-
Frontiers in Medicine 2020The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been declared a public health emergency worldwide. The objective of this systematic review was to characterize the clinical,...
The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been declared a public health emergency worldwide. The objective of this systematic review was to characterize the clinical, diagnostic, and treatment characteristics of hospitalized patients presenting with COVID-19. We conducted a structured search using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science to collect both case reports and case series on COVID-19 published up to April 24, 2020. There were no restrictions regarding publication language. Eighty articles were included analyzing a total of 417 patients with a mean age of 48 years. The most common presenting symptom in patients who tested positive for COVID-19 was fever, reported in up to 62% of patients from 82% of the analyzed studies. Other symptoms including rhinorrhea, dizziness, and chills were less frequently reported. Additionally, in studies that reported C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements, a large majority of patients displayed an elevated CRP (60%). Progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was the most common complication of patients testing positive for COVID-19 (21%). CT images displayed ground-glass opacification (GGO) patterns (80%) as well as bilateral lung involvement (69%). The most commonly used antiviral treatment modalities included, lopinavir (HIV protease inhibitor), arbidiol hydrochloride (influenza fusion inhibitor), and oseltamivir (neuraminidase inhibitor). Development of ARDS may play a role in estimating disease progression and mortality risk. Early detection of elevations in serum CRP, combined with a clinical COVID-19 symptom presentation may be used as a surrogate marker for the presence and severity of the disease. There is a paucity of data surrounding the efficacy of treatments. There is currently not a well-established gold standard therapy for the treatment of diagnosed COVID-19. Further prospective investigations are necessary.
PubMed: 32574328
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00231 -
International Journal of Clinical... Sep 2020Since there is still no definitive conclusion regarding which non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are most effective and safe in viral respiratory infections,...
BACKGROUND
Since there is still no definitive conclusion regarding which non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are most effective and safe in viral respiratory infections, we decided to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various NSAIDs in viral respiratory infections so that we can reach a conclusion on which NSAID is best choice for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
A search was performed in Medline (via PubMed), Embase and CENTRAL databases until 23 March 2020. Clinical trials on application of NSAIDs in viral respiratory infections were included.
RESULTS
Six clinical trials were included. No clinical trial has been performed on COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome infections. Studies show that ibuprofen and naproxen not only have positive effects in controlling cold symptoms, but also do not cause serious side effects in rhinovirus infections. In addition, it was found that clarithromycin, naproxen and oseltamivir combination leads to decrease in mortality rate and duration of hospitalisation in patients with pneumonia caused by influenza.
CONCLUSION
Although based on existing evidence, NSAIDs have been effective in treating respiratory infections caused by influenza and rhinovirus, since there is no clinical trial on COVID-19 and case-reports and clinical experiences are indicative of elongation of treatment duration and exacerbation of the clinical course of patients with COVID-19, it is recommended to use substitutes such as acetaminophen for controlling fever and inflammation and be cautious about using NSAIDs in management of COVID-19 patients until there are enough evidence. Naproxen may be a good choice for future clinical trials.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Humans; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Survival Rate; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32460369
DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.13557 -
Advances in Therapy Jun 2020Influenza in hospitalized intensive care unit (ICU) patients with respiratory failure is associated with 25% mortality, despite timely oseltamivir treatment. A...
INTRODUCTION
Influenza in hospitalized intensive care unit (ICU) patients with respiratory failure is associated with 25% mortality, despite timely oseltamivir treatment. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of alternative neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI) regimens compared to standard of care in patients hospitalized for H1N1, H3N2, or B influenza.
METHODS
The Cochrane collaboration searching methods were followed in Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science databases (2009-2019). Eligibility criteria were RCTs comparing different regimens of NAIs in hospitalized patients (at least 1 year old) for clinically diagnosed influenza (H1N1, H3N2, or B). Pre-defined endpoints were time to clinical resolution (TTCR), overall mortality, hospital discharge, viral clearance, drug-related adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events.
RESULTS
Seven trials (1579 patients) were included. Two trials compared two regimens of oral oseltamivir therapy, and one trial compared two regimens of intravenous zanamivir therapy vs oral oseltamivir therapy. Four trials focused on intravenous peramivir therapy: two trials compared two different regimens and two trials compared two different regimens vs oral oseltamivir therapy. Overall, the different regimens were well tolerated, with no significant differences in AEs; nonetheless non-significant differences were reported among different regimens regarding TTCR, mortality, and viral clearance.
CONCLUSION
Higher compared to standard doses of NAIs or systemic peramivir therapy compared to oral oseltamivir therapy did not demonstrate benefit.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Clinical Protocols; Critical Care; Humans; Influenza, Human; Neuraminidase; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Insufficiency
PubMed: 32347523
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01347-5 -
Systematic Reviews Feb 2020To assess the benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines.
