Safety of varicella vaccination strategies: An overview of reviews.

The safety of new vaccines under development as well as existing vaccines is a key priority for national and international public health agencies. A number of countries have implemented universal childhood varicella vaccination programmes over the past 30 years. However, strategies differ in terms of the number of doses, type of vaccine(s) recommended, age at vaccination and interval between doses for a two-dose schedule. An overview of reviews was undertaken to assess the existing systematic review evidence of the safety of varicella vaccination strategies. The review was restricted to immunocompetent children aged 9 months to 6 years inclusive. A comprehensive search of databases, registries and grey literature was conducted up to 2 February 2022. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews. Overlap of included reviews was also assessed. A total of 17 reviews, incorporating both the monovalent varicella only and quadrivalent measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccines were included in the overview; six assessed the safety of one-dose strategies, four assessed the safety of two-dose strategies and 14 reviews did not specify the dosing strategy. The evidence suggests that mild local and systemic reactions are relatively common with varicella vaccination. Febrile seizures are also possible adverse effects of both the monovalent and quadrivalent MMRV vaccine, but serious adverse reactions are rare. While most reviews contained methodological flaws, and analysis by vaccine type and dosing strategy was restricted due to lack of detail in reporting of the reviews, there was clear and consistent evidence from a substantial evidence base, comprising 34 randomised controlled trials and 62 other primary studies/reviews, that varicella vaccination is safe.

Clinical efficacy and effectiveness of alternative varicella vaccination strategies: An overview of reviews.

A number of countries have implemented universal childhood varicella vaccination programmes over the past 30 years. However, strategies differ in terms of dosing schedule (one- or two-dose), type of vaccine(s) recommended (monovalent, quadrivalent measles-mumps-rubella-varicella, or both), age at vaccination, and dosing interval for a two-dose schedule. An overview of reviews was undertaken to assess the existing systematic review evidence of the clinical efficacy/effectiveness of alternative varicella vaccination strategies. A comprehensive search of databases, registries and grey literature was conducted up to 2 February 2022. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews. A total of 20 reviews were included in the overview; 17 assessed the efficacy/effectiveness of one-dose strategies and 10 assessed the efficacy/effectiveness of two-dose strategies. Although the quality of most reviews was deemed 'critically low', there was clear and consistent evidence that vaccination is very effective at reducing varicella. While the analysis was restricted due to lack of detail in reporting of the reviews, the evidence suggests that two-dose strategies are more efficacious/effective than one-dose strategies in preventing varicella of any severity, but that both strategies have similar high efficacy/effectiveness in preventing moderate or severe varicella. Based on this evidence in this overview of reviews, a key consideration for policymakers on the possible introduction of a childhood varicella vaccination programme and the choice between a one- or two-dose strategy, will be whether the objective of a programme is to prevent varicella of any severity or to prevent moderate to severe varicella.

Effectiveness of rapid antigen testing for screening of asymptomatic individuals to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A rapid review.

Rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) offer advantages over gold-standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests in that they are cheaper and provide faster results, thus enabling prompt isolation of positive SARS-CoV-2 cases and quarantine of close contacts. The aim of this study was to collate and synthesise empirical evidence on the effectiveness of rapid antigen testing for the screening (including serial testing) and surveillance of asymptomatic individuals to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. A rapid review was undertaken in MEDLINE (EBSCO), EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Library, Europe PMC and Google Scholar up until 19 July 2021, supplemented by a grey literature search. Of the identified 1222 records, 19 reports referring to 16 studies were included. Eight included studies examined the effectiveness of RADTs for population-level screening, four for pre-event screening and four for serial testing (schools, a prison, a university sports programme and in care homes). Overall, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of rapid antigen testing for the screening of asymptomatic individuals to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. This uncertainty is due to the inconsistent results, the relatively low number of studies identified, the predominantly observational and/or uncontrolled nature of the study designs used, and concerns regarding methodological quality. Given this uncertainty, more real-world research evidence in relevant settings, which is of good quality and timely, as well as economic evaluation, is required to inform public policy on the widespread use of RADTs in asymptomatic individuals.

Metastatic gastroesophageal cancer in older patients - is this patient cohort represented in clinical trials?

