4.5 Review

Systematic review of mathematical models exploring the epidemiological impact of future TB vaccines

期刊

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 2813-2832

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2016.1205769

关键词

epidemiology; infectious disease dynamics; mathematical model; systematic review; theoretical models; tuberculosis; vaccines

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council (MRC) under the LSHTM MRC
  2. UK Medical Research Council (MRC)
  3. UK Department for International Development (DFID)
  4. European Union [MR/J005088/1]
  5. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (TB Modeling and Analysis Consortium) [OPP1084276, OPP1110334]
  6. UNITAID [4214-LSHTM-Sept15, 8477-0-600]
  7. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated infection
  8. Medical Research Council [1363977] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mathematical models are useful for assessing the potential epidemiological impact of future tuberculosis (TB) vaccines. We conducted a systematic review of mathematical models estimating the epidemiological impact of future human TB vaccines. PubMed, Embase and WHO Global Health Library were searched, 3-stage manual sifted, and citation- and reference-tracked, identifying 23 papers. An adapted quality assessment tool was developed, with a resulting median study quality score of 20/28. The literature remains divided as to whether vaccines effective pre- or post-infection would provide greatest epidemiological impact. However, all-age or adolescent/adult targeted prevention of disease vaccines achieve greater and more rapid impact than neonatal vaccines. Mass campaigns alongside routine neonatal vaccination can have profound additional impact. Economic evaluations found TB vaccines overwhelmingly cost-effective, particularly when targeted to adolescents/adults. The variability of impact by setting, age group and vaccine characteristics must be accounted for in the development and delivery of future TB vaccines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据