-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Influenza vaccinations are currently recommended in the care of people with COPD, but these recommendations are based largely on evidence from observational studies,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Influenza vaccinations are currently recommended in the care of people with COPD, but these recommendations are based largely on evidence from observational studies, with very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported. Influenza infection causes excess morbidity and mortality in people with COPD, but there is also the potential for influenza vaccination to cause adverse effects, or not to be cost effective.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether influenza vaccination in people with COPD reduces respiratory illness, reduces mortality, is associated with excess adverse events, and is cost effective.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, two clinical trials registries, and reference lists of articles. A number of drug companies we contacted also provided references. The latest search was carried out in December 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs that compared live or inactivated virus vaccines with placebo, either alone or with another vaccine, in people with COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. All entries were double-checked. We contacted study authors and drug companies for missing information. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs with 6750 participants, but only six of these included people with COPD (2469 participants). The others were conducted on elderly and high-risk individuals, some of whom had chronic lung disease. Interventions compared with placebo were inactivated virus injections and live attenuated intranasal virus vaccines. Some studies compared intra-muscular inactivated vaccine and intranasal live attenuated vaccine with intra-muscular inactivated vaccine and intranasal placebo. Studies were conducted in the UK, USA and Thailand.Inactivated vaccine reduced the total number of exacerbations per vaccinated participant compared with those who received placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.11; P = 0.006; two RCTs, 180 participants; low quality evidence). This was due to the reduction in 'late' exacerbations, occurring after three or four weeks (MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.18; P = 0.0004; two RCTs, 180 participants; low quality evidence). Both in people with COPD, and in older people (only a minority of whom had COPD), there were significantly more local adverse reactions in people who had received the vaccine, but the effects were generally mild and transient.There was no evidence of an effect of intranasal live attenuated virus when this was added to inactivated intramuscular vaccination.Two studies evaluating mortality for influenza vaccine versus placebo were too small to have detected any effect on mortality. However, a large study (N=2215) noted that there was no difference in mortality when adding live attenuated virus to inactivated virus vaccination, AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It appeared, from the limited number of RCTs we were able to include, all of which were more than a decade old, that inactivated vaccine reduced exacerbations in people with COPD. The size of effect was similar to that seen in large observational studies, and was due to a reduction in exacerbations occurring three or more weeks after vaccination, and due to influenza. There was a mild increase in transient local adverse effects with vaccination, but no evidence of an increase in early exacerbations. Addition of live attenuated virus to the inactivated vaccine was not shown to confer additional benefit.
Topics: Aged; Disease Progression; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Lung Diseases, Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, Inactivated
PubMed: 29943802
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002733.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Typhoid fever and paratyphoid fever continue to be important causes of illness and death, particularly among children and adolescents in south-central and southeast... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Typhoid fever and paratyphoid fever continue to be important causes of illness and death, particularly among children and adolescents in south-central and southeast Asia. Two typhoid vaccines are widely available, Ty21a (oral) and Vi polysaccharide (parenteral). Newer typhoid conjugate vaccines are at varying stages of development and use. The World Health Organization has recently recommended a Vi tetanus toxoid (Vi-TT) conjugate vaccine, Typbar-TCV, as the preferred vaccine for all ages.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of vaccines for preventing typhoid fever.
