-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Mumps is an infectious disease caused by the mumps virus. Chinese physicians generally believe that Chinese medicinal herbs are effective in alleviating symptoms and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mumps is an infectious disease caused by the mumps virus. Chinese physicians generally believe that Chinese medicinal herbs are effective in alleviating symptoms and reducing the duration of mumps. Herbalists tend to develop a treatment plan according to the individual's symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Chinese medicinal herbs combined with routine treatments for mumps.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to January week 4, 2015), EMBASE (1974 to February 2015), CINAHL (1981 to February 2015), AMED (1985 to April 2014), the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (1980 to February 2015), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to February 2015), VIP Information (1989 to February 2015), and relevant databases of ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese medicinal herbs for mumps (with or without complications).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently evaluated trial quality and conducted data extraction. We contacted the trial authors for missing data regarding participant allocation. Some trials allocated participants according to the participants' admission sequence, making it a pseudo-random allocation. None of the trials concealed participants' allocation or used blinding.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any eligible trials for inclusion. We identified 108 studies that claimed to use random allocation. We excluded 104 studies because the allocation methods the authors had used were not actually randomised. We were unable to contact the trial authors of the remaining four studies. These trials require further evaluation and have been allocated to the 'Studies awaiting classification' section.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not find any RCTs for or against Chinese herbal medicine used in the treatment of mumps. We hope more high-quality RCTs will be conducted in the future.
Topics: Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Mumps; Phytotherapy
PubMed: 25887348
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008578.pub3 -
Vaccine Apr 2022Vaccinations are essential for preventing infectious diseases in children with chronic diseases as they have increased risk of infection from frequent use of biologics.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
Vaccinations are essential for preventing infectious diseases in children with chronic diseases as they have increased risk of infection from frequent use of biologics. Response to immunizations in this group is not well known.
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review was performed to evaluate three primary outcomes: efficacy; immunogenicity; and safety of vaccines in children with chronic conditions treated with biologics.
METHODS
The protocol for our systematic review and meta-analysis was registered and published with PROSPERO. We searched electronic bibliographic databases for studies published from 2009 to 2019, focusing on vaccinations in children with chronic conditions treated with biologics.
RESULTS
We retrieved 532 records. Thirty-one full-text articles were selected, and 14 were included in the meta-analysis. No significant publication bias was found.
EFFICACY
limited data are available regarding the efficacy of vaccination, as most studies have focused on immunogenicity as surrogate outcome for efficacy. Immunogenicity: patients receiving anti-TNF-alpha therapy had a statistically significant risk of poor seroconversion (p = 0.028) and seroprotection by the serotype B influenza vaccine [inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) p = 0.013; juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) p = 0.004]. We found adequate responses with H1N1 and H3N2 serotypes. Few studies existed for pneumococcal, hepatitis A virus, hepatitis B virus, varicella-zoster virus, Measles Mumps Rubella virus, and multiple vaccine administration.
SAFETY
vaccine administration was not associated with serious side effects, but JIA patients on anti-TNF alpha therapy had a statistically significant risk of presenting with myalgia or arthralgia postinfluenza vaccine (p = 0.014).
CONCLUSIONS
More evidence concerning efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of vaccinations is needed to guide physicians in the vaccine decision process for this pediatric population.
Topics: Biological Products; Child; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Pneumococcal Vaccines; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors
PubMed: 35370019
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.03.041 -
Journal of Neurology Jun 2017Vaccinations are often the most effective tool against some disease known to mankind. This study offers a literature review on the role of vaccines regarding the risk of... (Review)
Review
Vaccinations are often the most effective tool against some disease known to mankind. This study offers a literature review on the role of vaccines regarding the risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) and MS relapse. The method used in this study is a systematic literature review on the database PubMed. The study found no change in risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) after vaccination against hepatitis B virus, human papillomavirus, seasonal influenza, measles-mumps-rubella, variola, tetanus, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), polio, or diphtheria. No change in risk of relapse was found for influenza. Further research is needed for the potential therapeutic use of the BCG vaccine in patients in risk of developing MS and for the preventive potential of the tetanus and diphtheria vaccine.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Vaccination
PubMed: 27604618
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-016-8263-4 -
Dermatology Online Journal Mar 2020New treatment options for warts include intralesional wart injection with agents such as vitamin D, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine antigen, Bacillus...
