ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2019
Evaluation of strain coverage of the multicomponent meningococcal serogroup B vaccine (4CMenB) administered in infants according to different immunisation schedules.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- 4CMenB journey to the 10-year anniversary and beyond.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Review
- Exploring the Ability of Meningococcal Vaccines to Elicit Mucosal Immunity: Insights from Humans and Mice.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- First immunogenicity data for the UK serogroup B meningococcal vaccination schedule in infants.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 4-component vaccine 4CMenB, developed against invasive disease caused by meningococcal serogroup B, is approved for use in infants in several countries worldwide. 4CMenB is mostly used as 3 + 1 schedule, except for the UK, where a 2 + 1 schedule is used, and where the vaccine showed an effectiveness of 82.9%. Here we compared the coverage of two 4CMenB vaccination schedules (3 + 1 [2.5, 3.5, 5, 11 months] versus 2 + 1 [3.5, 5, 11 months of age]) against 40 serogroup B strains, representative of epidemiologically-relevant isolates circulating in England and Wales in 2007-2008, using sera from a previous phase 3b clinical trial. The strains were tested using hSBA on pooled sera of infants, collected at one month post-primary and booster vaccination. 4CMenB coverage was defined as the percentage of strains with positive killing (hSBA titres ≥ 4 after immunisation and negative baseline hSBA titres < 2). Coverage of 4CMenB was 40.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.9-56.7) and 87.5% (95%CI: 73.2-95.8) at one month post-primary and booster vaccination, respectively, regardless of immunisation schedule. Using a more conservative threshold (post-immunisation hSBA titres ≥ 8; baseline ≤ 2), at one month post-booster dose, strain coverages were 80% (3 + 1) and 70% (2 + 1). We used a linear regression model to assess correlation between post-immunisation hSBA data for each strain in the two groups; Pearson's correlation coefficients were 0.93 and 0.99 at one month post-primary and booster vaccination. Overall, there is no evidence for a difference in strain coverage when 4CMenB is administered according to a 3 + 1 or 2 + 1 infant vaccination schedule.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.