-
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 2019Seasonal influenza is a very common disease. Yearly vaccination of at-risk population groups is a well-recognized cost-effective/cost-saving preventive measure. It is,...
Seasonal influenza is a very common disease. Yearly vaccination of at-risk population groups is a well-recognized cost-effective/cost-saving preventive measure. It is, however, unclear which available alternative has the most favorable economic profile. Some available options are: trivalent (TIV) and quadrivalent (QIV) inactivated vaccines, adjuvanted TIV (aTIV). Because of immunosenescence, aTIV has been specifically developed for elderly. The present study aimed at assessing the available evidence of aTIV use in elderly from the economic perspective. A systematic literature review targeting aTIV economic evaluations in adults aged ≥65 years was performed using Medline via Ovid, Embase, DARE and NHS/EED. Of a total of 3,654 papers screened, 18 studies (13 full papers, 5 conference abstracts) were included. It emerged that compared with both non-vaccination or non-adjuvanted vaccines, aTIV was cost-effective or cost-saving. The vaccinations strategies incorporating aTIV based on age and/or risk profile are associated with the most favorable economic outcomes.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Age Factors; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antibodies, Viral; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Polysorbates; Risk Factors; Squalene; Vaccination
PubMed: 30735465
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2019.1578597 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) causes significant functional impairment, disruption of work, and discomfort in the working population. Different preventive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) causes significant functional impairment, disruption of work, and discomfort in the working population. Different preventive measures such as protective gloves, barrier creams and moisturisers can be used, but it is not clear how effective these are. This is an update of a Cochrane review which was previously published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of primary preventive interventions and strategies (physical and behavioural) for preventing OIHD in healthy people (who have no hand dermatitis) who work in occupations where the skin is at risk of damage due to contact with water, detergents, chemicals or other irritants, or from wearing gloves.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLlNE, and Embase. We also searched five trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We handsearched two sets of conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of barrier creams, moisturisers, gloves, or educational interventions compared to no intervention for the primary prevention of OIHD under field conditions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were signs and symptoms of OIHD developed during the trials, and the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs involving 2888 participants without occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) at baseline. Six studies, including 1533 participants, investigated the effects of barrier creams, moisturisers, or both. Three studies, including 1355 participants, assessed the effectiveness of skin protection education on the prevention of OIHD. No studies were eligible that investigated the effects of protective gloves. Among each type of intervention, there was heterogeneity concerning the criteria for assessing signs and symptoms of OIHD, the products, and the occupations. Selection bias, performance bias, and reporting bias were generally unclear across all studies. The risk of detection bias was low in five studies and high in one study. The risk of other biases was low in four studies and high in two studies.The eligible trials involved a variety of participants, including: metal workers exposed to cutting fluids, dye and print factory workers, gut cleaners in swine slaughterhouses, cleaners and kitchen workers, nurse apprentices, hospital employees handling irritants, and hairdressing apprentices. All studies were undertaken at the respective work places. Study duration ranged from four weeks to three years. The participants' ages ranged from 16 to 67 years.Meta-analyses for barrier creams, moisturisers, a combination of both barrier creams and moisturisers, or skin protection education showed imprecise effects favouring the intervention. Twenty-nine per cent of participants who applied barrier creams developed signs of OIHD, compared to 33% of the controls, so the risk may be slightly reduced with this measure (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.06; 999 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence). However, this risk reduction may not be clinically important. There may be a clinically important protective effect with the use of moisturisers: in the intervention groups, 13% of participants developed symptoms of OIHD compared to 19% of the controls (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.09; 507 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). Likewise, there may be a clinically important protective effect from using a combination of barrier creams and moisturisers: 8% of participants in the intervention group developed signs of OIHD, compared to 13% of the controls (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.42; 474 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing signs of OIHD (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08; 1355 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). Twenty-one per cent of participants who received skin protection education developed signs of OIHD, compared to 28% of the controls.None of the studies addressed the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects of the products directly. However, in three studies of barrier creams, the reasons for withdrawal from the studies were unrelated to adverse effects. Likewise, in one study of moisturisers plus barrier creams, and in one study of skin protection education, reasons for dropout were unrelated to adverse effects. The remaining studies (one to two in each comparison) reported dropouts without stating how many of them may have been due to adverse reactions to the interventions. We judged the quality of this evidence as moderate, due to the indirectness of the results. The investigated interventions to prevent OIHD probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moisturisers used alone or in combination with barrier creams may result in a clinically important protective effect, either in the long- or short-term, for the primary prevention of OIHD. Barrier creams alone may have slight protective effect, but this does not appear to be clinically important. The results for all of these comparisons were imprecise, and the low quality of the evidence means that our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. For skin protection education, the results varied substantially across the trials, the effect was imprecise, and the pooled risk reduction was not large enough to be clinically important. The very low quality of the evidence means that we are unsure as to whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing OIHD. The interventions probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.We conclude that at present there is insufficient evidence to confidently assess the effectiveness of interventions used in the primary prevention of OIHD. This does not necessarily mean that current measures are ineffective. Even though the update of this review included larger studies of reasonable quality, there is still a need for trials which apply standardised measures for the detection of OIHD in order to determine the effectiveness of the different prevention strategies.
