Background: Vaccination is considered the most effective and economical measure for controlling infectious diseases. Although combination vaccines are widely used worldwide, whether any of the combination vaccines is superior to each separate vaccine has yet to be established. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of combination vaccines in children. Methods: A systematic search was conducted from database inception to August 20, 2021, in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus. Published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and open-label trials of immunogenicity and safety of combined vaccines were selected. The results of the studies were quantitatively synthesized. Results: Overall, 25 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicated that the combined diptheria–tetanus–acellular pertussis (DTaP)–hepatitis B virus (HBV)–Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) vaccine group had lower levels of anti-tetanus antibodies than the combined DTaP–HBV and separate Hib vaccinations group (SMD = −0.23; 95% CI: −0.42, −0.05; p = 0.013). Meanwhile, the combined DTaP–HBV–inactivated polio virus (IPV)–Hib vaccine group had higher levels of anti-pertussis (PT) and anti-filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antibodies than the combined DTaP–IPV–Hib and separate HBV vaccinations group (anti-PT: SMD = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.75; p < 0.0001; anti-FHA: SMD = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.78; p = 0.042). The levels of anti-pertactin (PRN) antibodies were lower in the combined DTaP–IPV–Hib vaccine group than in the combined DTaP–IPV and separate Hib vaccinations group (SMD = −0.13; 95% CI: −0.27, −0.00; p = 0.047). The individuals injected with the DTaP–HBV–IPV–Hib vaccine had a lower risk of pain and swelling than those injected with the combined DTaP–HBV–IPV and separate Hib vaccines (pain: RR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.91; p = 0.001; swelling: RR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.98; p = 0.020). However, the group that received the DTaP–HBV–IPV–Hib vaccine had a higher risk of fever than the group that received DTaP–HBV–IPV and separate Hib vaccinations (RR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.26; p = 0.021). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that the combined vaccines (DTaP–IPV–Hib, DTaP–HBV–Hib, DTaP–HBV–IPV–Hib) are safe, well-tolerated, and provide immunogenic alternatives to separate vaccines in children. The combined DTaP–HBV–IPV–Hib vaccine showed a higher incidence of fever, which was lower than the cumulative incidence of fever induced by all vaccines. Future studies should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using combined vaccines and compare the potency of different formulations to improve routine local or national childhood immunization programs.

(1) Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines were developed in only a short amount of time and were widely distributed. We conducted this meta-analysis to understand the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. (2) Methods: We searched the corresponding literature published from 1 January 2020 to 20 October 2021. Information of adverse events (AEs) of each selected work was collected. The quality and bias of studies was evaluated, and meta-analysis was carried out by using Stata 17.0. (3) Results: Totally, 11,451 articles were retrieved, and 53 of them were included for analysis. The incidence rate of AEs was 20.05–94.48%. The incidence rate of vascular events increased after viral vector vaccination, while the incidence rate of vascular events decreased after mRNA vaccination. Viral vector vaccine had a higher AE rate compared to mRNA vaccines and inactivated vaccines. In most circumstances, the incidence of AEs was higher in older people, female and after the second dose. The sensitivity of meta-analysis was acceptable; however, the literature was subject to a certain publication bias. (4) Conclusions: The safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was acceptable. The incidence of allergic symptoms and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular symptoms was low. Viral vector vaccine had a higher risk of leading to thrombosis events. The understanding of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine AEs should be enhanced, so as to promote the vaccination.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has been widely rolled out globally in the general populations. However, specific data on vaccination confidence, willingness or coverage among health care workers (HCWs) has been less reported. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted to specify the basic data and patterns of vaccination confidence, willingness and coverage among HCWs nationwide. Results: In total, 2386 out of 2583 (92.4%) participants were enrolled for analysis, and the rates of confidence in vaccine, professional institutes and government were 75.1%, 85.2% and 85.4%, respectively. The overall vaccination coverage rate was 63.6% which was adjusted as 82.8% for participants under current medical conditions or having contraindications. Confidence in vaccine safety was shown to be the most related factor to willingness among doctors, nurses, medical technicians and hospital administrators, while confidence in vaccine effectiveness as well as trust in government played the key role in formulating public health employees’ willingness. 130 (7.1% of 1833) participants reporting willingness still not been vaccinated regardless of contraindications. Multivariate analysis among willingness participants showed that males, aged over 30 years, public health employees and higher vaccination confidence had significantly higher vaccination rates with ORs (95% confidence intervals) as 1.64 (1.08–2.49), 3.14 (2.14–4.62), 2.43 (1.46–4.04) or 2.31 (1.24–4.33). Conclusions: HCWs’ confidence, willingness and coverage rates to the vaccine were generally at high levels. Heterogeneity among HCWs should be considered for future vaccination promotion strategies. The population’s confidence in vaccination is not only the determinant to their willingness, but also guarantees their actual vaccine uptake.

Background: In initial studies, the immunogenicity and safety of hepatitis B vaccines in patients with diabetes has been assessed in China. Methods: In six township health centers in Gansu Province, 232 diabetic patients and 77 healthy people were allocated to receive two 3-dose hepatitis B vaccines (Group D20SC 0-1-6; Group D20CHO 0-1-6; Group ND20SC 0-1-6). Participants were followed up at 12 months after being fully vaccinated. One dose of the vaccine was randomly administered to non-responders. Chi-square test was used to compare the differences in response rate between two groups. Results: The anti-HBs response rates of three groups decreased from 84.1%, 89.1% and 88.3% at one month to 64.6%, 79.8% and 71.4% at twelve months. There was no statistical difference in the immune response rates between Group D20SC 0-1-6 and Group ND20SC 0-1-6; however, that of Group D20CHO 0-1-6 was higher than that of Group D20SC 0-1-6. After revaccination, the geometric mean concentrations were 491.7 mIU/mL and 29.7 mIU/mL after using vaccines containing 60 μg and 20 μg HBsAg. Conclusions: At 12 months, immune response in diabetic patients were not significantly different from that in healthy people. Revaccination with one dose of hepatitis B vaccine containing 60 μg HBsAg for non-responders was more satisfactory.

Hypertension is closely related to the development and mortality of cardiovascular disease (CVD), insulin resistance (IR) plays a key role in hypertension-