-
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Dec 2022M-M-R® (M-M-R II) is routinely used in many countries at 12-15 months with a second dose at 4 to 6 years of age. However, the vaccine may need to be administered at...
M-M-R® (M-M-R II) is routinely used in many countries at 12-15 months with a second dose at 4 to 6 years of age. However, the vaccine may need to be administered at other ages due to delays in the immunization schedule or in certain situations such as outbreaks or international travel. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of M-M-R II among 6- to 11-month-olds and persons ≥7 years of age. A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in 2019 including Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. Only one study reported seroconversion rates after one dose in infants at 9 months of age: 87.4% (measles), 92.3% (mumps), and 91.2% (rubella); no safety data were reported. Seven studies reported immunogenicity and safety data for M-M-R II at ≥7 years of age. Seroconversion rates ranged from 96%-100% (measles), 65%-100% (mumps), and 91%-100% (rubella). Rates of selected adverse events ranged from 5.2%-8.7% for fever (≥38°C or ≥38.1°C), 2%-33.3% for injection site reactions, and 0.4% for measles/rubella-like rash (one study). No efficacy studies were found. This literature review identified RCTs with evidence to support that M-M-R II is immunogenic and well tolerated in individuals ≥7 years of age.
Topics: Aged, 80 and over; Antibodies, Viral; Antigens, Viral; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Rubella; Vaccines, Combined
PubMed: 34128759
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1933874 -
Vaccine Jun 2021Understanding the safety of vaccines is critical to inform decisions about vaccination. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the safety of vaccines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Understanding the safety of vaccines is critical to inform decisions about vaccination. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the safety of vaccines recommended for children, adults, and pregnant women in the United States.
METHODS
We searched the literature in November 2020 to update a 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality review by integrating newly available data. Studies of vaccines that used a comparator and reported the presence or absence of key adverse events were eligible. Adhering to Evidence-based Practice Center methodology, we assessed the strength of evidence (SoE) for all evidence statements. The systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020180089).
RESULTS
Of 56,603 reviewed citations, 338 studies reported in 518 publications met inclusion criteria. For children, SoE was high for no increased risk of autism following measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. SoE was high for increased risk of febrile seizures with MMR. There was no evidence of increased risk of intussusception with rotavirus vaccine at the latest follow-up (moderate SoE), nor of diabetes (high SoE). There was no evidence of increased risk or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for newer vaccines such as 9-valent human papillomavirus and meningococcal B vaccines. For adults, there was no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for the new adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine and recombinant adjuvanted zoster vaccine. We found no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) for key adverse events among pregnant women following tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, including stillbirth (moderate SoE).
CONCLUSIONS
Across a large body of research we found few associations of vaccines and serious key adverse events; however, rare events are challenging to study. Any adverse events should be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.
Topics: Adult; Child; Diphtheria; Female; Humans; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Pregnancy; United States; Vaccination
PubMed: 34049735
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.03.079 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Oct 2021Chronic sialorrhea commonly occurs in patients with neurodevelopmental disorders. While conservative management can provide sufficient symptom control, surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Chronic sialorrhea commonly occurs in patients with neurodevelopmental disorders. While conservative management can provide sufficient symptom control, surgical intervention is often required. One of the most common procedures utilized is submandibular gland excision (SMGE), with or without parotid duct ligation or rerouting (PDL or PDR). This study aims to compare these surgical approaches and their outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase.
REVIEW METHODS
This systematic review includes studies of patients with chronic sialorrhea treated with SMGE alone or SMGE plus PDR or PDL and reports on postintervention outcomes and complications. Two independent investigators assessed study eligibility, rated quality, and extracted data for analysis. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis of pooled data.
