-
BMJ Global Health 2019We have previously reported, in a systematic review of 181 studies, that restriction of antibiotic use in food-producing animals is associated with a reduction in...
BACKGROUND
We have previously reported, in a systematic review of 181 studies, that restriction of antibiotic use in food-producing animals is associated with a reduction in antibiotic-resistant bacterial isolates. While informative, that report did not concretely specify whether different types of restriction are associated with differential effectiveness in reducing resistance. We undertook a sub-analysis of the systematic review to address this question.
METHODS
We created a classification scheme of different approaches to antibiotic restriction: (1) complete restriction; (2) single antibiotic-class restriction; (3) single antibiotic restriction; (4) all non-therapeutic use restriction; (5) growth promoter and prophylaxis restriction; (6) growth promoter restriction and (7) other/undetermined. All studies in the original systematic review that were amenable to meta-analysis were included into this substudy and coded by intervention type. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models, stratified by intervention type.
RESULTS
A total of 127 studies were included. The most frequently studied intervention type was complete restriction (n=51), followed by restriction of non-therapeutic (n=33) and growth promoter (n=19) indications. None examined growth promoter and prophylaxis restrictions together. Three and seven studies examined single antibiotic-class and single antibiotic restrictions, respectively; these two intervention types were not significantly associated with reductions in antibiotic resistance. Though complete restrictions were associated with a 15% reduction in antibiotic resistance, less prohibitive approaches also demonstrated reduction in antibiotic resistance of 9%-30%.
CONCLUSION
Broad interventions that restrict global antibiotic use appear to be more effective in reducing antibiotic resistance compared with restrictions that narrowly target one specific antibiotic or antibiotic class. Importantly, interventions that allow for therapeutic antibiotic use appear similarly effective compared with those that restrict all uses of antibiotics, suggesting that complete bans are not necessary. These findings directly inform the creation of specific policies to restrict antibiotic use in food-producing animals.
PubMed: 31543995
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001710 -
Immunological and Clinical Benefits of Maternal Immunization Against Pertussis: A Systematic Review.Infectious Diseases and Therapy Dec 2019Infants are vulnerable to pertussis infection particularly before initiation of pertussis vaccination. Maternal pertussis vaccination during pregnancy has been... (Review)
Review
Infants are vulnerable to pertussis infection particularly before initiation of pertussis vaccination. Maternal pertussis vaccination during pregnancy has been introduced in a number of countries in order to confer on young infants indirect protection from the disease through transplacental transfer of maternal antibodies. We reviewed the evidence on the immunogenicity and efficacy of maternal pertussis vaccination during pregnancy. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ProQuest, and Science Direct was undertaken to identify studies published between January 1995 and December 2018. This review was not specific to any particular pertussis vaccine but included applicable data on available pertussis vaccines administered to pregnant women. The search identified 40 publications for inclusion in this review. Vaccination during pregnancy elicited robust maternal immune responses against all vaccine antigens and resulted in high placental transfer of pertussis antibodies to the infant that persisted well beyond delivery. Vaccination during the second or early third trimesters was considered ideal for antibody quantity and functionality. Although blunting of immune responses to some antigens in the primary immunization series was documented in neonates born to women vaccinated during pregnancy, there was no apparent adverse effect on vaccine efficacy. Multiple studies conducted in diverse settings have confirmed the effectiveness of maternal pertussis vaccination during pregnancy in preventing pertussis in infants prior to receipt of their first primary vaccine dose and beyond. These findings collectively underscore the value of maternal pertussis vaccination during pregnancy in protecting vulnerable infants too young to be vaccinated.Funding Sanofi Pasteur.Plain Language Summary Plain language summary available for this article.
PubMed: 31535327
DOI: 10.1007/s40121-019-00264-7 -
Infectious Diseases and Therapy Dec 2019The WHO recommends vaccination of all children against pertussis. However, newborn infants remain vulnerable to infection. Pertussis vaccination during pregnancy has... (Review)
Review
The WHO recommends vaccination of all children against pertussis. However, newborn infants remain vulnerable to infection. Pertussis vaccination during pregnancy has been introduced in several countries to protect newborns via transplacental transfer of maternal pertussis antibodies to the infant. We reviewed the impact of maternal pertussis vaccination on the health of pregnant women, the developing fetus, and health of the newborn. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus (Elsevier), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ProQuest, and Science Direct to identify studies that assessed the safety of maternal pertussis vaccination. Twenty-seven English language publications published between January 1995 and December 2018 were included in this review. Pregnant women receiving pertussis vaccines did not have increased rates of systemic or local reactions. There were no safety concerns with repeat vaccination with other tetanus-containing vaccines or their concomitant administration with influenza vaccines. Maternal pertussis vaccination did not adversely affect pregnancy, birth or neonatal outcomes. This review confirms the safety of maternal pertussis vaccination during pregnancy. FUNDING: Sanofi Pasteur. Plain language summary available for this article.
PubMed: 31531826
DOI: 10.1007/s40121-019-00265-6 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jul 2019A literature review was conducted to identify evidence of cases and outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) that have been reported from on board ships and the...
A literature review was conducted to identify evidence of cases and outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) that have been reported from on board ships and the methods applied on board for prevention and control, worldwide, in 1990 to April 2019. Moreover, evidence from seroprevalence studies for the same diseases were also included. The literature review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 1795 cases (115 outbreaks, 7 case reports) were identified, the majority were among crew (1466/1795, 81.7%) and were varicella cases (1497, 83.4%). The origin of crew cases was from sub-tropical countries in many reports. Measles (40 cases, 69% among crew), rubella (47, 88.7%), herpes zoster (9, 69.2%) and varicella cases (1316, 87.9%) were more frequent among crew. Mumps cases were equal among passengers and crew (22/22). Hepatitis A (73/92, 70.3%), meningococcal meningitis (16/29, 44.8%), and pertussis (9/9) were more frequent among passengers. Two outbreaks resulted in 262 secondary measles cases on land. Review results were used to draft a new chapter for prevention and control of VPDs in the European Manual for Hygiene Standards and Communicable Disease Surveillance on Passenger Ships. Despite past and current evidence for cross-border VPD transmission and maritime occupational risks, documented pre-employment examination of immune status, vaccination of seafarers, and travel advice to passengers are not yet regulated.
Topics: Emigration and Immigration; Employment; Humans; Immunization; Ships; Travel; Vaccine-Preventable Diseases
PubMed: 31366029
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16152713