Effectiveness of a serogroup B meningococcal vaccine against gonorrhea: A retrospective study

Winston E Abara,Sharareh Modaressi,Bruce Fireman,Nicola P Klein,Evan Layefsky,Kristin Goddard,Kyle T Bernstein,Robert D Kirkcaldy,Ousseny Zerbo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126312
IF: 4.169
2024-09-10
Vaccine
Abstract:Background: Outer membrane vesicle (OMV) meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) vaccines might be protective against gonorrhea. We evaluated the effectiveness of MenB-4C, an OMV MenB vaccine, against gonorrhea. Methods: We identified gonococcal mono-infections, chlamydial mono-infections, and gonococcal/chlamydial co-infections among persons aged 15-30 years in the electronic health records of Kaiser Permanente Northern California during 2016-2021. We determined MenB-4C vaccination status (vaccinated [≥1 MenB-4C vaccine dose] or unvaccinated [MenB-4C vaccine naïve]) at each infection. We used log-binomial regression with generalized estimating equations to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (APR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) to determine if MenB-4C vaccination was protective against gonococcal mono-infections compared to chlamydial mono-infection. We also evaluated if MenB-4C vaccination was protective against gonococcal/chlamydial co-infections. Because of concerns with small sample size of vaccinated persons, we estimated effects using a limited model (adjusting for race/ethnicity only) and an expanded model (adjusting for additional potential confounders). Results: Of 68,454 persons, we identified 558 (0.8 %) MenB-4C vaccinated persons and 85,393 infections (13,000 gonococcal mono-infections, 68,008 chlamydial mono-infections, and 4385 gonococcal/chlamydial co-infections). After adjusting for race/ethnicity, MenB-4C vaccination was 23 % protective against gonococcal mono-infection compared to chlamydial mono-infection (APR = 0.77, 95 % CI = 0.64-0.99) in the limited model but not in the expanded model. Conclusion: MenB-4C vaccination was protective against gonococcal mono-infection, independent of race/ethnicity. This protective effect was not observed when other potential confounders were included in the analysis. Protection against gonococcal/chlamydial co-infection was not observed. Efficacy data from clinical trials are needed.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?