↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness, immunogenicity and safety of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine revaccinations in the elderly: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness, immunogenicity and safety of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine revaccinations in the elderly: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-2040-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cornelius Remschmidt, Thomas Harder, Ole Wichmann, Christian Bogdan, Gerhard Falkenhorst

Abstract

In many industrialized countries routine vaccination with the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV-23) is recommended to prevent pneumococcal disease in the elderly. However, vaccine-induced immunity wanes after a few years, and there are controversies around revaccination with PPSV-23. Here, we systematically assessed the effectiveness and safety of PPSV-23 revaccination. We conducted a systematic literature review in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to June 2015. We included all study types that compared effectiveness, immunogenicity and/or safety of PPSV-23 as a primary vs. a revaccination dose in persons aged 50 years and older. With respect to immunogenicity, we calculated the ratio of geometric mean antibody concentrations and opsonophagocytic indexes at identical time-points after primary and revaccination. Additionally, we compared rates and severity of adverse events (AEs) after primary and revaccination. We included 14 observational studies. 10 studies had a prospective design and analysed data on (i) the same individuals after a first and a second dose of PPSV-23 given 1 to 10 years later (n = 5) or (ii) two groups consisting of participants receiving PPSV-23 who were either vaccine-naïve or had received a first PPSV-23 dose 3 to 13 years earlier (n = 5). Three studies used electronic data bases to compare AEs after primary vs. revaccination doses of PPSV-23 after 1 to 10 years and one study had a cross-sectional design. Number of participants in the non-register-based and register-based studies ranged from 29 to 1414 and 360 to 316,000, respectively. 11 out of 14 included studies were at high risk of bias, three studies had an unclear risk of bias. None of the studies reported data on clinical effectiveness. Immunogenicity studies revealed that during the first two months antibody levels tended to be lower after revaccination as compared to primary vaccination. Thereafter, no obvious differences in antibody levels were observed. Compared to primary vaccination, revaccination was associated with an increased risk of local and systemic AEs, which, however, were usually mild and self-limiting. The risk and severity of AEs appeared to decrease with longer intervals between primary and revaccination. Data comparing the effectiveness of primary vs. revaccination with PPSV-23 are still lacking, because there are no studies with clinical endpoints. Data from observational studies indicates that revaccination with PPSV-23 is likely to induce long-term antibody levels that are comparable to those after primary vaccination. Given the high disease burden and the waning of vaccine-induced immunity, revaccination with PPSV-23 could be considered in the elderly. The increased risk of local and systemic AEs can likely be mitigated when giving revaccination at least five years after the primary dose. Adequately powered randomized controlled trials using clinical endpoints are urgently needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 29%
Student > Master 10 17%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 3%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 15 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,494,029
of 24,746,716 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,185
of 8,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,330
of 426,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#39
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,746,716 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,212 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.