-
Arthritis Care & Research Mar 2023To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
OBJECTIVE
To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
METHODS
This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation.
RESULTS
This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence.
CONCLUSION
Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.
Topics: Child; Humans; United States; Rheumatology; Antirheumatic Agents; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Vaccination; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 36597813
DOI: 10.1002/acr.25045 -
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 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Chickenpox is extremely contagious. Over 90% of unvaccinated people become infected, but infection occurs at different ages in different parts of the world - over 80%... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Chickenpox is extremely contagious. Over 90% of unvaccinated people become infected, but infection occurs at different ages in different parts of the world - over 80% of people have been infected by the age of 10 years in the US, the UK, and Japan, and by the age of 20 to 30 years in India, South East Asia, and the West Indies.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent chickenpox in healthy adults and children? What are the effects of interventions to prevent chickenpox in children exposed prenatally? What are the effects of interventions to prevent chickenpox in immunocompromised adults and children? What are the effects of treatments for chickenpox in healthy adults and children? What are the effects of treatments for chickenpox in immunocompromised adults and children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 11 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: aciclovir, famciclovir, live attenuated vaccine, valaciclovir, and varicella zoster immunoglobulin.
Topics: Chickenpox; Chickenpox Vaccine; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Incidence; India; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 21486500
DOI: No ID Found -
Vaccines Sep 2021Although influenza is a major public health concern, little is known about the use of spray live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) among adults. For this reason, we... (Review)
Review
Although influenza is a major public health concern, little is known about the use of spray live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) among adults. For this reason, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of LAIV, especially in adults with/without clinical conditions and children <2 years, with the final aim of possibly extending the clinical indications. PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus were the two databases consulted through February 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. A critical appraisal was conducted. Analyses were performed by using ProMeta3 software. Twenty-two studies were included, showing that LAIV was associated with a higher probability of seroconversion when compared with a placebo and considering the A/H1N1 serotype (pooled OR = 2.26 (95% CI = 1.12-4.54), -value = 0.022; based on 488 participants, without heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%)). The meta-analysis also confirmed no significant association with systemic adverse events. Only rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and sore throat were significantly associated with LAIV compared to the placebo. Despite limited available evidence, LAIV has proved to be a safe and effective flu vaccination, also due to its very low invasiveness, and our review's results can be considered a starting point for guiding future research and shaping forthcoming vaccination campaigns.
PubMed: 34579235
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9090998 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2007Chickenpox is extremely contagious. Over 90% of unvaccinated people become infected, but infection occurs at different ages in different parts of the world - over 80% of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Chickenpox is extremely contagious. Over 90% of unvaccinated people become infected, but infection occurs at different ages in different parts of the world - over 80% of people have been infected by the age of 10 years in the USA, the UK, and Japan, and by the age of 20-30 years in India, South East Asia, and the West Indies.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent chickenpox in healthy adults and children? What are the effects of interventions to prevent chickenpox in children exposed prenatally? What are the effects of interventions to prevent chickenpox in immunocompromised adults and children? What are the effects of treatments for chickenpox in healthy adults and children? What are the effects of treatments for chickenpox in immunocompromised adults and children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to March 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 13 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acyclovir, famciclovir, live attenuated vaccine, valaciclovir, varicella zoster immunoglobulin, and zoster immunoglobulin.
Topics: Chickenpox; Chickenpox Vaccine; Herpes Zoster; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Incidence; India; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 19454112
DOI: No ID Found -
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Nov 2018Gastroenteritis caused by rotavirus accounts for considerable morbidity in young children. We aimed to assess the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the oral rotavirus... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gastroenteritis caused by rotavirus accounts for considerable morbidity in young children. We aimed to assess the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the oral rotavirus vaccine , as measured by laboratory-confirmed rotavirus infection after referral to hospital and/or emergency departments in children aged <5 years with gastroenteritis.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search for peer-reviewed studies conducted in real-life settings published between 2006 and 2016 and a meta-analysis to calculate the overall VE, which was further discriminated through stratified analyses.
RESULTS
The overall VE estimate was 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62% to 75%); stratified analyses revealed a non-negligible impact of factors such as study design and socioeconomic status. Depending on the control group, VE ranged from 63% (95% CI, 52% to 72%) to 81% (95% CI, 69% to 88%) for unmatched and matched rotavirus test-negative controls. VE varied with socioeconomic status: 81% (95% CI, 74% to 86%) in high-income countries, 54% (95% CI, 39% to 65%) in upper-middle-income countries, and 63% (95% CI, 50% to 72%) in lower-middle-income countries. Age, rotavirus strain, and disease severity were also shown to impact VE, but to a lesser extent.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis of real-world studies showed that is effective in helping to prevent hospitalizations and/or emergency department visits due to rotavirus infection.
