PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Tara Gallagher
AU  - Marc Lipsitch
TI  - Post-Exposure Effects of Vaccines on Infectious Diseases
AID  - 10.1101/19001396
DP  - 2019 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 19001396
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/07/12/19001396.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/07/12/19001396.full
AB  - Many available vaccines have demonstrated post-exposure effectiveness, but no published systematic reviews have synthesized these findings. We searched the PubMed database for clinical trials and observational human studies concerning the post-exposure vaccination effects, targeting infections with an FDA-licensed vaccine plus dengue, hepatitis E, malaria, and tick borne encephalitis, which have licensed vaccines outside of the U.S. Studies concerning animal models, serologic testing, and pipeline vaccines were excluded. Eligible studies were evaluated by definition of exposure, and their attempt at distinguishing pre- and post-exposure effects was rated on a scale of 1-4. We screened 4518 articles and ultimately identified 14 clinical trials and 31 observational studies for this review, amounting to 45 eligible articles spanning 7 of the 28 vaccine-preventable diseases. For secondary attack rate, this body of evidence found the following medians for post-exposure vaccination effectiveness: hepatitis A: 85% (IQR: 28; 5 sources), hepatitis B: 85% (IQR: 22; 5 sources), measles: 83% (IQR: 21; 8 sources), varicella: 67% (IQR: 48; 9 sources), smallpox: 45% (IQR: 39; 4 sources), and mumps: 38% (IQR: 7; 2 sources). For case fatality proportions resulting from rabies and smallpox, the vaccine efficacies had medians of 100% (IQR: 0; 6 sources) and 63% (IQR: 50; 8 sources) post-exposure. Although mainly used for preventive measures, many available vaccines can modify or preclude disease if administered after exposure. This post-exposure effectiveness could be important to consider during vaccine trials and while developing new vaccines.Competing Interest StatementML discloses consulting or honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Antigen Discovery and Affinivax, and grant funding through his institution from Pfizer. TEG declares no conflict of interest.Funding StatementThe project was supported by Grant Number U54GM088558 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences or the National Institutes of Health.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesAny clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data that support the findings of this study are available in the public domain at NCBI - PubMed. Their references are listed within the review.