Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32842669›Full record

ArticleVaccines2020

Effectiveness and Impact of the 4CMenB Vaccine against Group B Meningococcal Disease in Two Italian Regions Using Different Vaccination Schedules: A Five-Year Retrospective Observational Study (2014-2018).

Chiara Azzari, Maria Moriondo, Francesco Nieddu, Valentina Guarnieri, Lorenzo Lodi, Clementina Canessa, Giuseppe Indolfi, Mattia Giovannini, Giuseppina Napoletano, Francesca Russo and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 4CMenB journey to the 10-year anniversary and beyond.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Chiara AzzariSection of Pediatrics, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 24, 50139 Florence, Italy.
Maria MoriondoSection of Pediatrics, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 24, 50139 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9653-8371
Francesco NiedduSection of Pediatrics, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 24, 50139 Florence, Italy.
Valentina GuarnieriSection of Pediatrics, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 24, 50139 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5578-7002
Lorenzo LodiSection of Pediatrics, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 24, 50139 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6902-544X
Clementina CanessaSection of Pediatrics, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 24, 50139 Florence, Italy.
Giuseppe IndolfiImmunology and Molecular Microbiology Unit, Meyer Children's Hospital, Viale Pieraccini 24, 50139 Florence Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3830-9823
Mattia GiovanniniSection of Pediatrics, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 24, 50139 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9568-6882
Giuseppina NapoletanoPrevention Department, Veneto Regional Health Authority, via Don Tosatto 147, 30174 Venice Mestre, Italy.
Francesca RussoPrevention Department, Veneto Regional Health Authority, via Don Tosatto 147, 30174 Venice Mestre, Italy.
Tatjana BaldovinDepartment of Cardiac Thoracic Vascular Sciences and Public Health, Public Health Section, University of Padua, via Leonardo Loredan 18, 35131 Padua, Italy.
Silvia CocchioDepartment of Cardiac Thoracic Vascular Sciences and Public Health, Public Health Section, University of Padua, via Leonardo Loredan 18, 35131 Padua, Italy.
Silvia RicciSection of Pediatrics, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 24, 50139 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7140-1694
Vincenzo BaldoDepartment of Cardiac Thoracic Vascular Sciences and Public Health, Public Health Section, University of Padua, via Leonardo Loredan 18, 35131 Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6012-9453

Funding

Italian Center for Disease Control and Prevention CCM-4393 117-2006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA few years after the introduction in Italy of a four-component anti-meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB), we evaluated the effectiveness and impact of vaccination in two regions using different schedules (2, 4, 6, 12 months in Tuscany vs. 7, 9, 15 months in Veneto) through an observational retrospective study.

methodsVaccination started in 2014 in Tuscany and in 2015 in Veneto; the data collected referred to the period 2006-2018 for Tuscany and 2007-2018 for Veneto. Cases of invasive meningococcal disease due to

resultsIn Tuscany, pre-vaccine incidence was 1.96 (95% CL 1.52; 2.40) and dropped to 0.62 (95% CL 0.60; 0.64) in the post-4CMenB era. Evaluating only vaccinated children, post-4CMenB incidence was 0.12 (95% CL 0.08; 0.15). In Veneto pre-vaccine incidence was 1.94 (95% CL 1.92; 1.96) and dropped to 1.34 (95% CL 1.31; 1.38) in the post-4CMenB era. In the vaccinated population, MenB incidence was 0.53 (95% CL 0.50; 0.56). Vaccine effectiveness was 93.6% (95% CL 55.4; 99.1) in Tuscany and 91.0% (95% CL 59.9; 97.9) in Veneto, with mean vaccine coverages of 83.9% and 81.7%, respectively. The overall impact (evaluating both vaccinated and unvaccinated children) was 0.68 (95% CL 0.10; 0.89) in Tuscany and 0.31 (95% CL -0.56; 0.69) in Veneto; the total impact (evaluating only vaccinated children) was 0.94 (95% CL 0.56; 0.99) and 0.90 (95% CL 0.57; 0.97), respectively. The relative case reduction (RCR) was 65% in Tuscany and 31% in Veneto. Considering the vaccinated population, the RCR was equal to 91% and 80%, respectively.

conclusionIn conclusion, 4CMenB appears to have a very high effectiveness in Italy; the impact of vaccination appears greater where the immunization program is started early.

Indexed as

childrenmeningococcus Bvaccination schedulevaccine effectivenessvaccine impact

Identifiers

PMID32842669
PMCPMC7563708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.