RESULTS
Of 3186 studies identified, 21 met inclusion criteria, with 708 patients: 103 underwent SMGE alone (15%); 299 (42%), SMGE and PDL; and 306 (43%), SMGE plus PDR. Overall, a majority of patients had significant improvement, with very good to excellent control of symptoms after surgery: SMGE, 82% (95% CI, 73%-89%); SMGE and PDL, 79% (95% CI, 73%-85%); and SMGE and PDR, 85% (95% CI, 75%-92%). Importantly, there was no significant difference in outcomes with the addition of PDL or PDR. Reported complications included sialocele, parotitis, dental caries, and dry mouth.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review identified consistent positive outcomes with SMGE for patients with chronic sialorrhea but no additional benefit when PDR or PDL was performed as a concurrent procedure.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Humans; Ligation; Sialorrhea; Submandibular Gland
PubMed: 33494642
DOI: 10.1177/0194599820985165 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness, safety, and long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the trivalent vaccine, containing measles, rubella, mumps strains (MMR), or concurrent administration of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine (MMR+V), or tetravalent vaccine containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella strains (MMRV), given to children aged up to 15 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 5), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 2 May 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (2 May 2019), and ClinicalTrials.gov (2 May 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (PCS/RCS), case-control studies (CCS), interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, case cross-over (CCO) studies, case-only ecological method (COEM) studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies, person-time cohort (PTC) studies, and case-coverage design/screening methods (CCD/SM) studies, assessing any combined MMR or MMRV / MMR+V vaccine given in any dose, preparation or time schedule compared with no intervention or placebo, on healthy children up to 15 years of age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We grouped studies for quantitative analysis according to study design, vaccine type (MMR, MMRV, MMR+V), virus strain, and study settings. Outcomes of interest were cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, and harms. Certainty of evidence of was rated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 138 studies (23,480,668 participants). Fifty-one studies (10,248,159 children) assessed vaccine effectiveness and 87 studies (13,232,509 children) assessed the association between vaccines and a variety of harms. We included 74 new studies to this 2019 version of the review. Effectiveness Vaccine effectiveness in preventing measles was 95% after one dose (relative risk (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 7 cohort studies; 12,039 children; moderate certainty evidence) and 96% after two doses (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; 5 cohort studies; 21,604 children; moderate certainty evidence). The effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts or preventing transmission to others the children were in contact with after one dose was 81% (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89; 3 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence), after two doses 85% (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.75; 3 cohort studies; 378 children; low certainty evidence), and after three doses was 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23; 2 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness (at least one dose) in preventing measles after exposure (post-exposure prophylaxis) was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50; 2 cohort studies; 283 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR vaccine in preventing mumps was 72% after one dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; 6 cohort studies; 9915 children; moderate certainty evidence), 86% after two doses (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.35; 5 cohort studies; 7792 children; moderate certainty evidence). Effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49; 3 cohort studies; 1036 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against rubella is 89% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 1 cohort study; 1621 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against varicella (any severity) after two doses in children aged 11 to 22 months is 95% in a 10 years follow-up (rate ratio (rr) 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; 1 RCT; 2279 children; high certainty evidence). Safety There is evidence supporting an association between aseptic meningitis and MMR vaccines containing Urabe and Leningrad-Zagreb mumps strains, but no evidence supporting this association for MMR vaccines containing Jeryl Lynn mumps strains (rr 1.30, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.56; low certainty evidence). The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR/MMR+V/MMRV vaccines (Jeryl Lynn strain) and febrile seizures. Febrile seizures normally occur in 2% to 4% of healthy children at least once before the age of 5. The attributable risk febrile seizures vaccine-induced is estimated to be from 1 per 1700 to 1 per 1150 administered doses. The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (ITP). However, the risk of ITP after vaccination is smaller than after natural infection with these viruses. Natural infection of ITP occur in 5 cases per 100,000 (1 case per 20,000) per year. The attributable risk is estimated about 1 case of ITP per 40,000 administered MMR doses. There is no evidence of an association between MMR immunisation and encephalitis or encephalopathy (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.61; 2 observational studies; 1,071,088 children; low certainty evidence), and autistic spectrum disorders (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 2 observational studies; 1,194,764 children; moderate certainty). There is insufficient evidence to determine the association between MMR immunisation and inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.16; 3 observational studies; 409 cases and 1416 controls; moderate certainty evidence). Additionally, there is no evidence supporting an association between MMR immunisation and cognitive delay, type 1 diabetes, asthma, dermatitis/eczema, hay fever, leukaemia, multiple sclerosis, gait disturbance, and bacterial or viral infections.