-
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Feb 2019Oral vaccines underperform in low-income and middle-income countries compared with in high-income countries. Whether interventions can improve oral vaccine performance... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral vaccines underperform in low-income and middle-income countries compared with in high-income countries. Whether interventions can improve oral vaccine performance is uncertain.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions designed to increase oral vaccine efficacy or immunogenicity. We searched Ovid-MEDLINE and Embase for trials published until Oct 23, 2017. Inclusion criteria for meta-analysis were two or more studies per intervention category and available seroconversion data. We did random-effects meta-analyses to produce summary relative risk (RR) estimates. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017060608).
FINDINGS
Of 2843 studies identified, 87 were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 66 for meta-analysis. 22 different interventions were assessed for oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV), oral rotavirus vaccine (RVV), oral cholera vaccine (OCV), and oral typhoid vaccines. There was generally high heterogeneity. Seroconversion to RVV was significantly increased by delaying the first RVV dose by 4 weeks (RR 1·37, 95% CI 1·16-1·62) and OPV seroconversion was increased with monovalent or bivalent OPV compared with trivalent OPV (RR 1·51, 95% CI 1·20-1·91). There was some evidence that separating RVV and OPV increased RVV seroconversion (RR 1·21, 95% CI 1·00-1·47) and that higher vaccine inoculum improved OCV seroconversion (RR 1·12, 95% CI 1·00-1·26). There was no evidence of effect for anthelmintics, antibiotics, probiotics, zinc, vitamin A, withholding breastfeeding, extra doses, or vaccine buffering.
INTERPRETATION
Most strategies did not improve oral vaccine performance. Delaying RVV and reducing OPV valence should be considered within immunisation programmes to reduce global enteric disease. New strategies to address the gap in oral vaccine efficacy are urgently required.
FUNDING
Wellcome Trust, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Medical Research Council, and WHO Polio Research Committee.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Cholera; Cholera Vaccines; Female; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Poliomyelitis; Poliovirus; Poliovirus Vaccine, Oral; Rotavirus; Rotavirus Infections; Rotavirus Vaccines; Salmonella typhi; Seroconversion; Treatment Outcome; Typhoid Fever; Typhoid-Paratyphoid Vaccines; Vaccination; Vibrio cholerae; Young Adult
PubMed: 30712836
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30602-9 -
Paediatrics and International Child... Nov 2018Background Vibrio cholerae is a highly motile Gram-negative bacterium which is responsible for 3 million cases of diarrhoeal illness and up to 100,000 deaths per year,...
Background Vibrio cholerae is a highly motile Gram-negative bacterium which is responsible for 3 million cases of diarrhoeal illness and up to 100,000 deaths per year, with an increasing burden documented over the past decade. Current WHO guidelines for the treatment of paediatric cholera infection (tetracycline 12.5 mg/kg four times daily for 3 days) are based on data which are over a decade old. In an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance, updated review of the appropriate empirical therapy for cholera infection in children (taking account of susceptibility patterns, cost and the risk of adverse events) is necessary. Methods A systematic review of the current published literature on the treatment of cholera infection in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was undertaken. International clinical guidelines and studies pertaining to adverse effects associated with treatments available for cholera infection were also reviewed. Results The initial search produced 256 results, of which eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment of the studies was performed as per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Conclusions In view of the changing non-susceptibility rates worldwide, empirical therapy for cholera infection in paediatric patients should be changed to single-dose azithromycin (20 mg/kg), a safe and effective medication with ease of administration. Erythromycin (12.5 mg/kg four times daily for 3 days) exhibits similar bacteriological and clinical success and should be listed as a second-line therapy. Fluid resuscitation remains the cornerstone of management of paediatric cholera infection, and prevention of infection by promoting access to clean water and sanitation is paramount.