BACKGROUND: Older patients are underrepresented in the clinical trials that determine the standards of care for oncological treatment. We conducted a review to identify whether there have been age-restrictive inclusion criteria in clinical trials over the last twenty five years, focusing on patients with metastatic gastroesophageal cancer. METHODS: A search strategy was developed encompassing Embase, PubMed and The Cochrane Library databases. Completed phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating systemic anti-cancer therapies in metastatic gastroesophageal malignancies from 1st January 1995 to 18th November 2020 were identified. These were screened for eligibility using reference management software (Covidence; Veritas Health Innovation Ltd). Data including age inclusion/exclusion criteria and median age of participants were recorded. The percentage of patients ≥ 65 enrolled was collected where available. The change over time in the proportion of studies using an upper age exclusion was estimated using a linear probability model. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-three phase III studies were identified and screened, with 66 trials remaining for final analysis. The majority of trials were Asian (48%; n = 32) and predominantly evaluated gastric malignancies, (86%; n = 56). The median age of participants was 62 (range 18-94). Thirty-two percent (n = 21) of studies specified an upper age limit for inclusion and over half of these were Asian studies. The median age of exclusion was 75 (range 65-80). All studies prior to 2003 used an upper age exclusion (n = 12); whereas only 9 that started in 2003 or later did (17%). Among later studies, there was a very modest downward yearly-trend in the proportion of studies using an upper age exclusion (-0.02 per year; 95%CI -0.05 to 0.01; p = 0.31). Fifty-two percent (n = 34) of studies specified the proportion of their study population who were ≥ 65 years. Older patients represented only 36% of the trial populations in these studies (range 7-60%). CONCLUSIONS: Recent years have seen improvements in clinical trial protocols, with many no longer specifying restrictive age criteria. Reasons for poor representation of older patients are complex and ongoing efforts are needed to broaden eligibility criteria and prioritise the inclusion of older adults in clinical trials.

Diagnostic Accuracy of 18F-Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) PET/CT Radiotracers in Staging and Restaging of Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer or Biochemical Recurrence: An Overview of Reviews.

The aim of this overview was to consolidate existing evidence syntheses and provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence for 18F-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT in the staging of high-risk prostate cancer and restaging after biochemical recurrence. An overview of reviews was performed and reported in line with the preferred reporting items for overview of reviews (PRIOR) statement and synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guidelines. A comprehensive database and grey literature search were conducted up to July 18, 2023. Systematic reviews were assessed using the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE). 11 systematic reviews were identified; 10 were at high or unclear risk of bias. Evidence reported on a per-patient, per-lymph node, and per-lesion basis for sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy was identified. There was a lack of data on dose, adverse events and evidence directly comparing 18F-PSMA PET/CT to other imaging modalities. Evidence with moderate to very low certainty indicated high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 18F-PSMA PET/CT in patients with high-risk prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence. There was considerably lower certainty evidence and greater variability in effect estimates for outcomes for the combined intermediate/high-risk cohort. While evidence gaps remain for some outcomes, and most systematic reviews were at high or unclear risk of bias, the current evidence base is broadly supportive of 18F-PSMA PET/CT imaging in the staging and restaging of patients with high-risk prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence.

Diagnostic accuracy of 18F Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) PET-CT radiotracers in staging and restaging of high-risk prostate cancer patients and patients with biochemical recurrence: protocol for an overview of reviews.

Background: Correct staging and risk stratification is essential in ensuring prostate cancer patients are offered the most appropriate treatment. Interest has been growing in the use of radiotracers targeting prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA), including the use of 18F-PSMA PET-CT, as part of the primary staging or restaging of prostate cancer. Preliminary scoping identified a number of relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, individually, these each appear to look at only part of the picture. An overview of reviews aims to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise multiple systematic reviews, related to a relevant research question or questions. We present a protocol for an overview of reviews, which aims to collate existing evidence syntheses exploring the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-PSMA in staging and restaging of prostate cancer. It also aims to highlight evidence gaps in prostate cancer staging or restaging. Methods: This protocol is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P). The search strategy will be designed in consultation with a librarian. Searches will be performed in Medline (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, supplemented by a targeted grey literature search, forward citation searching and searching reference lists of included reviews. No language or date restrictions will be applied to the eligibility criteria or the search strategy. Title & abstract and full text screening will be performed independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted by one reviewer and checked in full by a second reviewer. Quality appraisal will be performed using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool independently by two reviewers, and results will be narratively synthesised. Conclusions: This overview of reviews may be of interest to healthcare professionals, academics and health policy decision-makers. Registration: OSF (September 7, 2023).