DATA SOURCES
Clinical study reports obtained from the European Medicines Agency and GlaxoSmithKline from 2014 to 2017.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised trials that compared an HPV vaccine with a placebo or active comparator in healthy participants of all ages.
APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS
Two researchers extracted data and judged risk of bias with the Cochrane tool (version 2011). Risk ratio (RR) estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
OUTCOMES
Clinically relevant outcomes in intention to treat populations-including HPV-related cancer precursors irrespective of involved HPV types, treatment procedures and serious and general harms.
RESULTS
Twenty-four of 50 eligible clinical study reports were obtained with 58,412 pages of 22 trials and 2 follow-up studies including 95,670 participants: 79,102 females and 16,568 males age 8-72; 393,194 person-years; and 49 months mean weighted follow-up. We judged all 24 studies to be at high risk of bias. Serious harms were incompletely reported for 72% of participants (68,610/95,670). Nearly all control participants received active comparators (48,289/48,595, 99%). No clinical study report included complete case report forms. At 4 years follow-up, the HPV vaccines reduced HPV-related carcinoma in situ (367 in the HPV vaccine group vs. 490 in the comparator group, RR 0.73 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.53 to 1.00], number needed to vaccinate [NNV] 387, P = 0.05, I = 67%) and HPV-related treatment procedures (1018 vs. 1416, RR 0.71 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.80], NNV 75, P < 0.00001, I = 45%). The HPV vaccines increased serious nervous system disorders (exploratory analysis: 72 vs. 46, RR 1.49 [1.02 to 2.16], number needed to harm [NNH] 1325, P = 0.040, I = 0%) and general harms (13,248 vs. 12,394, RR 1.07 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.11], NNH 51, P = 0.0002, I = 77%) but did not significantly increase fatal harms (45 vs. 38, RR 1.19 [95% CI 0.65 to 2.19], P = 0.58, I = 30%) or serious harms (1404 vs. 1357, RR 1.01 [95% CI 0.94 to 1.08], P = 0.79, I = 0%).
CONCLUSION
At 4 years follow-up, the HPV vaccines decreased HPV-related cancer precursors and treatment procedures but increased serious nervous system disorders (exploratory analysis) and general harms. As the included trials were primarily designed to assess benefits and were not adequately designed to assess harms, the extent to which the HPV vaccines' benefits outweigh their harms is unclear. Limited access to clinical study reports and trial data with case report forms prevented a thorough assessment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
CRD42017056093. Our systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO in January 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20170030.pdf. Two protocol amendments were registered on PROSPERO on November 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20171116.pdf. Our index of the HPV vaccine studies was published in Systematic Reviews in January 2018: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0675-z. A description of the challenges obtaining the data was published in September 2018: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3694.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Alphapapillomavirus; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Young Adult
PubMed: 32106879
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-0983-y -
The Journal of International Medical... Jan 2020H7N9 avian influenza virus (AIV) caused human infections in 2013 in China. Phylogenetic analyses indicate that H7N9 AIV is a novel reassortant strain with pandemic...
H7N9 avian influenza virus (AIV) caused human infections in 2013 in China. Phylogenetic analyses indicate that H7N9 AIV is a novel reassortant strain with pandemic potential. We conducted a systemic review regarding virus-induced pathogenesis, vaccine development, and diagnosis of H7N9 AIV infection in humans. We followed PRISMA guidelines and searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify relevant articles published between January 2013 and December 2018. Pathogenesis data indicated that H7N9 AIV belongs to low pathogenic avian influenza, which is mostly asymptomatic in avian species; however, H7N9 induces high mortality in humans. Sporadic human infections have recently been reported, caused by highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses detected in poultry. H7N9 AIVs resistant to adamantine and oseltamivir cause severe human infection by rapidly inducing progressive acute community-acquired pneumonia, multiorgan dysfunction, and cytokine dysregulation; however, mechanisms via which the virus induces severe syndromes remain unclear. An H7N9 AIV vaccine is lacking; designs under evaluation include synthesized peptide, baculovirus-insect system, and virus-like particle vaccines. Molecular diagnosis of H7N9 AIVs is suggested over conventional assays, for biosafety reasons. Several advanced or modified diagnostic assays are under investigation and development. We summarized virus-induced pathogenesis, vaccine development, and current diagnostic assays in H7N9 AIVs.