Topics: Adolescent; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Child; Child, Preschool; Cholera; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Erythromycin; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Treatment Outcome; Vibrio cholerae; World Health Organization
PubMed: 29790841
DOI: 10.1080/20469047.2017.1409452 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jun 2018In addition to improved water supply and sanitation, the 2-dose killed oral cholera vaccine (OCV) is an important tool for the prevention and control of cholera. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In addition to improved water supply and sanitation, the 2-dose killed oral cholera vaccine (OCV) is an important tool for the prevention and control of cholera. We aimed to document the immunogenicity and protection (efficacy and effectiveness) conferred by a single OCV dose against cholera. The metaanalysis showed that an estimated 73% and 77% of individuals seroconverted to the Ogawa and Inaba serotypes, respectively, after an OCV first dose. The estimates of single-dose vaccine protection from available studies are 87% at 2 months decreasing to 33% at 2 years. Current immunologic and clinical data suggest that protection conferred by a single dose of killed OCV may be sufficient to reduce short-term risk in outbreaks or other high-risk settings, which may be especially useful when vaccine supply is limited. However, until more data suggest otherwise, a second dose should be given as soon as circumstances allow to ensure robust protection.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Cholera; Cholera Vaccines; Disease Outbreaks; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Seroconversion; Serogroup; Vaccination; Vaccine Potency; Vaccines, Inactivated; Vibrio cholerae
PubMed: 29177437
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix1039 -
The Journal of Infection May 2013Recent large cholera outbreaks highlight the need for improved understanding of the pathogenesis and epidemiology of cholera. The incubation period of cholera has... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Recent large cholera outbreaks highlight the need for improved understanding of the pathogenesis and epidemiology of cholera. The incubation period of cholera has important implications for clinical and public health decision-making, yet statements of the incubation period of cholera are often imprecise. Here we characterize the distribution of cholera's incubation period.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the literature for statements of the incubation period of cholera and data that might aid in its estimation. We extracted individual-level data, parametrically estimated the distribution of toxigenic cholera's incubation period, and evaluated evidence for differences between strains.
RESULTS
The incubation period did not differ by a clinically significant margin between strains (except O1 El Tor Ogawa). We estimate the median incubation period of toxigenic cholera to be 1.4 days (95% CI, 1.3-1.6). Five percent of cholera cases will develop symptoms by 0.5 days (95% CI 0.4-0.5), and 95% by 4.4 days (95% CI 3.9-5.0) after infection.
CONCLUSIONS
We recommend that cholera investigations use a recall period of at least five days to capture relevant exposures; significantly longer than recent risk factor studies from the Haitian epidemic. This characterization of cholera's incubation period can help improve clinical and public health practice and advance epidemiologic research.
Topics: Cholera; Humans; Infectious Disease Incubation Period; Vibrio cholerae
PubMed: 23201968
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2012.11.013 -
Epidemiology and Infection Apr 2013Global climate change is expected to affect the frequency, intensity and duration of extreme water-related weather events such as excessive precipitation, floods, and... (Review)
Review
Global climate change is expected to affect the frequency, intensity and duration of extreme water-related weather events such as excessive precipitation, floods, and drought. We conducted a systematic review to examine waterborne outbreaks following such events and explored their distribution between the different types of extreme water-related weather events. Four medical and meteorological databases (Medline, Embase, GeoRef, PubMed) and a global electronic reporting system (ProMED) were searched, from 1910 to 2010. Eighty-seven waterborne outbreaks involving extreme water-related weather events were identified and included, alongside 235 ProMED reports. Heavy rainfall and flooding were the most common events preceding outbreaks associated with extreme weather and were reported in 55·2% and 52·9% of accounts, respectively. The most common pathogens reported in these outbreaks were Vibrio spp. (21·6%) and Leptospira spp. (12·7%). Outbreaks following extreme water-related weather events were often the result of contamination of the drinking-water supply (53·7%). Differences in reporting of outbreaks were seen between the scientific literature and ProMED. Extreme water-related weather events represent a risk to public health in both developed and developing countries, but impact will be disproportionate and likely to compound existing health disparities.
Topics: Climate Change; Communicable Diseases; Disease Outbreaks; Drinking Water; Floods; Humans; Leptospira; Leptospirosis; Public Health; Rain; Vibrio; Vibrio Infections; Water Supply; Weather
PubMed: 22877498
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268812001653