BACKGROUND
New treatment options for warts include intralesional wart injection with agents such as vitamin D, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine antigen, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) antigen, and candida antigen but there have been limited studies to compare their efficacies.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of injectable agents used for the treatment of warts.
METHODS
A PubMed search included terms "intralesional wart therapy," "wart injection" and "verruca injection." Articles reviewed were published over 10 years.
RESULTS
A total of 43 articles were reviewed; 30 covered studies with more than 10 participants and 13 were case reports, case series, and reviews. In comparison studies intralesional agents have equal or superior efficacy (66%-94.9%) compared to first-line salicylic acid or cryotherapy (65.5-76.5%). One advantage of intralesional injections is the rate of complete resolution of distant warts.
LIMITATIONS
Each study varied in their agents, treatment interval, and treatment dose, making comparisons difficult.
CONCLUSIONS
Intralesional wart injections are safe, affordable, and efficacious treatments for warts. Physicians should consider intralesional injections for patients with refractory warts, multiple warts, or warts in sensitive areas.
Topics: Aminolevulinic Acid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antiviral Agents; BCG Vaccine; Bacterial Vaccines; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Interferon-alpha; Mycobacterium; Tuberculin; Vitamin D; Warts
PubMed: 32609439
DOI: No ID Found -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Jul 2021Infectious etiologies are rare cause of acute pancreatitis (AP). We sought to investigate the frequency of viral-attributed AP (VIAP) and describe its natural course and...
Infectious etiologies are rare cause of acute pancreatitis (AP). We sought to investigate the frequency of viral-attributed AP (VIAP) and describe its natural course and clinical features. Comprehensive review of PubMed and EMBASE in English until December 31, 2019, was performed. AP diagnosis and severity were defined per the Revised Atlanta Classification. Viral infections were diagnosed by serology and/or histology. A diagnosis of viral infection, with a concurrent AP diagnosis, a temporal resolution of both entities, and the attempt to exclude the most common etiologies of AP defined VIAP. Two independent reviewers reviewed eligible publications. Bias risk was assessed with the Murad tool. A total of 209 cases identified in 128 publications met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 38.9 ± 1.28 years. Male-to-female ratio was 2.2:1, and 28% of patients were immunocompromised. Viral hepatitis (A, B, C, D and E) was the most common virus and accounted for 34.4% of cases, followed by coxsackie and echoviruses (14.8%), hemorrhagic fever viruses (12.4%), CMV (12.0%), VZV (10.5%), mumps and measles (3.8%), primary HIV infection (3.8%), HSV (1.9%), EBV (1.9%), and the remainder of cases (2.9%) attributed to adenovirus, influenza H1N1, and multiple viruses. Severity of AP was: 43.1% mild, 11.7% moderately severe, 32.4% severe. Death occurred in 42 (20.1%) patients. A significant portion of VIAP patients were immunocompromised (28.0%) and accounted for 71.4% of mortality cases. Mortality was higher than that reported for AP from other etiologies in the literature.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatitis; Prognosis; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 32789532
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-020-06531-9 -
The Journal of Adolescent Health :... Oct 2016Vaccination strategies are among the most successful and cost-effective public health strategies for preventing disease and death. Until recently, most of the existing... (Review)
Review
Vaccination strategies are among the most successful and cost-effective public health strategies for preventing disease and death. Until recently, most of the existing immunization programs targeted infants and children younger than 5 years which have successfully resulted in reducing global infant and child mortality. Adolescent immunization has been relatively neglected, leaving a quarter of world's population underimmunized and hence vulnerable to a number of preventable diseases. In recent years, a large number of programs have been launched to increase the uptake of different vaccines in adolescents; however, the recommended vaccination coverage among the adolescent population overall remains very low, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Adolescent vaccination has received significantly more attention since the advent of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in 2006. However, only half of the adolescent girls in the United States received a single dose of HPV vaccine while merely 43% and 33% received two and three doses, respectively. We systematically reviewed literature published up to December 2014 and included 23 studies on the effectiveness of interventions to improve immunization coverage among adolescents. Moderate-quality evidence suggested an overall increase in vaccination coverage by 78% (relative risk: 1.78; 95% confidence interval: 1.41-2.23). Review findings suggest that interventions including implementing vaccination requirement in school, sending reminders, and national permissive recommendation for adolescent vaccination have the potential to improve immunization uptake. Strategies to improve coverage for HPV vaccines resulted in a significant decrease in the prevalence of HPV by 44% and genital warts by 33%; however, the quality of evidence was low. Analysis from single studies with low- or very low-quality evidence suggested significant decrease in varicella deaths, measles incidence, rubella susceptibility, and incidence of pertussis while the impact was nonsignificant for incidence of mumps with their respective vaccines. Further rigorous evidence is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to improve immunization uptake among adolescents from low- and middle-income countries.
