ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
A re-assessment of 4CMenB vaccine effectiveness against serogroup B invasive meningococcal disease in England based on an incidence model.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Routine Infant Meningococcal B Vaccination in the Netherlands.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- Real-world effectiveness and impact of the 4CMenB vaccine against serogroup B invasive meningococcal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ vaccines · 2026Article
- Modeling the Public Health Impact of Introducing 4CMenB Vaccination for Infants in the Brazilian National Immunization Program.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccinating infants and adolescents against invasive meningococcal B disease in the Netherlands.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Public Health Impact of Introducing a Pentavalent Vaccine Against Invasive Meningococcal Disease in the United States.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Modeling the persistence of 4CMenB vaccine protection against real world meningococcal B disease in adolescents.NPJ vaccines · 2024Article
- Review of the epidemiology, diagnosis and management of invasive meningococcal disease in Vietnam.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Review
- Four-Component Recombinant Protein-Based Vaccine Effectiveness Against Serogroup B Meningococcal Disease in Italy.JAMA network open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe four-component serogroup B meningococcal 4CMenB vaccine (Bexsero, GSK) has been routinely given to all infants in the United Kingdom at 2, 4 and 12 months of age since September 2015. After 3 years, Public Health England (PHE) reported a 75% [95% confidence interval 64%; 81%] reduction in the incidence of serogroup B invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) in age groups eligible to be fully vaccinated. In contrast, vaccine effectiveness (VE) evaluated in the same immunization program applying the screening method was not statistically significant. We re-analyzed the data using an incidence model.
methodsAggregate data-stratified by age, year and doses received-were provided by PHE: serogroup B IMD case counts for the entire population of England (years 2011-2018) and 4CMenB vaccine uptake in infants. We combined uptake with national population estimates to obtain counts of vaccinated and unvaccinated person-time by age and time. We re-estimated VE comparing incidence rates in vaccinated and non-vaccinated subjects using a Bayesian Poisson model for case counts with person-time data as an offset. The model was adjusted for age, time and number of doses received.
resultsThe incidence model showed that cases decreased until 2013-2014, followed by an increasing trend that continued in the non-vaccinated population during the immunization program. VE in fully vaccinated subjects (three doses) was 80.1% [95% Bayesian credible interval (BCI): 70.3%; 86.7%]. After a single dose, VE was 33.5% [12.4%; 49.7%]
conclusionsOur estimates of VE had higher precision than previous estimates based on the screening method, which were statistically not significant, and in line with the 75% incidence reduction previously reported by PHE. When disease incidence is low and vaccine uptake is high, the screening method applied to cases exclusively from the population eligible for vaccination may not be precise enough and may produce misleading point-estimates. Precise and accurate VE estimates are fundamental to inform public health decision making. VE assessment can be enhanced using models that leverage data on subjects not eligible for vaccination.
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.