MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399902830 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.06.021

Vaccine effectiveness of 3rd generation mpox vaccines against mpox and disease severity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4399902830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lauren Pischel, Brett A. Martini, Natalle Yu, David Cacesse, Mahder Tracy, Kolambi Kharbanda, Noureen Ahmed, Kavin M. Patel, Alyssa Grimshaw, Amyn A. Malik, George Goshua, Saad B. Omer

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineImmunologyVirologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Before the global mpox outbreak which began in 2022, the real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) of mpox vaccines was unknown. We quantified the VE in the global population of 3rd generation or later mpox vaccines (MVA-BN, LC16m8, OrthopoxVac) compared with unvaccinated or other vaccinated states for infection, hospitalization and death. VE was stratified by 1-dose and 2-doses and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). METHODS: Studies were included if they measured vaccine efficacy or effectiveness in humans. Animal studies and immunogenicity studies were excluded. MEDLINE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Embase, MedRxiv and grey literature were searched from January 1st, 1970, with the last search run on November 3, 2023 (Prospero, CRD42022345240). Risk of publication bias was assessed via funnel plots and Egger's test, and study quality via Newcastle-Ottawa scales. RESULTS: A total of 11,892 records were identified via primary search, 3,223 via citation chasing. Thirty-three studies were identified of 3rd generation vaccines, 32 of which were MVA-BN. Two additional studies were re-analysis of existing data. Most of these studies were focused on gay, bisexual, or other men who have sex with men between the ages of 18-49 in May to October of 2022. VE of 1 dose of MVA-BN was 76% (95%CI 64-88%) from twelve studies. VE of 2 doses was 82% (95%CI 72-92%) from six studies. VE of MVA-BN PEP against mpox was 20% (95%CI -24-65%) from seven studies. All VE are calculated from random effects estimates. 18/33(55%) studies were rated as poor, 3/33(9%) as fair and 12/33(36%) as good. Studies included in the meta-analysis had higher quality: 11/16 (69%) were rated as good quality. CONCLUSION: Both 1 and 2 doses of MVA-BN are highly effective at preventing mpox. Effectiveness estimates, specifically of PEP are limited by immortal time bias, predominant mode of mpox transmission, and real-world vaccine timing of administration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.035
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccineSame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207