Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children.

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, using a vaccine with the BRD2 strain which is only used in China, 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.

Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children.

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.

[Rt or RDt, that is the question!] / Rt or RDt, that is the question!

The article compares two of the most followed indices in the monitoring of COVID-19 epidemic cases: the Rt and the RDt indices. The first was disseminated by the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) and the second, which is more usable due to the lower difficulty of calculation and the availability of data, was adopted by various regional and local institutions.The rationale for the Rt index refers to that for the R0 index, the basic reproduction number, which is used by infectivologists as a measure of contagiousness of a given infectious agent in a completely susceptible population. The RDt index, on the other hand, is borrowed from the techniques of time series analysis for the trend of an event measurement that develops as a function of time. The RDt index does not take into account the time of infection, but the date of the diagnosis of positivity and for this reason it is defined as diagnostic replication index, as it aims to describe the intensity of the development of frequency for cases recognized as positive in the population.The comparison between different possible applications of the methods and the use of different types of monitoring data was limited to four areas for which complete individual data were available in March and April 2020. The main problems in the use of Rt, which is based on the date of symptoms onset, arise from the lack of completeness of this information due both to the difficulty in the recording and to the absence in asymptomatic subjects.The general trend of RDt, at least at an intermediate lag of 6 or 7 days, is very similar to that of Rt, as confirmed by the very high value of the correlation index between the two indices. The maximum correlation between Rt and RDt is reached at lag 7 with a value of R exceeding 0.97 (R2=0.944).The two indices, albeit formally distinct, are both valid; they show specific aspects of the phenomenon, but provide basically similar information to the public health decision-maker. Their distinction lies not so much in the method of calculation, rather in the use of different information, i.e., the beginning of symptoms and the swabs outcome.Therefore, it is not appropriate to make a judgment of preference for one of the two indices, but only to invite people to understand their different potentials so that they can choose the one they consider the most appropriate for the purpose they want to use it for.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children.

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.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

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%).

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly.

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.

Vitamin D for the management of multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: This review is an update of a previously published review, "Vitamin D for the management of multiple sclerosis" (published in the Cochrane Library; 2010, Issue 12). Multiple sclerosis (MS) is characterised by inflammation, demyelination, axonal or neuronal loss, and astrocytic gliosis in the central nervous system (CNS), which can result in varying levels of disability. Some studies have provided evidence showing an association of MS with low levels of vitamin D and benefit derived from its supplementation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefit and safety of vitamin D supplementation for reducing disease activity in people with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Specialized Register up to 2 October 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist with search terms relevant to this review. We included references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and from handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books from conferences. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared vitamin D versus placebo, routine care, or low doses of vitamin D in patients with MS. Vitamin D was administered as monotherapy or in combination with calcium. Concomitant interventions were allowed if they were used equally in all trial intervention groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of studies, while another review author sorted any disagreements. We expressed treatment effects as mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes (Expanded Disability Status Scale and number of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions), as standardised MDs for health-related quality of life, as rate differences for annualised relapse rates, and as risk differences (RDs) for serious adverse events and minor adverse events, together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 RCTs enrolling 933 participants with MS; 464 were randomised to the vitamin D group, and 469 to the comparator group. Eleven trials tested vitamin D3, and one trial tested vitamin D2. Vitamin D3 had no effect on the annualised relapse rate at 52 weeks' follow-up (rate difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.07; I² = 38%; five trials; 417 participants; very low-quality evidence according to the GRADE instrument); on the Expanded Disability Status Scale at 52 weeks' follow-up (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.10; I² = 35%; five trials; 221 participants; very low-quality evidence according to GRADE); and on MRI gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions at 52 weeks' follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.48; I² = 12%; two trials; 256 participants; very low-quality evidence according to GRADE). Vitamin D3 did not increase the risk of serious adverse effects within a range of 26 to 52 weeks' follow-up (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; I² = 35%; eight trials; 621 participants; low-quality evidence according to GRADE) or minor adverse effects within a range of 26 to 96 weeks' follow-up (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06; I² = 20%; eight trials; 701 participants; low-quality evidence according to GRADE). Three studies reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using different HRQOL scales. One study reported that vitamin D improved ratings on the psychological and social components of the HRQOL scale but had no effects on the physical components. The other two studies found no effect of vitamin D on HRQOL. Two studies reported fatigue using different scales. One study (158 participants) reported that vitamin D3 reduced fatigue compared with placebo at 26 weeks' follow-up. The other study (71 participants) found no effect on fatigue at 96 weeks' follow-up. Seven studies reported on cytokine levels, four on T-lymphocyte proliferation, and one on matrix metalloproteinase levels, with no consistent pattern of change in these immunological outcomes. The randomised trials included in this review provided no data on time to first treated relapse, number of participants requiring hospitalisation owing to progression of the disease, proportion of participants who remained relapse-free, cognitive function, or psychological symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To date, very low-quality evidence suggests no benefit of vitamin D for patient-important outcomes among people with MS. Vitamin D appears to have no effect on recurrence of relapse, worsening of disability measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and MRI lesions. Effects on health-related quality of life and fatigue are unclear. Vitamin D3 at the doses and treatment durations used in the included trials appears to be safe, although available data are limited. Seven ongoing studies will likely provide further evidence that can be included in a future update of this review.

Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Interferons-beta (IFNs-beta) and glatiramer acetate (GA) were the first two disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved 20 years ago for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). DMTs' prescription rates as first or switching therapies and their costs have both increased substantially over the past decade. As more DMTs become available, the choice of a specific DMT should reflect the risk/benefit profile, as well as the impact on quality of life. As MS cohorts enrolled in different studies can vary significantly, head-to-head trials are considered the best approach for gaining objective reliable data when two different drugs are compared. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarise available evidence on the comparative effectiveness of IFNs-beta and GA on disease course through the analysis of head-to-head trials.This is an update of the Cochrane review 'Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis' (first published in the Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 7). OBJECTIVES: To assess whether IFNs-beta and GA differ in terms of safety and efficacy in the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting (RR) MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Trials Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group (08 August 2016) and the reference lists of retrieved articles. We contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing directly IFNs-beta versus GA in study participants affected by RRMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were included and five trials contributed to this review with data. A total of 2904 participants were randomly assigned to IFNs (1704) and GA (1200). The treatment duration was three years for one study, two years for the other four RCTs while one study was stopped early (after one year). The IFNs analysed in comparison with GA were IFN-beta 1b 250 mcg (two trials, 933 participants), IFN-beta 1a 44 mcg (three trials, 466 participants) and IFN-beta 1a 30 mcg (two trials, 305 participants). Enrolled participants were affected by active RRMS. All studies were at high risk for attrition bias. Three trials are still ongoing, one of them completed.Both therapies showed similar clinical efficacy at 24 months, given the primary outcome variables (number of participants with relapse (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.24) or progression (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35). However at 36 months, evidence from a single study suggests that relapse rates were higher in the group given IFNs than in the GA group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, P value 0.002).Secondary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes analysis showed that effects on new or enlarging T2- or new contrast-enhancing T1 lesions at 24 months were similar (mean difference (MD) -0.15, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.39, and MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.02, respectively). However, the reduction in T2- and T1-weighted lesion volume was significantly greater in the groups given IFNs than in the GA groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.18, P value 0.004, and MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.07, P value 0.003, respectively).The number of participants who dropped out of the study because of adverse events was similar in the two groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.40).The quality of evidence for primary outcomes was judged as moderate for clinical end points, but for safety and some MRI outcomes (number of active T2 lesions), quality was judged as low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of IFNs-beta and GA in the treatment of people with RRMS, including clinical (e.g. people with relapse, risk to progression) and MRI (Gd-enhancing lesions) measures, seem to be similar or to show only small differences. When MRI lesion load accrual is considered, the effect of the two treatments differs, in that IFNs-beta were found to limit the increase in lesion burden as compared with GA. Evidence was insufficient for a comparison of the effects of the two treatments on patient-reported outcomes, such as quality-of-life measures.