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR/MMRV vaccines support their use for mass immunisation. Campaigns aimed at global eradication should assess epidemiological and socioeconomic situations of the countries as well as the capacity to achieve high vaccination coverage. More evidence is needed to assess whether the protective effect of MMR/MMRV could wane with time since immunisation.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Autistic Disorder; Chickenpox Vaccine; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical Trials as Topic; Crohn Disease; Epidemiologic Studies; Humans; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Purpura, Thrombocytopenic; Rubella; Seizures, Febrile; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 32309885
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub4 -
International Journal of Pediatric... Jul 2020
Review
PubMed: 32283428
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110024 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Dec 2021Warts can be difficult to treat and progressing to chronic and resistant disease. Several studies have reported the successful application of mumps-measles-rubella (MMR)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Intralesional measles-mumps-rubella is associated with a higher complete response in cutaneous warts: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial including GRADE qualification.
INTRODUCTION
Warts can be difficult to treat and progressing to chronic and resistant disease. Several studies have reported the successful application of mumps-measles-rubella (MMR) vaccine resulting in clearance of warts immunomodulation and induction of immune system.
METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search on the role of intralesional MMR in warts from several electronic databases. Complete response is defined as complete clearance of warts lesion.
RESULTS
There were a total of 425 subjects from five studies. Intralesional injection of MMR was associated with an increased complete response (OR 9.43 [5.78, 15.37], < .001; : 5%, = .38). Subgroup analysis on patients receiving injection for every 2 weeks for a maximum of five injections revealed an OR of 11.70 [6.40, 21.38], < .001; : 20%, = .29. Patients receiving intralesional MMR were associated with a lower partial response (OR 0.54 [0.33, 0.88], = .01; : 0%, = .66). Intralesional MMR was associated with a reduced no-response (OR 0.16 [0.06, 0.43], < .001; : 69%, = .01). Funnel plot analysis for complete response was asymmetrical, indicating the risk of publication bias. There were statistically significant small-study effects for intralesional MMR on complete response upon analysis using Harbord's test ( = .047). Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment showed that intralesional MMR injection has high level of certainty (quality of evidence) for complete response in warts with an absolute increase of 505 per 1000.
CONCLUSION
Intralesional MMR injection was associated with a higher complete response and lower no-response with a high level of certainty.
Topics: Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rubella; Warts
PubMed: 31985307
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2020.1716931 -
International Journal of Pediatric... Sep 2018Juvenile recurrent parotitis is a rare recurrent inflammation of the parotid glands occurring in children. The etiology remains obscure and the treatment is still... (Review)
Review
Juvenile recurrent parotitis is a rare recurrent inflammation of the parotid glands occurring in children. The etiology remains obscure and the treatment is still debated. In the present study, we perform a systematic review of the literature with the purpose of identifying and discussing the treatment options emerged over the last 28 years in order to prevent recurrent episodes of parotitis. We ultimately included 24 studies. The definitions used for juvenile recurrent parotitis varied widely and none of the selected studies referred exactly to the same definition. Only one was a randomized controlled trial and it showed marked benefits with the use of Bear Bile and Huangqi, two traditional Chinese medicines. Two additional study on sialendoscopy included a control group but was not randomized. All the remaining contributions were case series or case reports. The vast majority (n = 19) of the selected studies reported on sialendoscopy. They all documented improvement of the condition following this intervention. An analysis grouping all these studies (corresponding to 336 children) showed that only 25.8% (95% Confidence Interval: 21.5-30.8) of the treated children had further recurrences. However, the only two controlled study on sialendoscopy showed a similar improvement in controls. The remaining four studies were on sialography (n = 2), on oral appliance in the specific group of children with concomitant dental malocclusion (n = 1) on ductal hydrocortisone infusion through catheter inserted in the parotid duct (n = 1). Improvements were documented in all four contributions. This systematic review of the literature did not consent us to draw definite conclusions on the most suitable treatment for juvenile recurrent parotitis. The available evidence is indeed weak and difficult to interpret because of the scarcity of randomized controlled trials, the heterogeneity of the definitions used and the high rate of spontaneous resolution. Future large and well-designed randomized controlled trials that will include children fulfilling a shared definition of the condition are warranted.
