010;85(October(40)):385-400) and incorporates the revised guidance on the choice of pertussis vaccines published in July 2014 (Pertussis vaccines: WHO position paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2014;89(July(30)):337-44). Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references. 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. This paper reflects the recommendations of WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization. These recommendations were discussed by SAGE at its April 2014 and April 2015 meetings. The evidence presented at the meetings can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2016 The World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This article presents the World Health Organizations (WHO) evidence and recommendations for the use of yellow fever (YF) vaccination from "Vaccines and vaccination against yellow fever: WHO Position Paper - June 2013" published in the Weekly Epidemiological Record. This position paper summarizes the WHO position on the use of YF vaccination, in particular that a single dose of YF vaccine is sufficient to confer sustained life-long protective immunity against YF disease. A booster dose is not necessary. The current document replaces the position paper on the use of yellow fever vaccines and vaccination published in 2003. Footnotes to this paper provide a number of core references. 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. This paper reflects the recommendations of WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization. These recommendations were discussed by SAGE at its April 2013 meeting. Evidence presented at the meeting can be accessed at http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/previous/en/index.html., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction 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 [...]

This paper focuses on the economics of vaccination and, more specifically, analyzes the vaccination decision of individuals using a game-theoretic model combined with an epidemiological SIR model that reproduces the infection dynamics of a generic disease. We characterize the equilibrium individual vaccination rate, and we show that it is below the rate compatible with herd immunity due to the existence of externalities that individuals do not internalize when they decide on vaccination. In addition, we analyze three public policies consisting of informational campaigns to reduce the disutility of vaccination, monetary payments to vaccinated individuals and measures to increase the disutility of non-vaccination. If the public authority uses only one type of policy, herd immunity is not necessarily achieved unless monetary incentives are used. When the public authority is not limited to use only one policy, we find that the optimal public policy should consist only of informational campaigns if they are sufficiently effective, or a combination of informational campaigns and monetary incentives otherwise. Surprisingly, the requirement of vaccine passports or other restrictions on the non-vaccinated are not desirable., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction In accordance with the WHO's mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, the organization regularly issues position papers on vaccination, particularly when they relate to [...]

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 [...]

Vaccination is one of medicine's greatest achievements; however, its full potential is hampered by considerable variation in efficacy across populations and geographical regions. For example, attenuated malaria vaccines in high-income countries confer almost 100% protection, whereas in low-income regions these same vaccines achieve only 20-50% protection. This trend is also observed for other vaccines, such as bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), rotavirus and yellow fever vaccines, in terms of either immunogenicity or efficacy. Multiple environmental factors affect vaccine responses, including pathogen exposure, microbiota composition and dietary nutrients. However, there has been variable success with interventions that target these individual factors, highlighting the need for a better understanding of their downstream immunological mechanisms to develop new ways of modulating vaccine responses. Here, we review the immunological factors that underlie geographical variation in vaccine responses. Through the identification of causal pathways that link environmental influences to vaccine responsiveness, it might become possible to devise modulatory compounds that can complement vaccines for better outcomes in regions where they are needed most., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

MyChild Solution is an innovative Electronic Immunisation Register (EIR) reliant on Smart Paper Technology, thereby eliminating the need for electronic devices and internet connectivity at the point-of-care. The goal of this study is to characterise the quality of routine immunisation data generated using MyChild Solution compared to data obtained through the conventional health management information system (HMIS) used in The Gambia. We used the World Health Organization's (WHO) Data Quality Review (DQR) Toolkit to evaluate MyChild Solution's data quality in the 19 health facilities across two regions implementing MyChild Solution in The Gambia at the time of the evaluation. We evaluated all applicable data quality metrics as well as additional metrics of interest, including the incidence of recording errors, the incidence of incomplete indicator level data, and implausible dates. Where possible, we compared results to those of the conventional HMIS. Both MyChild Solution and the conventional HMIS produced 100% complete and timely data in their reference years. Both systems had no moderate or extreme outliers and showed the expected Penta 1 to Penta 3 dropout direction. However, the proportion of verification factors that are not acceptable was higher in the conventional HMIS. MyChild Solution was found to near perfectly (99.98%) digitise scanned documents. These and other data quality indicators evaluated demonstrate that MyChild Solution produces high quality data with high completeness, timeliness, and consistency compared to the conventional HMIS system. MyChild Solution produces high quality data as per the DQR Toolkit metrics and other metrics of interest of interest. The more internally consitent data produced through MyChild Solution compared to the conventional HMIS demonstrates its potential for supporting data-driven decision-making in immunisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]