SEARCH METHODS
In February 2018, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and mRCT. We also searched the reference lists of all included trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing typhoid fever vaccines with other typhoid fever vaccines or with an inactive agent (placebo or vaccine for a different disease) in adults and children. Human challenge studies were not eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria and extracted data, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We computed vaccine efficacy per year of follow-up and cumulative three-year efficacy, stratifying for vaccine type and dose. The outcome addressed was typhoid fever, defined as isolation of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi in blood. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and efficacy (1 - RR as a percentage) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
In total, 18 RCTs contributed to the quantitative analysis in this review: 13 evaluated efficacy (Ty21a: 5 trials; Vi polysaccharide: 6 trials; Vi-rEPA: 1 trial; Vi-TT: 1 trial), and 9 reported on adverse events. All trials but one took place in typhoid-endemic countries. There was no information on vaccination in adults aged over 55 years of age, pregnant women, or travellers. Only one trial included data on children under two years of age.Ty21a vaccine (oral vaccine, three doses)A three-dose schedule of Ty21a vaccine probably prevents around half of typhoid cases during the first three years after vaccination (cumulative efficacy 2.5 to 3 years: 50%, 95% CI 35% to 61%, 4 trials, 235,239 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). These data include patients aged 3 to 44 years.Compared with placebo, this vaccine probably does not cause more vomiting, diarrhoea, nausea or abdominal pain (2 trials, 2066 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), headache, or rash (1 trial, 1190 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however, fever (2 trials, 2066 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) is probably more common following vaccination.Vi polysaccharide vaccine (injection, one dose)A single dose of Vi polysaccharide vaccine prevents around two-thirds of typhoid cases in the first year after vaccination (year 1: 69%, 95% CI 63% to 74%; 3 trials, 99,979 participants; high-certainty evidence). In year 2, trial results were more variable, with the vaccine probably preventing between 45% and 69% of typhoid cases (year 2: 59%, 95% CI 45% to 69%; 4 trials, 194,969 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). These data included participants aged 2 to 55 years of age.The three-year cumulative efficacy of the vaccine may be around 55% (95% CI 30% to 70%; 11,384 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence). These data came from a single trial conducted in South Africa in the 1980s in participants aged 5 to 15 years.Compared with placebo, this vaccine probably did not increase the incidence of fever (3 trials, 132,261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or erythema (3 trials, 132,261 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, swelling (3 trials, 1767 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and pain at the injection site (1 trial, 667 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) were more common in the vaccine group.Vi-rEPA vaccine (two doses)Administration of two doses of the Vi-rEPA vaccine probably prevents between 50% and 96% of typhoid cases during the first two years after vaccination (year 1: 94%, 95% CI 75% to 99%; year 2: 87%, 95% CI 56% to 96%, 1 trial, 12,008 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). These data came from a single trial with children two to five years of age conducted in Vietnam.Compared with placebo, both the first and the second dose of this vaccine increased the risk of fever (1 trial, 12,008 and 11,091 participants, low-certainty evidence) and the second dose increase the incidence of swelling at the injection site (one trial, 11,091 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).Vi-TT vaccine (two doses)We are uncertain of the efficacy of administration of two doses of Vi-TT (PedaTyph) in typhoid cases in children during the first year after vaccination (year 1: 94%, 95% CI -1% to 100%, 1 trial, 1625 participants; very low-certainty evidence). These data come from a single cluster-randomized trial in children aged six months to 12 years and conducted in India. For single dose Vi-TT (Typbar-TCV), we found no efficacy trials evaluating the vaccine with natural exposure.There were no reported serious adverse effects in RCTs of any of the vaccines studied.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The licensed Ty21a and Vi polysaccharide vaccines are efficacious in adults and children older than two years in endemic countries. The Vi-rEPA vaccine is just as efficacious, although data is only available for children. The new Vi-TT vaccine (PedaTyph) requires further evaluation to determine if it provides protection against typhoid fever. At the time of writing, there were only efficacy data from a human challenge setting in adults on the Vi-TT vaccine (Tybar), which clearly justify the ongoing field trials to evaluate vaccine efficacy.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Incidence; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salmonella typhi; Time Factors; Typhoid Fever; Typhoid-Paratyphoid Vaccines; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 29851031
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001261.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018The consequences of influenza in children and adults are mainly absenteeism from school and work. However, the risk of complications is greatest in children and people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The consequences of influenza in children and adults are mainly absenteeism from school and work. However, the risk of complications is greatest in children and people over 65 years of age. This is an update of a review published in 2011. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 12), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016), Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy children under 16 years. Previous versions of this review included 19 cohort and 11 case-control studies. We are no longer updating the searches for these study designs but have retained the observational studies for historical purposes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the key outcomes of influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), complications (hospitalisation, ear infection), and adverse events. Due to variation in control group risks for influenza and ILI, absolute effects are reported as the median control group risk, and numbers needed to vaccinate (NNVs) are reported accordingly. For other outcomes aggregate control group risks are used.