PubMed: 27664595
DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.07.005 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Feb 2017Asplenic or hyposplenic (AH) individuals are particularly vulnerable to invasive infections caused by encapsulated bacteria. Such infections have often a sudden onset... (Review)
Review
Asplenic or hyposplenic (AH) individuals are particularly vulnerable to invasive infections caused by encapsulated bacteria. Such infections have often a sudden onset and a fulminant course. Infectious diseases (IDs) incidence in AH subjects can be reduced by preventive measures such as vaccination. The aim of our work is to provide updated recommendations on prevention of infectious diseases in AH adult patients, and to supply a useful and practical tool to healthcare workers for the management of these subjects, in hospital setting and in outpatients consultation. A systematic literature review on evidence based measures for the prevention of IDs in adult AH patients was performed in 2015. Updated recommendations on available vaccines were consequently provided. Vaccinations against S. pneumoniae, N. meningitidis, H. influenzae type b and influenza virus are strongly recommended and should be administered at least 2 weeks before surgery in elective cases or at least 2 weeks after the surgical intervention in emergency cases. In subjects without evidence of immunity, 2 doses of live attenuated vaccines against measles-mumps-rubella and varicella should be administered 4-8 weeks apart from each other; a booster dose of tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis vaccine should be administered also to subjects fully vaccinated, and a 3-dose primary vaccination series is recommended in AH subjects with unknown or incomplete vaccination series (as in healthy people). Evidence based prevention data support the above recommendations to reduce the risk of infection in AH individuals.
Topics: Adult; Disease Transmission, Infectious; Humans; Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes; Orthomyxoviridae; Splenic Diseases; Vaccination; Vaccines
PubMed: 27929751
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2017.1264797 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Feb 2021Despite the universal use of the two-dose trivalent measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in the past two decades, outbreaks of these diseases still occur in countries... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the universal use of the two-dose trivalent measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in the past two decades, outbreaks of these diseases still occur in countries with high vaccine uptake, giving rise to concerns about primary and secondary failure of MMR vaccine components. We aimed to provide seroconversion and waning rate estimates for the measles, mumps, and rubella components of MMR vaccines.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched PubMed (including MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Embase for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, or longitudinal studies reporting the immunogenicity and persistence of MMR vaccines, published in English from database inception to Dec 31, 2019. Studies were included if they investigated vaccine-induced immunity in healthy individuals who received a trivalent MMR vaccine, including different dosages and timepoints of vaccine administration. Studies featuring coadministration of MMR with other vaccines, maternal immunity to the MMR vaccine, or non-trivalent formulations of the vaccine were excluded. Pooled seroconversion and waning rates were estimated by random-effects meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019116705.
FINDINGS
We identified 3615 unique studies, 62 (1·7%) of which were eligible for analysis. Estimated overall seroconversion rates were 96·0% (95% CI 94·5-97·4; I=91·1%) for measles, 93·3% (91·1-95·2; I=94·9%) for mumps when excluding the Rubini strain, 91·1% (87·4-94·1; I=96·6%) for mumps when including the Rubini strain, and 98·3% (97·3-99·2; I=93·0%) for rubella. Estimated overall annual waning rates were 0·009 (95% CI 0·005-0·016; I=85·2%) for measles, 0·024 (0·016-0·039; I=94·7%) for mumps, and 0·012 (0·010-0·014; I=93·3%) for rubella.
INTERPRETATION
Our meta-analysis provides estimates of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which are essential to improve the accuracy of mathematical and statistical modelling to understand and predict the occurrence of future measles, mumps, and rubella outbreaks in countries with high vaccine uptake.
