TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy and Safety of Quadrivalent Conjugate Meningococcal Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
AU - Conti, Andrea
AU - Broglia, Gaia
AU - Sacchi, Chiara
AU - Risi, Fabrizia
AU - BARONE ADESI, Francesco
AU - PANELLA, Massimiliano
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 by the authors.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Over the last decades, different quadrivalent antimeningococcal vaccine formulations (diphteria toxoid conjugate, MenACWY-D; tetanus toxoid conjugate, MenACWY-TT; CRM197 protein conjugate, MenACWY-CRM) have been developed. However, their availability varies, both in terms of authorized formulations and of inclusion in vaccination schedules. Furthermore, several countries include only the monovalent meningococcal C (MenC) vaccine in their immunization programmes. Finally, there is currently no updated systematic review that directly compares the MenACWY formulations. Thus, we summarized the evidence on efficacy and safety through four parallel, independent systematic literature reviews with meta-analysis which included randomized controlled trials comparing the abovementioned vaccines. A total of 16 studies have been included. In terms of efficacy, MenACWY-TT outperformed MenACWY-D and MenACWY-CRM for A, W-135, and Y serogroups, while no significant difference was found for serogroup C. Furthermore, we did not find significant differences in efficacy between MenC and MenACWY-TT. Regarding the safety, we were able to perform a quantitative analysis only between MenACWY-TT and MenC, finding no significant differences. Similarly, among the different MenACWY formulations no relevant differences were identified. These findings suggest that MenACWY-TT could be preferable to other formulations to improve current vaccination programs and to better develop future immunization policies.
AB - Over the last decades, different quadrivalent antimeningococcal vaccine formulations (diphteria toxoid conjugate, MenACWY-D; tetanus toxoid conjugate, MenACWY-TT; CRM197 protein conjugate, MenACWY-CRM) have been developed. However, their availability varies, both in terms of authorized formulations and of inclusion in vaccination schedules. Furthermore, several countries include only the monovalent meningococcal C (MenC) vaccine in their immunization programmes. Finally, there is currently no updated systematic review that directly compares the MenACWY formulations. Thus, we summarized the evidence on efficacy and safety through four parallel, independent systematic literature reviews with meta-analysis which included randomized controlled trials comparing the abovementioned vaccines. A total of 16 studies have been included. In terms of efficacy, MenACWY-TT outperformed MenACWY-D and MenACWY-CRM for A, W-135, and Y serogroups, while no significant difference was found for serogroup C. Furthermore, we did not find significant differences in efficacy between MenC and MenACWY-TT. Regarding the safety, we were able to perform a quantitative analysis only between MenACWY-TT and MenC, finding no significant differences. Similarly, among the different MenACWY formulations no relevant differences were identified. These findings suggest that MenACWY-TT could be preferable to other formulations to improve current vaccination programs and to better develop future immunization policies.
KW - invasive meningococcal disease
KW - meningococcal vaccine
KW - meta-analysis
KW - quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine
KW - systematic review
KW - vaccine efficacy
KW - vaccine safety
KW - invasive meningococcal disease
KW - meningococcal vaccine
KW - meta-analysis
KW - quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine
KW - systematic review
KW - vaccine efficacy
KW - vaccine safety
UR - https://iris.uniupo.it/handle/11579/156522
U2 - 10.3390/vaccines11010178
DO - 10.3390/vaccines11010178
M3 - Article
SN - 2076-393X
VL - 11
SP - 178
JO - Vaccines
JF - Vaccines
IS - 1
ER -