Topics: Animals; Birds; Drug Resistance, Viral; Host-Pathogen Interactions; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H7N9 Subtype; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza in Birds; Influenza, Human
PubMed: 31068040
DOI: 10.1177/0300060519845488 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018The consequences of influenza in the elderly (those age 65 years or older) are complications, hospitalisations, and death. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The consequences of influenza in the elderly (those age 65 years or older) are complications, hospitalisations, and death. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of death among people who are most vulnerable. This is an update of a review published in 2010. 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 the elderly.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016); Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016); Web of Science (1974 to 31 December 2016); CINAHL (1981 to 31 December 2016); LILACS (1982 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 (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. We considered any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation, or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention. Previous versions of this review included 67 cohort and case-control studies. The searches for these trial designs are no longer updated.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE for the key outcomes of influenza, ILI, complications (hospitalisation, pneumonia), and adverse events. We have presented aggregate control group risks to illustrate the effect in absolute terms. We used them as the basis for calculating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of each event for influenza and ILI outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight RCTs (over 5000 participants), of which four assessed harms. The studies were conducted in community and residential care settings in Europe and the USA between 1965 and 2000. Risk of bias reduced our certainty in the findings for influenza and ILI, but not for other outcomes.Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may experience less influenza over a single season compared with placebo, from 6% to 2.4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.66; low-certainty evidence). We rated the evidence as low certainty due to uncertainty over how influenza was diagnosed. Older adults probably experience less ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (3.5% versus 6%; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). These results indicate that 30 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person experiencing influenza, and 42 would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person having an ILI.The study providing data for mortality and pneumonia was underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes. There were 3 deaths from 522 participants in the vaccination arm and 1 death from 177 participants in the placebo arm, providing very low-certainty evidence for the effect on mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.72). No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No data on hospitalisations were reported. Confidence intervaIs around the effect of vaccines on fever and nausea were wide, and we do not have enough information about these harms in older people (fever: 1.6% with placebo compared with 2.5% after vaccination (RR 1.57, 0.92 to 2.71; moderate-certainty evidence)); nausea (2.4% with placebo compared with 4.2% after vaccination (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.12; low-certainty evidence)).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may have a lower risk of influenza (from 6% to 2.4%), and probably have a lower risk of ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (from 6% to 3.5%). We are uncertain how big a difference these vaccines will make across different seasons. Very few deaths occurred, and no data on hospitalisation were reported. No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome. We do not have enough information to assess harms relating to fever and nausea in this population.The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vaccines, Inactivated
PubMed: 29388197
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004876.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018The consequences of influenza in adults are mainly time off work. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally. This is an update of a review published... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The consequences of influenza in adults are mainly time off work. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally. This is an update of a review published in 2014. 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 due to their lack of influence on the review conclusions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults, including pregnant women.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 31 December 2016), Embase (1990 to 31 December 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017), as well as checking the bibliographies of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. Previous versions of this review included observational comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms cohort and case-control studies. Due to the uncertain quality of observational (i.e. non-randomised) studies and their lack of influence on the review conclusions, we decided to update only randomised evidence. The searches for observational comparative studies are no longer updated.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence for key outcomes (influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospitalisation, and adverse effects) using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 people assessing the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccines. We have presented findings from 25 studies comparing inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine against placebo or do-nothing control groups as the most relevant to decision-making. The studies were conducted over single influenza seasons in North America, South America, and Europe between 1969 and 2009. We did not consider studies at high risk of bias to influence the results of our outcomes except for hospitalisation.Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.47; 71,221 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and they probably reduce ILI from 21.5% to 18.1% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 25,795 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; 71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza, and 29 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing an ILI). The difference between the two number needed to vaccinate (NNV) values depends on the different incidence of ILI and confirmed influenza among the study populations. Vaccination may lead to a small reduction in the risk of hospitalisation in healthy adults, from 14.7% to 14.1%, but the CI is wide and does not rule out a large benefit (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.08; 11,924 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vaccines may lead to little or no small reduction in days off work (-0.04 days, 95% CI -0.14 days to 0.06; low-certainty evidence). Inactivated vaccines cause an increase in fever from 1.5% to 2.3%.We identified one RCT and one controlled clinical trial assessing the effects of vaccination in pregnant women. The efficacy of inactivated vaccine containing pH1N1 against influenza was 50% (95% CI 14% to 71%) in mothers (NNV 55), and 49% (95% CI 12% to 70%) in infants up to 24 weeks (NNV 56). No data were available on efficacy against seasonal influenza during pregnancy. Evidence from observational studies showed effectiveness of influenza vaccines against ILI in pregnant women to be 24% (95% CI 11% to 36%, NNV 94), and against influenza in newborns from vaccinated women to be 41% (95% CI 6% to 63%, NNV 27).Live aerosol vaccines have an overall effectiveness corresponding to an NNV of 46. The performance of one- or two-dose whole-virion 1968 to 1969 pandemic vaccines was higher (NNV 16) against ILI and (NNV 35) against influenza. There was limited impact on hospitalisations in the 1968 to 1969 pandemic (NNV 94). The administration of both seasonal and 2009 pandemic vaccines during pregnancy had no significant effect on abortion or neonatal death, but this was based on observational data sets.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Healthy adults who receive inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine rather than no vaccine probably experience less influenza, from just over 2% to just under 1% (moderate-certainty evidence). They also probably experience less ILI following vaccination, but the degree of benefit when expressed in absolute terms varied across different settings. Variation in protection against ILI may be due in part to inconsistent symptom classification. Certainty of evidence for the small reductions in hospitalisations and time off work is low. Protection against influenza and ILI in mothers and newborns was smaller than the effects seen in other populations considered in this review.Vaccines increase the risk of a number of adverse events, including a small increase in fever, but rates of nausea and vomiting are uncertain. The protective effect of vaccination in pregnant women and newborns is also very modest. We did not find any evidence of an association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events in the comparative studies considered in this review. Fifteen included RCTs were industry funded (29%).