Topics: Child; Humans; Parotitis; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30055724
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.07.002 -
BMC Infectious Diseases May 2018Information on the incubation period and period of infectiousness or shedding of infectious pathogens is critical for management and control of communicable diseases in...
BACKGROUND
Information on the incubation period and period of infectiousness or shedding of infectious pathogens is critical for management and control of communicable diseases in schools and other childcare settings.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review (Pubmed and Embase) to identify and critically appraise all relevant published articles using incubation, infectiousness or shedding, and exclusion period as parameters for the search. No language, time, geographical or study design restrictions were applied.
RESULTS
A total of 112 articles met the eligibility criteria. A relatively large number were retrieved for gastrointestinal diseases and influenza or respiratory syncytial virus, but there were few or no studies for other diseases. Although a considerable number of publications reported the incubation and shedding periods, there was less evidence concerning the period of infectiousness. On average, five days of exclusion is considered for measles, mumps, rubella, varicella and pertussis. For other diseases, such as most cases of meningococcal disease, hepatitis A and influenza exclusion is considered as long as severe symptoms persist. However, these results are based on a diverse range of study characteristics, including age, treatment, vaccination, underlying diseases, diagnostic tools, viral load, study design and definitions, making statistical analysis difficult.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite inconsistent definitions for key variables and the diversity of studies reviewed, published data provide sufficient quantitative estimates to inform decision making in schools and other childcare settings. The results can be used as a reference when deciding about the exclusion of a child with a communicable disease that both prevents exposure and avoids unnecessary absenteeism.
Topics: Adolescent; Chickenpox; Child; Child Care; Child, Preschool; Communicable Disease Control; Communicable Diseases; Hepatitis A; Humans; Infant; Infectious Disease Incubation Period; Influenza, Human; Measles; Mumps; Rubella; Schools; Vaccination; Whooping Cough
PubMed: 29716545
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-018-3095-8 -
European Archives of... Feb 2018The primary aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review in order to evaluate the use of sialendoscopy in treating pediatric salivary gland disorders. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The primary aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review in order to evaluate the use of sialendoscopy in treating pediatric salivary gland disorders.
METHODS
Eligible articles were identified through a comprehensive search of electronic databases. Using predefined inclusion criteria, published articles on sialendoscopy in children were selected and reviewed.
RESULTS
17 articles including 323 pediatric patients and 424 salivary glands managed by sialendoscopy were identified. The most common salivary gland disorder affected was the parotid (83% of cases), followed by the submandibular gland (16.5% of cases). Juvenile recurrent parotitis (68.9%) was the most frequent diagnosis followed by sialolithiasis (14.7%). The most common complication was ductal perforation. During a pooled mean follow-up time of 18.3 months, recurrences were reported in 14.5% of patients mostly in patients diagnosed with juvenile recurrent parotitis.
CONCLUSION
Sialendoscopy is a minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic tool for inflammatory salivary gland disorders in pediatric patients. Based on the current review, sialendoscopy can be successfully implemented in cases of pediatric salivary gland disorders.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Endoscopy; Humans; Pediatrics; Salivary Gland Diseases
PubMed: 29204918
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-017-4830-2