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 clinical trials (> 200,000 children). Most of the studies were conducted in children over the age of two and compared live attenuated or inactivated vaccines with placebo or no vaccine. Studies were conducted over single influenza seasons in the USA, Western Europe, Russia, and Bangladesh between 1984 and 2013. Restricting analyses to studies at low risk of bias showed that influenza and otitis media were the only outcomes where the impact of bias was negligible. Variability in study design and reporting impeded meta-analysis of harms outcomes.Live attenuated vaccinesCompared with placebo or do nothing, live attenuated influenza vaccines probably reduce the risk of influenza infection in children aged 3 to 16 years from 18% to 4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.41; 7718 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and they may reduce ILI by a smaller degree, from 17% to 12% (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.80; 124,606 children; low-certainty evidence). Seven children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 20 children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one child experiencing an ILI. Acute otitis media is probably similar following vaccine or placebo during seasonal influenza, but this result comes from a single study with particularly high rates of acute otitis media (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence). There was insufficient information available to determine the effect of vaccines on school absenteeism due to very low-certainty evidence from one study. Vaccinating children may lead to fewer parents taking time off work, although the CI includes no effect (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence). Data on the most serious consequences of influenza complications leading to hospitalisation were not available. Data from four studies measuring fever following vaccination varied considerably, from 0.16% to 15% in children who had live vaccines, while in the placebo groups the proportions ranged from 0.71% to 22% (very low-certainty evidence). Data on nausea were not reported.Inactivated vaccinesCompared with placebo or no vaccination, inactivated vaccines reduce the risk of influenza in children aged 2 to 16 years from 30% to 11% (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.48; 1628 children; high-certainty evidence), and they probably reduce ILI from 28% to 20% (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.79; 19,044 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Five children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 12 children would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. The risk of otitis media is probably similar between vaccinated children and unvaccinated children (31% versus 27%), although the CI does not exclude a meaningful increase in otitis media following vaccination (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.40; 884 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was insufficient information available to determine the effect of vaccines on school absenteeism due to very low-certainty evidence from one study. We identified no data on parental working time lost, hospitalisation, fever, or nausea.We found limited evidence on secondary cases, requirement for treatment of lower respiratory tract disease, and drug prescriptions. One brand of monovalent pandemic vaccine was associated with a sudden loss of muscle tone triggered by the experience of an intense emotion (cataplexy) and a sleep disorder (narcolepsy) in children. Evidence of serious harms (such as febrile fits) was sparse.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In children aged between 3 and 16 years, live influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza (moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce ILI (low-certainty evidence) over a single influenza season. In this population inactivated vaccines also reduce influenza (high-certainty evidence) and may reduce ILI (low-certainty evidence). For both vaccine types, the absolute reduction in influenza and ILI varied considerably across the study populations, making it difficult to predict how these findings translate to different settings. We found very few randomised controlled trials in children under two years of age. Adverse event data were not well described in the available studies. Standardised approaches to the definition, ascertainment, and reporting of adverse events are needed. Identification of all global cases of potential harms is beyond the scope of this review.
Topics: Adolescent; Case-Control Studies; Child; Child, Preschool; Cohort Studies; Conflict of Interest; Humans; Infant; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Numbers Needed To Treat; Otitis Media; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Support as Topic; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, Inactivated
PubMed: 29388195
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004879.pub5 -
Open Forum Infectious Diseases 2017This systematic review and meta-analysis describes and consolidates findings from all studies that assessed the effectiveness of live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV)...
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis describes and consolidates findings from all studies that assessed the effectiveness of live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) against laboratory-confirmed influenza since the 2009 pandemic in children and young adults.
METHODS
A MEDLINE search was conducted for articles published from January 1, 2010 to November 30, 2016. All original publications reporting an effectiveness estimate of LAIV against cases of influenza confirmed by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction or culture were retained for analysis. Effectiveness estimates were categorized by LAIV formulation (monovalent, trivalent, and quadrivalent) and strain (any influenza strain, A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2), and B strains). Consolidated estimates were obtained with a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 24 publications presenting 29 observational studies were retained for meta-analysis. Live-attenuated influenza vaccine was not shown to be effective against A(H1N1)pdm09 strains as a monovalent formulation in 2009-2010 or as a trivalent formulation from 2010-2011 to 2013-2014, but consolidated sample sizes were small. It was effective as a quadrivalent formulation but less effective than inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV). Live-attenuated influenza vaccine was consistently effective against B strains and matched A(H3N2) strains but was not shown to provide significant protection against mismatched A(H3N2) strains in 2014-2015.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings confirm that effectiveness of LAIV against A(H1N1)pdm09 strains has been lower than IIV. A systematic investigation has been initiated to determine the root cause of the difference in effectiveness between pre- and postpandemic A(H1N1) vaccine strains and to identify a more consistently effective A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine strain.