FUNDING
European Research Council.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Rubella
PubMed: 32888410
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30442-4 -
PharmacoEconomics May 2023Economic evaluations of vaccines should accurately represent all relevant economic and health consequences of vaccination, including losses due to adverse events...
Accounting for Adverse Events Following Immunization in Economic Evaluation: Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Pediatric Vaccines Against Pneumococcus, Rotavirus, Human Papillomavirus, Meningococcus and Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Varicella.
OBJECTIVES
Economic evaluations of vaccines should accurately represent all relevant economic and health consequences of vaccination, including losses due to adverse events following immunization (AEFI). We investigated to what extent economic evaluations of pediatric vaccines account for AEFI, which methods are used to do so and whether inclusion of AEFI is associated with study characteristics and the vaccine's safety profile.
METHODS
A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Trials, Database of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of the University of York, EconPapers, Paediatric Economic Database Evaluation, Tufts New England Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Tufts New England Global Health CEA, International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment Database) was performed for economic evaluations published between 2014 and 29 April 2021 (date of search) pertaining to the five groups of pediatric vaccines licensed in Europe and the United States since 1998: the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, the meningococcal vaccines (MCV), the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) combination vaccines, the pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and the rotavirus vaccines (RV). Rates of accounting for AEFI were calculated, stratified by study characteristics (e.g., region, publication year, journal impact factor, level of industry involvement) and triangulated with the vaccine's safety profile (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP] recommendations and information on safety-related product label changes). The studies accounting for AEFI were analyzed in terms of the methods used to account for both cost and effect implications of AEFI.
RESULTS
We identified 112 economic evaluations, of which 28 (25%) accounted for AEFI. This proportion was significantly higher for MMRV (80%, four out of five evaluations), MCV (61%, 11 out of 18 evaluations) and RV (60%, nine out of 15 evaluations) compared to HPV (6%, three out of 53 evaluations) and PCV (5%, one out of 21 evaluations). No other study characteristics were associated with a study's likelihood of accounting for AEFI. Vaccines for which AEFI were more frequently accounted for also had a higher frequency of label changes and a higher level of attention to AEFI in ACIP recommendations. Nine studies accounted for both the cost and health implications of AEFI, 18 studies considered only costs and one only health outcomes. While the cost impact was usually estimated based on routine billing data, the adverse health impact of AEFI was usually estimated based on assumptions.
DISCUSSION
Although (mild) AEFI were demonstrated for all five studied vaccines, only a quarter of reviewed studies accounted for these, mostly in an incomplete and inaccurate manner. We provide guidance on which methods to use to better quantify the impact of AEFI on both costs and health outcomes. Policymakers should be aware that the impact of AEFI on cost-effectiveness is likely to be underestimated in the majority of economic evaluations.
Topics: Child; Humans; Chickenpox; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Streptococcus pneumoniae; Human Papillomavirus Viruses; Rotavirus; Neisseria meningitidis; Mumps; Papillomavirus Infections; Vaccination; Immunization; Measles; Rotavirus Vaccines; Rubella
PubMed: 36809673
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01252-z -
International Journal of Public Health Sep 2016Despite the availability of vaccines and the existence of public vaccination recommendations, outbreaks of vaccine-preventable childhood diseases still cause public... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Despite the availability of vaccines and the existence of public vaccination recommendations, outbreaks of vaccine-preventable childhood diseases still cause public health debate. The objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the current epidemiology and economic burden of measles, mumps, pertussis, and varicella in Germany.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed studies published since 2000. The literature search was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE. Also, we used German notification data to give an up-to-date overview of the epidemiology of the four diseases under consideration.
RESULTS
Thirty-six studies were included in our review. Results suggest that there is still considerable morbidity due to childhood diseases in Germany. Studies providing cost estimates are scarce. Comparative analyses of different data sources (notification data vs. claims data) revealed a potential underestimation of incidence estimates when using notification data. Furthermore, several studies showed regional differences in incidence of some of the diseases under consideration.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings underline the need for improved vaccination and communication strategies targeting all susceptible age and risk groups on a national and local level.
Topics: Chickenpox; Chickenpox Vaccine; Germany; Humans; Incidence; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Vaccines, Combined; Virus Diseases; Whooping Cough
PubMed: 27488917
DOI: 10.1007/s00038-016-0842-8