Topics: Absenteeism; Adult; Drug Industry; Female; Health Status; Hospitalization; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza B virus; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Male; Nausea; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Publication Bias; Research Support as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 29388196
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub6 -
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 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... May 2018Oseltamivir has been used to treat children with influenza for nearly 2 decades, with treatment currently approved for infants aged ≥2 weeks. However, efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oseltamivir has been used to treat children with influenza for nearly 2 decades, with treatment currently approved for infants aged ≥2 weeks. However, efficacy and safety remain controversial. Newer randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs), not included in previous meta-analyses, can add to the evidence base.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs of oseltamivir therapy in children. We obtained individual patient data and examined protocol-defined outcomes. We then conducted a 2-stage, random-effects meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of treatment in reducing the duration of illness, estimated using differences in restricted mean survival time (RMST) by treatment group. We also examined complications and safety.
RESULTS
We identified 5 trials that included 2561 patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and 1598 in the intention-to-treat infected (ITTI) populations. Overall, oseltamivir treatment significantly reduced the duration of illness in the ITTI population (RMST difference, -17.6 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI], -34.7 to -0.62 hours). In trials that enrolled patients without asthma, the difference was larger (-29.9 hours; 95% CI, -53.9 to -5.8 hours). Risk of otitis media was 34% lower in the ITTI population. Vomiting was the only adverse event with a significantly higher risk in the treatment group.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite substantial heterogeneity in pediatric trials, we found that treatment with oseltamivir significantly reduced the duration of illness in those with influenza and lowered the risk of developing otitis media. Alternative endpoints may be required to evaluate the efficacy of oseltamivir in pediatric patients with asthma.
Topics: Adolescent; Antiviral Agents; Child; Humans; Influenza, Human; Oseltamivir; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29186364
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix1040 -
Yonsei Medical Journal Jul 2017Peramivir is the first intravenously administered neuramidase inhibitor for immediate delivery of an effective single-dose treatment in patients with influenza. However,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Peramivir is the first intravenously administered neuramidase inhibitor for immediate delivery of an effective single-dose treatment in patients with influenza. However, limited data are available on intravenous (IV) peramivir treatment compared to oral oseltamivir for these patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
With a systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of IV peramivir with oral oseltamivir for treatment of patients with seasonal influenza. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register were searched for relevant clinical trials.
RESULTS
A total of seven trials [two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-randomized observational trials] involving 1676 patients were finally analyzed. The total number of peramivir- and oseltamivir-treated patients was 956 and 720, respectively. Overall, the time to alleviation of fever was lower in the peramivir-treated group compared with the oseltamivir-treated group [mean difference (MD), -7.17 hours; 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.00 to -3.34]. Especially, pooled analysis of observational studies (n=4) and studies of outpatients (n=4) demonstrated the superiority of the peramivir-treated group (MD, -7.83 hours; 95% CI -11.81 to -3.84 and MD, -7.71 hours; 95% CI -11.61 to -3.80, respectively). Mortality, length of hospital stay, change in virus titer 48 hours after admission, and the incidence of adverse events in these patients were not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
IV peramivir therapy might reduce the time to alleviation of fever in comparison with oral oseltamivir therapy in patients with influenza; however, we could not draw clear conclusions from a meta-analysis because of the few RCTs available and methodological limitations.
Topics: Acids, Carbocyclic; Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Antiviral Agents; Cyclopentanes; Guanidines; Humans; Influenza, Human; Odds Ratio; Oseltamivir; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28540991
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.4.778