-
Gastroenterology Aug 2021Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations may be altered...
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations may be altered by immunosuppressive therapies or IBD itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on live vaccines.
METHODS
Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative process and voted on by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients.
RESULTS
Three good practice statements included reviewing a patient's vaccination status at diagnosis and at regular intervals, giving appropriate vaccinations as soon as possible, and not delaying urgently needed immunosuppressive therapy to provide vaccinations. There are 4 recommendations on the use of live vaccines. Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine is recommended for both adult and pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). Varicella vaccine is recommended for pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). For adults, recommendations are conditionally in favor of varicella vaccine for those not on immunosuppressive therapy, and against for those on therapy. No recommendation was made regarding the use of live vaccines in infants born to mothers using biologics because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence was insufficient.
CONCLUSIONS
Maintaining appropriate vaccination status in patients with IBD is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, live vaccines are recommended in patients not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of live vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive therapy.
Topics: Canada; Consensus; Contraindications, Drug; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gastroenterology; Humans; Immunization; Immunocompromised Host; Immunosuppressive Agents; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Opportunistic Infections; Patient Safety; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vaccine Efficacy; Vaccines, Live, Unattenuated
PubMed: 33617891
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.12.079 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Hepatitis is a viral infection of the liver. It is mainly transmitted between people through contact with infected blood, frequently from mother to baby in-utero.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hepatitis is a viral infection of the liver. It is mainly transmitted between people through contact with infected blood, frequently from mother to baby in-utero. Hepatitis B poses significant risk to the fetus and up to 85% of infants infected by their mothers at birth develop chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) is a purified solution of human immunoglobulin that could be administered to the mother, newborn, or both. HBIG offers protection against HBV infection when administered to pregnant women who test positive for hepatitis B envelope antigen (HBeAg) or hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), or both. When HBIG is administered to pregnant women, the antibodies passively diffuse across the placenta to the child. This materno-fetal diffusion is maximal during the third trimester of pregnancy. Up to 1% to 9% infants born to HBV-carrying mothers still have HBV infection despite the newborn receiving HBIG plus active HBV vaccine in the immediate neonatal period. This suggests that additional intervention such as HBIG administration to the mother during the antenatal period could be beneficial to reduce the transmission rate in utero.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) administration to pregnant women during their third trimester of pregnancy for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus infection.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), SCOPUS, African Journals OnLine, and INDEX MEDICUS up to June 2016. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in December 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials comparing HBIG versus placebo or no intervention in pregnant women with HBV.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data independently. We analysed dichotomous outcome data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcome data using mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For meta-analyses, we used a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model, along with an assessment of heterogeneity. If there were statistically significant discrepancies in the results, we reported the more conservative point estimate. If the two estimates were equal, we used the estimate with the widest CI as our main result. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group suggested bias risk domains and risk of random errors using Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
All 36 included trials originated from China and were at overall high risk of bias. The trials included 6044 pregnant women who were HBsAg, HBeAg, or hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV-DNA) positive. Only seven trials reported inclusion of HBeAg-positive mothers. All 36 trials compared HBIG versus no intervention. None of the trials used placebo.Most of the trials assessed HBIG 100 IU (two trials) and HBIG 200 IU (31 trials). The timing of administration of HBIG varied; 30 trials administered three doses of HBIG 200 IU at 28, 32, and 36 weeks of pregnancy. None of the trials reported all-cause mortality or other serious adverse events in the mothers or babies. Serological signs of hepatitis B infection of the newborns were reported as HBsAg, HBeAg, and HBV-DNA positive results at end of follow-up. Twenty-nine trials reported HBsAg status in newborns (median 1.2 months of follow-up after birth; range 0 to 12 months); seven trials reported HBeAg status (median 1.1 months of follow-up after birth; range 0 to 12 months); and 16 trials reported HBV-DNA status (median 1.2 months of follow-up; range 0 to 12 months). HBIG reduced mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HBsAg when compared with no intervention (179/2769 (6%) with HBIG versus 537/2541 (21%) with no intervention; RR 0.30, TSA-adjusted CI 0.20 to 0.52; I = 36%; 29 trials; 5310 participants; very low quality evidence). HBV-DNA reduced MTCT of HBsAg (104/1112 (9%) with HBV-DNA versus 382/1018 (38%) with no intervention; RR 0.25, TSA-adjusted CI 0.22 to 0.27; I = 84%; 16 trials; 2130 participants; low quality evidence). TSA supported both results. Meta-analysis showed that maternal HBIG did not decrease HBeAg in newborns compared with no intervention (184/889 (21%) with HBIG versus 232/875 (27%) with no intervention; RR 0.68, TSA-adjusted CI 0.04 to 6.37; I = 90%; 7 trials; 1764 participants; very low quality evidence). TSA could neither support nor refute this observation as data were too sparse. None of the trials reported adverse events of the immunoglobulins on the newborns, presence of local and systemic adverse events on the mothers, or cost-effectiveness of treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to very low to low quality evidence found in this review, we are uncertain of the effect of benefit of antenatal HBIG administration to the HBV-infected mothers on newborn outcomes, such as HBsAg, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg compared with no intervention. The results of the effects of HBIG on HBsAg and HBeAg are surrogate outcomes (raising risk of indirectness), and we need to be critical while interpreting the findings. We found no data on newborn mortality or maternal mortality or both, or other serious adverse events. Well-designed randomised clinical trials are needed to determine the benefits and harms of HBIG versus placebo in prevention of MTCT of HBV.