Topics: Dermatitis, Irritant; Dermatitis, Occupational; Emollients; Excipients; Gloves, Protective; Hand Dermatoses; Humans; Organic Chemicals; Patient Education as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Reduction Behavior
PubMed: 29708265
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004414.pub3 -
Vaccine Jan 2017In the elderly, traditional influenza inactivated vaccines are often only modestly immunogenic, owing to immunosenescence. Given that adjuvantation is a means of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In the elderly, traditional influenza inactivated vaccines are often only modestly immunogenic, owing to immunosenescence. Given that adjuvantation is a means of enhancing the immune response, the trivalent inactivated vaccine adjuvanted with MF59 (MF59-TIV) was specifically designed to overcome this problem. Considering that, for ethical reasons, the absolute effectiveness of an influenza vaccine in the elderly cannot be demonstrated in placebo-controlled studies, the present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of MF59-TIV in preventing influenza-related outcomes in the elderly.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of observational studies aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of MF59-TIV against influenza-related outcomes. Results of single studies were pooled whenever possible.
RESULTS
Of the 1993 papers screened, 11 (6 case-control, 3 cohort and 2 prospective case-control) studies were identified. Hospitalization due to pneumonia/influenza and laboratory-confirmed influenza were reported in more than one study, while other outcomes (influenza-like illness, cardio- and cerebrovascular accidents) were investigated only by one study each. Pooled analysis of four case-control studies showed an adjusted MF59-TIV effectiveness of 51% (95% CI: 39-61%) against hospitalizations for pneumonia/influenza among community-dwelling seniors. Pooled results of the adjusted vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza were also high (60.1%), although the 95% CI passed through zero (-1.3 to 84.3%). Other single community-based studies showed very high effectiveness of MF59-TIV in preventing hospitalizations for acute coronary [87% (95% CI: 35-97%)] and cerebrovascular [93% (95% CI: 52-99%)] events. MF59-TIV proved highly effective [94% (95% CI: 47-100%] in reducing influenza-like illness among institutionalized elderly. Furthermore, MF59-TIV displayed greater efficacy than non-adjuvanted vaccines in preventing hospitalizations due to pneumonia/influenza [adjusted risk ratio 0.75 (95% CI: 0.57-0.98)] and laboratory-confirmed influenza [adjusted odds ratio 0.37 (0.14-0.96)].
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that MF59-TIV is effective in reducing several influenza-related outcomes among the elderly, especially hospitalizations due to influenza-related complications.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Observational Studies as Topic; Polysorbates; Squalene; Treatment Outcome; Vaccines, Inactivated
PubMed: 28024956
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.12.011 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 2015Because of the age-related immune system decline, 2 potentiated influenza vaccines were specifically licensed for the elderly: Fluad(®), an MF59-adjuvanted vaccine... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Because of the age-related immune system decline, 2 potentiated influenza vaccines were specifically licensed for the elderly: Fluad(®), an MF59-adjuvanted vaccine administered intramuscularly (IM-MF59), and Intanza 15 mcg(®), a non adjuvanted vaccine administered intradermally (ID). The objective of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of studies that evaluated antibody responses in the elderly following immunization with IM-MF59 or ID vaccines. The two potentiated vaccines induced immune responses satisfying, in most instances, the European Medicine Agency immunogenicity criteria, both against vaccine antigens and heterovariant drifted strains. Considering pooled data reported in the articles analyzed and papers directly comparing the 2 vaccines, the antibody responses elicited by IM-MF59 and ID were found to be generally comparable. The use of IM-MF59 and ID vaccines can be proposed as an appropriate strategy for elderly seasonal influenza vaccination although further studies are required for a more complete characterization of the 2 vaccines.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antibodies, Viral; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Injections, Intradermal; Injections, Intramuscular; Middle Aged; Polysorbates; Squalene
PubMed: 25714138
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1011562