PubMed: 30539038
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofy292 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022The 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 < 37.8 ºC). Whilst the common cold is generally not harmful, it is a cause of economic burden due to school and work absenteeism. In the United States, economic loss due to the common cold is estimated at more than USD 40 billion per year, including an estimate of 70 million workdays missed by employees, 189 million school days missed by children, and 126 million workdays missed by parents caring for children with a cold. Additionally, data from Europe show that the total cost per episode may be up to EUR 1102. There is also a large expenditure due to inappropriate antimicrobial prescription. Vaccine development for the common cold has been difficult due to antigenic variability of the common cold viruses; even bacteria can act as infective agents. Uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people, thus we performed an update of this Cochrane Review, which was first published in 2011 and updated in 2013 and 2017.
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) (April 2022), MEDLINE (1948 to April 2022), Embase (1974 to April 2022), CINAHL (1981 to April 2022), and LILACS (1982 to April 2022). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies, and four websites for additional trials (April 2022). We did not impose any language or date restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccine compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow to assess the initial search results. Four review authors independently performed title and abstract screening to identify potentially relevant studies. We retrieved the full-text articles for those studies deemed potentially relevant, and the review authors independently screened the full-text reports for inclusion in the review, recording reasons for exclusion of the excluded studies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author when needed. Two review authors independently collected data on a data extraction form, resolving any disagreements by consensus or by involving a third review author. We double-checked data transferred into Review Manager 5 software. Three review authors independently assessed risk of bias using RoB 1 tool as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We did not conduct a meta-analysis, and we did not assess publication bias. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the certainty of the evidence and to create a summary of findings table. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT conducted in 1965 with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy young men in a military facility, all of whom were included in the analyses, and compared the effect of three adenovirus vaccines (live, inactivated type 4, and inactivated type 4 and 7) against a placebo (injection of physiological saline or gelatin capsule). There were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccine group, and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group. Overall, we do not know if there is a difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, no difference in adverse events when comparing live vaccine preparation with placebo was reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low due to unclear risk of bias, indirectness because the population of this study was only young men, and imprecision because confidence intervals were wide and the number of events was low. The included study did not assess vaccine-related or all-cause mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review was based on one study with very low-certainty evidence, which showed that there may be no difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Future trials on interventions for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition, and should measure such outcomes as common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality (all-cause and related to the vaccine).
Topics: Child; Humans; Male; Adenovirus Vaccines; Common Cold; Incidence; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Vaccines, Attenuated; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36515550
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002190.pub6 -
Indian Journal of Community Medicine :... 2021Dengue is one of the neglected tropical diseases caused by flavivirus. Live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine is launched for the age group of 9-45 years. It is given in... (Review)
Review
Dengue is one of the neglected tropical diseases caused by flavivirus. Live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine is launched for the age group of 9-45 years. It is given in three doses schedule. Eleven studies were included in meta-analysis by following PRISMA guidelines. Healthy persons in the age group of 2-45 years were included in these studies. Statistical analysis was done by "R" software. Pooled relative risk among vaccinated versus control group was calculated using random-effect model. Pooled dengue vaccine efficacy was calculated from relative risk. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using Baujat and funnel plot, respectively. Adverse effects following immunization were reviewed. Pooled vaccine efficacy is 58% (95% confidence interval 46%-67%). statistics is 81.4%.
PubMed: 34321724
DOI: 10.4103/ijcm.IJCM_608_20 -
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 -
Avicenna Journal of Medical... 2020() is the highly contagious causative agent of a broad range of diseases in animals as well as an occasional human pathogen. Economically significant infections caused... (Review)
Review
() is the highly contagious causative agent of a broad range of diseases in animals as well as an occasional human pathogen. Economically significant infections caused by include avian fowl cholera, rabbit snuffles, and hemorrhagic septicemia in cattle, goats and pigs. Chemotherapy of pasteurellosis infections has some limitations, such as high cost of treatment, low efficacy, and the possibility of therapy failure due to antibiotic resistance. Prophylactic immunization offers a safe and effective preventive measure in case of zoonotic diseases. Bacterins, live attenuated and some old traditional vaccines against pasteurellosis remain in use today, beside their limitations. However, the past few years have seen significant progress in research to identify modern, effective vaccine candidates, but there is no new vaccine produced by new strategies. While scientists should struggle with a lot of aspects to design vaccine producing strategies, this review shows how pasteurellosis vaccine evolved and the limitations in its application which need to be overcome.
PubMed: 32695276
DOI: No ID Found