-
Medicine Feb 2020Influenza is a severe disease burden among all age groups. This study aimed to review the efficacy of inactivated influenza vaccines with MF59 adjuvant and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Influenza is a severe disease burden among all age groups. This study aimed to review the efficacy of inactivated influenza vaccines with MF59 adjuvant and non-adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccines among all age groups against specific influenza vaccine strains.
METHODS
Literature search of PubMed, Embase, Medline, OVID, and Cochrane Library Trials (CENTRAL) was implemented up to March 1, 2019. Homogeneity qualified studies were included forData were extracted such as study country location, demographic characteristics, and measure outcomes, and were analyzed by a random effect model and sensitivity analyses to identify heterogeneity. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
RESULTS
We retrieved 1,021 publications and selected 31 studies for full review, including 17 trials for meta-analysis and 6 trials for qualitative synthesis. MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccines demonstrated better immunogenicity against specific vaccine virus strains compared to non-adjuvanted influenza vaccine both in healthy adult group (RR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.28-3.44) and the healthy aged (RR = 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.44).
CONCLUSION
The quality of evidence is moderate to high for seroconversion and seroprotection rates of influenza vaccine. MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccines are superior to non-adjuvanted influenza vaccines to enhance immune responses of vaccination in healthy adults and older adults, and could be considered for routine use especially the monovalent prepandemic influenza vaccines.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Adolescent; Adult; Age Factors; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Female; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Male; Middle Aged; Polysorbates; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seroconversion; Squalene; Vaccines, Inactivated; Young Adult
PubMed: 32049815
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019095 -
Nature Communications Jan 2020Standard inactivated influenza vaccines are poorly immunogenic in immunologically naive healthy young children, who are particularly vulnerable to complications from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Standard inactivated influenza vaccines are poorly immunogenic in immunologically naive healthy young children, who are particularly vulnerable to complications from influenza. For them, there is an unmet need for better influenza vaccines. Oil-in-water emulsion-adjuvanted influenza vaccines are promising candidates, but clinical trials yielded inconsistent results. Here, we meta-analyze randomized controlled trials with efficacy data (3 trials, n = 15,310) and immunogenicity data (17 trials, n = 9062). Compared with non-adjuvanted counterparts, adjuvanted influenza vaccines provide a significantly better protection (weighted estimate for risk ratio of RT-PCR-confirmed influenza: 0.26) and are significantly more immunogenic (weighted estimates for seroprotection rate ratio: 4.6 to 7.9) in healthy immunologically naive young children. Nevertheless, in immunologically non-naive children, adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted vaccines provide similar protection and are similarly immunogenic. These results indicate that oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant improves the efficacy of inactivated influenza vaccines in healthy young children at the first-time seasonal influenza vaccination.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Antibodies, Viral; Antibody Formation; Child; Databases, Factual; Emulsions; Humans; Immunity; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Oils; Orthomyxoviridae; Vaccination; Water
PubMed: 31949137
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-14230-x -
Systematic review of topical diclofenac for the treatment of acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain.Current Medical Research and Opinion Apr 2020The objective was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac in both acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. We used standard...
