Safety and immunogenicity of inactivated monovalent influenza A/H1N1 vaccine candidate manufactured in Vietnam

Really just a little prick? A meta-analysis on adverse events in placebo control groups of seasonal influenza vaccination RCTs

BACKGROUND

The Corona pandemic and ongoing mass vaccinations raise the question of the nocebo mechanisms involved. Since immunization is usually administered to healthy people as a preventive health measure, adverse events (AE) following immunization are less accepted and could contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Assuming that vaccinees experience nocebo responses, the aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect sizes of solicited adverse events (or assumed reactogenicity) reported in placebo groups in RCTs on seasonal influenza vaccination.

METHODS

Literature search via PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL was conducted considering gray literature. Only RCTs with placebo groups using pharmacologically inert substances (like saline) were included. Quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool. Effect sizes were estimated using a random mixed effects model based on k = 31 studies covering 14,326 participants in placebo groups.

RESULTS

Reported solicited AEs in placebo groups showed significant effect sizes of proportions (ES_p). In k = 13 analyzed placebo groups, 35 % of the participants reported at least one solicited systemic AE (p = 0.007). The most common particular solicited systemic AEs were headache (k = 27; 17 %; p = 0.001), malaise (k = 13; 12 %; p = 0.004), and hyperhidrosis (k = 4; 12 %; p < 0.001) within one week after vaccination.

CONCLUSION

The results show significant solicited AEs in placebo groups, indicating substantial nocebo responses after vaccination. Based on the fact that most vaccination programs include similar groups of healthy people, we expect that comparable nocebo effects occur during other campaigns. Health care professionals should be aware of the nocebo response and take action to prevent or decrease the burden of adverse events following immunization. Fear of side effects must be addressed early in order to diminish vaccine hesitancy. Prospero identifier: CRD42020156287, October 2019.

The Impact of Preparedness in Defying COVID-19 Pandemic Expectations in the Lower Mekong Region: A Case Study

Dire COVID-19 expectations in the Lower Mekong Region (LMR) can be understood as Cambodia, the Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam have stared down a succession of emerging infectious disease (EID) threats from neighboring China. Predictions that the LMR would be overwhelmed by a coming COVID-19 tsunami were felt well before the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic had been declared. And yet, the LMR, excepting Myanmar, has proved surprisingly resilient in keeping COVID-19 contained to mostly sporadic cases. Cumulative case rates (per one million population) for the LMR, including or excluding Myanmar, from January 1 to October 31 2020, are 1,184 and 237, respectively. More telling are the cumulative rates of COVID-19-attributable deaths for the same period of time, 28 per million with and six without Myanmar. Graphics demonstrate a flattening of pandemic curves in the LMR, minus Myanmar, after managing temporally and spatially isolated spikes in case counts, with negligible follow-on community spread. The comparable success of the LMR in averting pandemic disaster can likely be attributed to years of preparedness investments, triggered by avian influenza A (H5N1). Capacity building initiatives applied to COVID-19 containment included virological (influenza-driven) surveillance, laboratory diagnostics, field epidemiology training, and vaccine preparation. The notable achievement of the LMR in averting COVID-19 disaster through to October 31, 2020 can likely be credited to these preparedness measures.