Efficacy and effectiveness of Herpes zoster vaccination in adults with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials and observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The risk for Herpes zoster (HZ) and its complications is higher in people with diabetes mellitus (DM). Our aim is to assess efficacy and effectiveness of the currently available live-attenuated zoster vaccine (LZV) and recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) in adults with DM. METHODS: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of clinical trials and observational studies comparing incidence of HZ and its complications in vaccinated and unvaccinated people with DM was performed, on PubMed, Cochrane, Clinical Trials.gov and Embase databases, up to January 15th, 2023. Risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO website (CRD42022370705). RESULTS: Only three observational studies reported LZV efficacy and effectiveness in people with DM. A lower risk for HZ infection (MH-OH Ratio 95% CI = 0.52 [0.49, 0.56] was observed, for unadjusted analysis, and 0.51 [0.46, 0.56] for adjusted analysis, both with P < 0.00001 and no heterogeneity). No data on LZV safety were reported. A pooled analysis of two trials comparing RZV and placebo, showed a reduced risk for HZ incidence: (95% CI Odds Ratio: 0.09 [0.04-0.19]), with no difference in severe adverse events and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In our meta-analysis of three observational studies LZV showed a 48% effectiveness in reducing HZ incidence in adults with diabetes whereas in a pooled analysis of two RCTs, RZV showed a 91% efficacy. No data are available on the effects of vaccination on the incidence and severity of HZ-related complications among subjects with diabetes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".