PubMed: 28852675
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofx111 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2017Dengue hemorrhagic fever is the leading cause of hospitalization and death in children living in Asia and Latin America. There is an urgent need for an effective and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dengue hemorrhagic fever is the leading cause of hospitalization and death in children living in Asia and Latin America. There is an urgent need for an effective and safe dengue vaccine to reduce morbidity and mortality in this high-risk population given the lack of dengue specific treatment at present. This review aims to determine the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of CYD-TDV vaccine in children.
METHODS
This is a systematic review including meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trial data from Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that assessed CYD-TDV vaccine efficacy [(1 - RR)*100], safety (RR), and immunogenicity (weighted mean difference) in children were included in this study. Random effects model was employed to analyze patient-level data extracted from primary studies.
RESULTS
The overall efficacy of CYD-TDV vaccine was 54% (40-64), while serotype-specific efficacy was 77% (66-85) for DENV4, 75% (65-82) for DENV3, 50% (36-61) for DENV1, and 34% (14-49) for DENV2. 15% (-174-74) vaccine efficacy was obtained for the unknown serotype. Meta-analysis of included studies with longer follow-up time (25 months) revealed that CYD-TDV vaccine significantly increased the risk of injection site reactions (RR = 1.1: 1.04-1.17; -value = 0.001). Immunogenicity (expressed as geometric mean titers) in descending order was 439.7 (331.7-547.7), 323 (247 - 398.7), 144.1 (117.9-170.2), and 105 (88.7-122.8) for DENV3, DENV2, DENV1, and DENV4, respectively.
CONCLUSION
CYD-TDV vaccine is effective and immunogenic in children overall. Reduced efficacy of CYD-TDV vaccine against DENV2 notoriously known for causing severe dengue infection and dengue outbreaks cause for serious concern. meta-analysis of long-term follow-up data (≥25 months) from children previously vaccinated with CYD-TDV vaccine is needed to make a conclusion regarding CYD-TDV vaccine safety in children. However, CYD-TDV vaccine should be considered for use in regions where DENV2 is not endemic as currently there is no specific treatment for dengue infection.
PubMed: 28824613
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00863 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Aug 2017Rotavirus was the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) in infants and young children prior to the introduction of routine vaccination. Since 2006 there have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rotavirus was the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) in infants and young children prior to the introduction of routine vaccination. Since 2006 there have been two licensed vaccines available; with successful clinical trials leading the World Health Organization to recommend rotavirus vaccination for all children worldwide. In order to inform immunisation policy we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observation studies to assess population effectiveness against acute gastroenteritis.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Cinhal and Academic Search Premier and grey literature sources for studies published between January 2006 and April 2014. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were observational measuring population effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination against health care attendances for rotavirus gastroenteritis or AGE. To evaluate study quality we use used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomised studies, categorising studies by risk of bias. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. If two or more studies reported a measure of vaccine effectiveness (VE), we conducted a random effects meta-analysis. We stratified analyses by World Bank country income level and used study quality in sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
We identified 30 studies, 19 were from high-income countries and 11 from middle-income countries. Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization for laboratory confirmed rotavirus gastroenteritis was highest in high-income countries (89% VE; 95% CI 84-92%) compared to middle-income countries (74% VE; 95% CI 67-80%). Vaccine effectiveness was higher for those receiving the complete vaccine schedule (81% VE; 95% CI 75-86%) compared to partial schedule (62% VE; 95% CI 55-69%). Two studies from high-income countries measured VE against community consultations for AGE with a pooled estimate of 40% (95% CI 13-58%; 2 studies).
CONCLUSIONS
We found strong evidence to further support the continued use of rotavirus vaccines. Vaccine effectiveness was similar to that reported in clinical trials for both high and middle-income countries. There is limited data from Low income settings at present. There was lower effectiveness against milder disease. Further studies, should continue to report effectiveness against AGE and less-severe rotavirus disease because as evidenced by pre-vaccine introduction studies this is likely to contribute the greatest burden on healthcare resources, particularly in high-income countries.