The objective was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac in both acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. We used standard Cochrane methods. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Register of Studies; date of the final search was November 2018. Included studies were randomized, double blinded, with ten or more participants per treatment arm. The primary outcome of "clinical success" was defined as participant-reported reduction in pain of at least 50%. Details of adverse events (AEs) were recorded. For acute pain, 23 studies (5170 participants) were included. Compared to placebo, number needed to treat (NNT) for different formulations were as follows: diclofenac plaster, 4.7 (95% CI 3.7-6.5); diclofenac plaster with heparin, 7.4 (95% CI 4.6-19); and diclofenac Emulgel, 1.8 (95% CI 1.5-2.1). 4.1% (78/1919) reported a local AE. For chronic pain, 21 studies (26 publications) with 5995 participants were included. Formulations included gel, solution with or without DMSO, emulsion and plaster. A clinical success rate of ∼60% (NNT 9.5 [95% CI 7-14.7]) was achieved with a variety of formulations. Local AEs (∼14%) were similar for both diclofenac and placebo. This systematic review of 11,000+ participants demonstrates that topical diclofenac is effective for acute pain, such as sprains, with minimal AEs. The effectiveness of topical diclofenac was also demonstrated in chronic musculoskeletal pain but with a higher NNT (worse) compared with acute pain. Formulation does play a part in effectiveness but needs further studies.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Humans; Musculoskeletal Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31944135
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1716703 -
Bioactive Materials Dec 2019Atopic dermatitis is a chronic, relapsing, non-contiguous, exudative eczema/dermatitis, which represents a complex, multi-factorial disorder, due to an impairment of the... (Review)
Review
Atopic dermatitis is a chronic, relapsing, non-contiguous, exudative eczema/dermatitis, which represents a complex, multi-factorial disorder, due to an impairment of the barrier. Currently available drugs have a low skin bioavailability and may give rise to severe adverse events. Nanotechnologies, including nano-particles, liposomes, nano-gels, nano-mixtures, nano-emulsions and other nano-carriers, offer unprecedented solutions to these issues, enabling: i) the management of different clinical forms of atopic dermatitis, especially the recalcitrant ones, i) a better bio-availability and trans-dermal drug targeted delivery at the inflammation site, ii) dose control, iii) significant improvements both in clinical symptoms and immune responses, iv) with less adverse events being reported and a better safety profile. However, some nano-sized structures could amplify and even worsen symptoms in particularly susceptible individuals. Furthermore, most studies included in the present systematic review have been conducted or , with few randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Future investigations should adopt this design in order to enable scholars achieving robust findings and evidence. Therefore, given the above-mentioned shortcomings, further research in the field is urgently warranted.
PubMed: 31872162
DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2019.11.003 -
Vaccine Jan 2020Identifying optimal priming strategies for children <2 years could substantially improve the public health benefits of influenza vaccines. Adjuvanted seasonal... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Identifying optimal priming strategies for children <2 years could substantially improve the public health benefits of influenza vaccines. Adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines were designed to promote a better immune response among young vaccine-naïve children.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed randomized trials to assess hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody response to MF59-adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (aIIV) versus nonadjuvanted IIV among children. We estimated pooled ratios of post-vaccination HAI geometric mean titer (GMT) for aIIV versus IIV and confidence intervals (CIs) using the pooled variances derived from reported CIs.
RESULTS
Mean age was 28 months (range, 6-72 months). Children received vaccines with either 7.5 μg (6-35 months) or 15 μg (≥36 months) hemagglutinin of each strain depending on age. Seven of eight trials administered trivalent vaccines and one used quadrivalent vaccine. Pooled post-vaccination GMT ratios against the three influenza vaccine strains were 2.5-3.5 fold higher after 2-dose-aIIV versus 2-dose-IIV among children 6-72 months, and point estimates were higher among children 6-35 months compared with older children. When comparing 1-dose-aIIV to 2-dose-IIV doses, pooled GMT ratios were not significantly different against A/H1N1 (1.0; 95% CI: 0.5-1.8; p = 0.90) and A/H3N2 viruses (1.0; 95% CI: 0.7-1.5; p = 0.81) and were significantly lower against B viruses (0.6; 95% CI: 0.4-0.8; p < 0.001) for both age groups. Notably, GMT ratios for vaccine-mismatched heterologous viruses after 2-dose-aIIV compared with 2-dose-IIV were higher against A/H1N1 (2.0; 95% CI: 1.1-3.4), A/H3N2 (2.9; 95% CI: 1.9-4.2), and B-lineage viruses (2.1; 95% CI: 1.8-2.6).
CONCLUSIONS
Two doses of adjuvanted IIV consistently induced better humoral immune responses against Type A and B influenza viruses compared with nonadjuvanted IIVs in young children, particularly among those 6-35 months. One adjuvanted IIV dose had a similar response to two nonadjuvanted IIV doses against Type A influenza viruses. Longer-term benefits from imprinting and cell-mediated immunity, including trials of clinical efficacy, are gaps that warrant investigation.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Infant; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Male; Polysorbates; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Squalene
PubMed: 31735505
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.10.053 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Topical cyclosporine A (also known as ciclosporin A) (CsA) is an anti-inflammatory that has been widely used to treat inflammatory ocular surface diseases. Two CsA...