Topics: Adult; DNA, Viral; Female; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B Surface Antigens; Hepatitis B e Antigens; Hepatitis B virus; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Immunoglobulins; Infant, Newborn; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28188612
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008545.pub2 -
PLoS Medicine Nov 2020The first 1,000 days of life, i.e., from conception to age 2 years, could be a critical period for cardiovascular health. Increased carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The first 1,000 days of life, i.e., from conception to age 2 years, could be a critical period for cardiovascular health. Increased carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) is a surrogate marker of atherosclerosis. We performed a systematic review with meta-analyses to assess (1) the relationship between exposures or interventions in the first 1,000 days of life and CIMT in infants, children, and adolescents; and (2) the CIMT measurement methods.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Systematic searches of Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were performed from inception to March 2019. Observational and interventional studies evaluating factors at the individual, familial, or environmental levels, for instance, size at birth, gestational age, breastfeeding, mode of conception, gestational diabetes, or smoking, were included. Quality was evaluated based on study methodological validity (adjusted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale if observational; Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool if interventional) and CIMT measurement reliability. Estimates from bivariate or partial associations that were least adjusted for sex were used for pooling data across studies, when appropriate, using random-effects meta-analyses. The research protocol was published and registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42017075169). Of 6,221 reports screened, 50 full-text articles from 36 studies (34 observational, 2 interventional) totaling 7,977 participants (0 to 18 years at CIMT assessment) were retained. Children born small for gestational age had increased CIMT (16 studies, 2,570 participants, pooled standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.15 to 0.64, p: 0.001), I2: 83%). When restricted to studies of higher quality of CIMT measurement, this relationship was stronger (3 studies, 461 participants, pooled SMD: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.09 to 1.19, p: 0.024), I2: 86%). Only 1 study evaluating small size for gestational age was rated as high quality for all methodological domains. Children conceived through assisted reproductive technologies (ART) (3 studies, 323 participants, pooled SMD: 0.78 (95% CI: -0.20 to 1.75, p: 0.120), I2: 94%) or exposed to maternal smoking during pregnancy (3 studies, 909 participants, pooled SMD: 0.12 (95% CI: -0.06 to 0.30, p: 0.205), I2: 0%) had increased CIMT, but the imprecision around the estimates was high. None of the studies evaluating these 2 factors was rated as high quality for all methodological domains. Two studies evaluating the effect of nutritional interventions starting at birth did not show an effect on CIMT. Only 12 (33%) studies were at higher quality across all domains of CIMT reliability. The degree of confidence in results is limited by the low number of high-quality studies, the relatively small sample sizes, and the high between-study heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
In our meta-analyses, we found several risk factors in the first 1,000 days of life that may be associated with increased CIMT during childhood. Small size for gestational age had the most consistent relationship with increased CIMT. The associations with conception through ART or with smoking during pregnancy were not statistically significant, with a high imprecision around the estimates. Due to the large uncertainty in effect sizes and the limited quality of CIMT measurements, further high-quality studies are needed to justify intervention for primordial prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
Topics: Adolescent; Atherosclerosis; Breast Feeding; Cardiovascular Diseases; Carotid Intima-Media Thickness; Child; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant; Pregnancy; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33226997
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003414