Topics: Developed Countries; Developing Countries; Gastroenteritis; Hospitalization; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Infant; Observational Studies as Topic; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Vaccination; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 28810833
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-017-2613-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8º C). The widespread morbidity caused by the common cold worldwide is related to its ubiquitousness rather than its severity. The development of vaccines for the common cold has been difficult because of antigenic variability of the common cold virus and the indistinguishable multiple other viruses and even bacteria acting as infective agents. There is uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and previously updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (September 2016), MEDLINE (1948 to September 2016), Embase (1974 to September 2016), CINAHL (1981 to September 2016), and LILACS (1982 to September 2016). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies and four websites for additional trials (February 2017). We included no language or date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccines compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted trial data. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by consulting a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no additional RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT dating from the 1960s with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy participants, all of whom were included in analyses. This trial compared the effect of an adenovirus vaccine against placebo. No statistically significant difference in common cold incidence was found: there were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccines group and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; P = 0.90). No adverse events related to the live vaccine were reported. The quality of the evidence was low due to limitations in methodological quality and a wide 95% confidence interval.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This Cochrane Review was based on one study with low-quality evidence. We found no conclusive results to support the use of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people compared with placebo. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Any future trials on medical treatments for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition. Outcome measures should include common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality related to the vaccine.
Topics: Adenovirus Vaccines; Common Cold; Health Status; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 28516442
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002190.pub5 -
Vaccine Mar 2017Live vaccines are generally contraindicated on immunosuppressive therapy due to safety concerns. However, data are limited to corroborate this practice. (Review)
Review
Safety of live vaccinations on immunosuppressive therapy in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, solid organ transplantation or after bone-marrow transplantation - A systematic review of randomized trials, observational studies and case reports.
BACKGROUND
Live vaccines are generally contraindicated on immunosuppressive therapy due to safety concerns. However, data are limited to corroborate this practice.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the safety of live vaccinations in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) or solid organ transplantation (SOT) on immunosuppressive treatment and in patients after bone-marrow transplantation (BMT).
DATA SOURCES
A search was conducted in electronic databases (Cochrane, Pubmed, Embase) and additional literature was identified by targeted searches.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomized trials, observational studies and case reports.
POPULATION
Patients with IMID or SOT on immunosuppressive treatment and BMT patients <2years after transplantation.
INTERVENTION/VACCINATIONS LOOKED AT
Live vaccinations: mumps, measles, rubella (MMR), yellow fever (YF), varicella vaccine (VV), herpes zoster (HZ), oral typhoid, oral polio, rotavirus, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), smallpox.
DATA EXTRACTION
One author performed the data extraction using predefined data fields. It was cross-checked by two other authors.
RESULTS
7305 articles were identified and 64 articles were included: 40 on IMID, 16 on SOT and 8 on BMT patients. In most studies, the administration of live vaccines was safe. However, some serious vaccine-related adverse events occurred. 32 participants developed an infection with the vaccine strain; in most cases the infection was mild. However, in two patients fatal infections were reported: a patient with RA/SLE overlap who started MTX/dexamethasone treatment four days after the YFV developed a yellow fever vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease (YEL-AVD) and died. The particular vaccine lot was found to be associated with a more than 20 times risk of YEL-AVD. One infant whose mother was under infliximab treatment during pregnancy received the BCG vaccine at the age of three months and developed disseminated BCG infection and died. An immunogenicity assessment was performed in 43 studies. In most cases the patients developed satisfactory seroprotection rates. In the IMID group, YFV and VV demonstrated high seroconversion rates. MTX and tumor necrosis factor inhibitory therapy appeared to reduce immune responses to VV and HZ vaccine, but not to MMR and YF-revaccination. Seroconversion in SOT and BMT patients showed mostly higher rates for rubella than for measles, mumps and varicella.
LIMITATIONS
Risk of bias was high in the majority of studies since 39 of them were observational and 17 were case series/case reports. Only eight studies were randomized trials. BMT patient numbers included in this review were low.
CONCLUSIONS
Although live vaccinations were safe and sufficiently immunogenic in most studies, some serious reactions and vaccine-related infections were reported in immunosuppressed IMID and SOT patients. Apart from mild vaccine-related infections MMR and VV vaccines were safe when administered less than two years after BMT.
IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS
Until further data are available, live vaccinations under most immunosuppressive treatments should only be administered after a careful risk benefit assessment of medications and dosages.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Bone Marrow Transplantation; Chickenpox; Chickenpox Vaccine; Female; Humans; Immune System Diseases; Immunosuppressive Agents; Infant; Inflammation; Male; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Observational Studies as Topic; Organ Transplantation; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rubella; Vaccination; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, Combined; Yellow Fever; Yellow Fever Vaccine
PubMed: 28162821
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.01.048 -
BMC Pediatrics Jan 2017RotaTeq™ (RV5; Merck & Co. Inc., USA) and Rotarix™ (RV1, GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium) vaccines, developed to prevent rotavirus diarrhea in children under five years... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
RotaTeq™ (RV5; Merck & Co. Inc., USA) and Rotarix™ (RV1, GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium) vaccines, developed to prevent rotavirus diarrhea in children under five years old, were both introduced into national immunization programs in 2006. As many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have included either RV5 or RV1 in their routine childhood vaccination programs, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze efficacy, safety and effectiveness data from the region.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, Scielo, Lilacs and the Cochrane Central Register, for controlled efficacy, safety and effectiveness studies published between January 2000 until December 2011, on RV5 and RV1 across Latin America (where both vaccines are available since 2006). The primary outcome measures were: rotavirus-related gastroenteritis of any severity; rotavirus emergency department visits and hospitalization; and severe adverse events.
RESULTS
The results of the meta-analysis for efficacy show that RV1 reduced the risk of any-severity rotavirus-related gastroenteritis by 65% (relative risk (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25; 0.50), and of severe gastroenteritis by 82% (RR 0.18, 95%CI 0.12; 0.26) versus placebo. In trials, both vaccines significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization and emergency visits by 85% (RR 0.15, 95%CI 0.09; 0.25) for RV1 and by 90% (RR 0.099, 95%CI 0.012; 0.77) for RV5. Vaccination with RV5 or RV1 did not increase the risk of death, intussusception, or other severe adverse events which were previously associated with the first licensed rotavirus vaccine. Real-world effectiveness studies showed that both vaccines reduced rotavirus hospitalization in the region by around 45-50% for RV5 (for 1 to 3 doses, respectively), and, by around 50-80% for RV1 (for 1 to 2 doses, respectively). For RV1, effectiveness against hospitalization was highest (around 80-96%) for children vaccinated before 12 months of age, compared with 5-60% effectiveness in older children. Both vaccines were most effective in preventing more severe gastroenteritis (70% for RV5 and 80-90% for RV1) and severe gastroenteritis (50% for RV5 and 70-80% for RV1).
CONCLUSION
This systematic literature review confirms rotavirus vaccination has been proven effective and well tolerated in protecting children in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Topics: Caribbean Region; Humans; Latin America; Models, Statistical; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Treatment Outcome; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 28086819
DOI: 10.1186/s12887-016-0771-y -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Feb 2017Asplenic or hyposplenic (AH) individuals are particularly vulnerable to invasive infections caused by encapsulated bacteria. Such infections have often a sudden onset... (Review)
Review
Asplenic or hyposplenic (AH) individuals are particularly vulnerable to invasive infections caused by encapsulated bacteria. Such infections have often a sudden onset and a fulminant course. Infectious diseases (IDs) incidence in AH subjects can be reduced by preventive measures such as vaccination. The aim of our work is to provide updated recommendations on prevention of infectious diseases in AH adult patients, and to supply a useful and practical tool to healthcare workers for the management of these subjects, in hospital setting and in outpatients consultation. A systematic literature review on evidence based measures for the prevention of IDs in adult AH patients was performed in 2015. Updated recommendations on available vaccines were consequently provided. Vaccinations against S. pneumoniae, N. meningitidis, H. influenzae type b and influenza virus are strongly recommended and should be administered at least 2 weeks before surgery in elective cases or at least 2 weeks after the surgical intervention in emergency cases. In subjects without evidence of immunity, 2 doses of live attenuated vaccines against measles-mumps-rubella and varicella should be administered 4-8 weeks apart from each other; a booster dose of tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis vaccine should be administered also to subjects fully vaccinated, and a 3-dose primary vaccination series is recommended in AH subjects with unknown or incomplete vaccination series (as in healthy people). Evidence based prevention data support the above recommendations to reduce the risk of infection in AH individuals.
Topics: Adult; Disease Transmission, Infectious; Humans; Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes; Orthomyxoviridae; Splenic Diseases; Vaccination; Vaccines
PubMed: 27929751
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2017.1264797