BACKGROUND
Topical cyclosporine A (also known as ciclosporin A) (CsA) is an anti-inflammatory that has been widely used to treat inflammatory ocular surface diseases. Two CsA eyedrops have been approved by US Food and Drug Administration for managing dry eye: Restasis (CsA 0.05%, Allergan Inc, Irvine, CA, USA), approved in 2002, and Cequa (CsA 0.09%, Sun Pharma, Cranbury, NJ, USA), approved in 2018. Numerous clinical trials have been performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of CsA for dry eye; however, there is no universal consensus with regard to its effect.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of topical CsA in the treatment of dry eye.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 16 February 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of people with dry eye regardless of age, sex, severity, etiology, or classification of dry eye. We included RCTs in which different concentrations of topical CsA were compared with one another or with artificial tears, placebo, or vehicle. We also included RCTs in which CsA in combination with artificial tears was compared to artificial tears alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 RCTs (4009 participants) with follow-up periods ranging from 6 weeks to 12 months. We studied dry eye of various severity and underlying causes. The interventions investigated also varied across RCTs: CsA versus artificial tears; CsA with artificial tears versus artificial tears alone; and in some studies, more than one concentration of CsA. Artificial tears were used as adjunctive to study medication in all but five trials. Almost all trials had deficiencies in the reporting of results (e.g. reporting P values or direction only), precluding the calculation of between-group estimates of effect or meta-analysis.Eighteen trials compared topical CsA 0.05% plus artificial tears versus vehicle plus artificial tears or artificial tears alone. One trial reported subjective symptoms of dry eye at 6 months and the results were in favor of CsA (mean difference (MD) -4.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.41 to -3.19; low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported MD in ocular surface dye staining at 6 months, but the results were inconsistent in these two trials (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.01 in one and MD 0.58, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.10 in the other; low-certainty evidence). Four trials reported MD in Schirmer test scores at 6 months and the estimates ranged from -4.05 (95% CI -6.67 to -1.73) to 3.26 (95% CI -1.52 to 5.00) (low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported risk ratio (RR) of improved Schirmer test scores at 6 months; estimates ranged from 0.98 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.17) to 3.50 (95% CI 2.09 to 5.85) (low-certainty evidence). Four trials reported MD in tear film stability measured by tear break-up time at 6 months and the estimates ranged from -1.98 (95% CI -3.59 to -0.37) to 1.90 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.36) (low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported RR of improved tear break-up time at 6 months and the estimates ranged from 0.90 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.04) to 4.00 (95% CI 2.25 to 7.12) (low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported frequency of artificial tear usage at 6 months without providing any estimates of effect; the direction of effect seem to be in favor of CsA (low-certainty evidence). Because of incomplete reporting of the results data or considerable statistical heterogeneity, we were only able to perform a meta-analysis on mean conjunctival goblet cell density. Mean conjunctival goblet cell density in the CsA treated group may be greater than that in the control group at the end of follow-up at four and 12 months (MD 22.5 cells per unit, 95% CI 16.3 to 28.8; low-certainty evidence). All but two trials reported adverse events that included burning and stinging. Participants treated with CsA may be more likely to have treatment-related adverse events than those who treated with vehicle (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.78; low-certainty evidence).Other comparisons evaluated were CsA 0.05% plus artificial tears versus higher concentrations of CsA plus artificial tears (4 trials); CsA 0.05% versus placebo or vehicle (4 trials); CsA 0.1% plus artificial tears versus placebo or vehicle plus artificial tears (2 trials);CsA 0.1% cationic emulsion plus artificial tears versus vehicle plus artificial tears (2 trials); CsA 1% plus artificial tears versus placebo plus artificial tears (3 trials); and CsA 2% plus artificial tears versus placebo plus artificial tears (3 trials). Almost all of these trials reported P value or direction of effect only (mostly in favor of CsA), precluding calculation of between-group effect estimates or meta-analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the widespread use of topical CsA to treat dry eye, we found that evidence on the effect of CsA on ocular discomfort and ocular surface and tear film parameters such as corneal fluorescein staining, Schirmer's test, and TBUT is inconsistent and sometimes may not be different from vehicle or artificial tears for the time periods reported in the trials. There may be an increase in non-serious, treatment-related adverse effects (particularly burning) in the CsA group. Topical CsA may increase the number of conjunctival goblet cells. However, current evidence does not support that improvements in conjunctival mucus production (through increased conjunctival goblet cells) translate to improved symptoms or ocular surface and tear film parameters. All published trials were short term and did not assess whether CsA has longer-term disease-modifying effects. Well-planned, long-term, large clinical trials are needed to better assess CsA on long-term dry eye-modifying effects. A core outcome set, which ideally includes both biomarkers and patient-reported outcomes in the field of dry eye, is needed.
Topics: Cyclosporine; Dry Eye Syndromes; Humans; Lubricant Eye Drops; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31517988
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010051.pub2