Comparative efficacy of interferon ß versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Interferon ß (INFß) and glatiramer acetate (GA) are widely used in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). However, it is still unclear whether they have different efficacy. We performed a systematic search of head-to-head trials for gaining objective reliable data to compare the two drugs, using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. We identified five randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) (2858 participants) comparing directly INFß versus GA in RRMS. All studies were at high risk for attrition bias. Both therapies showed similar efficacy at 24 months, considering clinical (patients with relapse or progression) and one MRI activity (enhancing lesions) measure. At 3 years, evidence from a single study showed that the relapse rate was higher in the INFß group than in the GA group (risk ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, p 0.002). However, the average reduction in T2-weighted and T1-weighted lesion volume was significantly greater in the INFß group than in the GA group (mean difference (MD) -0.58, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.18, p 0.004, and MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.07, p 0.003, respectively). The number of participants who dropped out of the studies because of adverse events was similar in the two groups. These data support clinicians in the use of these therapies, based on their similar safety and efficacy in the prevention of disease activity, although the different effect on MRI measures and the different tolerability might have a role in the therapeutic choice at the individual level.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Different types of influenza vaccines are currently produced worldwide. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally, while healthy adults are targeted in North America. OBJECTIVES: To identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating 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) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2013) and EMBASE (1990 to May 2013). 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. We also included comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 90 reports containing 116 data sets; among these 69 were clinical trials of over 70,000 people, 27 were comparative cohort studies (about eight million people) and 20 were case-control studies (nearly 25,000 people). We retrieved 23 reports of the effectiveness and safety of vaccine administration in pregnant women (about 1.6 million mother-child couples).The overall effectiveness of parenteral inactivated vaccine against influenza-like illness (ILI) is limited, corresponding to a number needed to vaccinate (NNV) of 40 (95% confidence interval (CI) 26 to 128). The overall efficacy of inactivated vaccines in preventing confirmed influenza has a NNV of 71 (95% CI 64 to 80). The difference between these two values depends on the different incidence of ILI and confirmed influenza among the study populations: 15.6% of unvaccinated participants versus 9.9% of vaccinated participants developed ILI symptoms, whilst only 2.4% and 1.1%, respectively, developed laboratory-confirmed influenza.No RCTs assessing vaccination in pregnant women were found. The only evidence available comes from observational studies with modest methodological quality. On this basis, vaccination shows very limited effects: NNV 92 (95% CI 63 to 201) against ILI in pregnant women and NNV 27 (95% CI 18 to 185) against laboratory-confirmed influenza in newborns from vaccinated women.Live aerosol vaccines have an overall effectiveness corresponding to a NNV 46 (95% CI 29 to 115).The performance of one-dose or two-dose whole virion pandemic vaccines was higher, showing a NNV of 16 (95% CI 14 to 20) against ILI and a NNV of 35 (95% CI 33 to 47) against influenza, while a limited impact on hospitalisation was found (NNV 94, 95% CI 70 to 1022).Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms. No evidence of association with serious adverse events was found, but the harms evidence base was limited.The overall risk of bias in the included trials is unclear because it was not possible to assess the real impact of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccines have a very modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost in the general population, including pregnant women. No evidence of association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events was found in the comparative studies considered in the review. This review includes 90 studies, 24 of which (26.7%) were funded totally or partially by industry. Out of the 48 RCTs, 17 were industry-funded (35.4%).

Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Interferons (IFNs)-beta and glatiramer acetate (GA) were the first two disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved 15 years ago for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). DMTs prescription rates as first or switching therapies and their costs have increased substantially over the past decade. As more DMTs become available, the choice of a specific DMT should reflect the risk/benefit profile, as well as the impact on quality profile. As MS cohorts enrolled in different studies can vary significantly, head-to-head trials are considered the best approach for gaining objective reliable data when two different drugs are compared. The purpose of this study is to summarise available evidence on the comparative effectiveness of IFNs-beta and GA on disease course through a systematic review of head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether IFNs-beta and GA differ in terms of safety and efficacy in the treatment of patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Trials Specialised Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group (29 October 2013) and the reference lists of retrieved articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing directly IFNs-beta versus GA in study participants affected by RRMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials contributed to this review. A total of 2858 participants were randomly assigned to IFNs (1679) and GA (1179). The treatment duration was three years for one study and two years for the other four RCTs. The IFNs analysed in comparison with GA were IFN-beta 1b 250 mcg (two trials, 933 participants), IFN-beta 1a 44 mcg (two trials, 441 participants) and IFN-beta 1a 30 mcg (two trials, 305 participants). Enrolled participants were affected by active RRMS. All studies were at high risk for attrition bias.Both therapies showed similar clinical efficacy at 24 months, given the primary outcome variables (number of participants with relapse (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.24) or progression (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35)). However at 36 months, evidence from a single study suggests that relapse rates were higher in the group given IFNs than in the GA group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.7, P value 0.002).Secondary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes analysis showed that effects on new or enlarging T2- or gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions at 24 months were similar (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26, and MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.02, respectively). However, the reduction in T2- and T1-weighted lesion volume was significantly greater in the groups given IFNs than in the GA groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.18, P value 0.004, and MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.07, P value 0.003, respectively).The number of participants who dropped out of the study because of adverse events was similar in the two groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.40).The quality of evidence for primary outcomes was judged as moderate for clinical end points, but for safety and some MRI outcomes (number of active T2 lesions), quality was judged as low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of IFNs-beta and GA in the treatment of patients with RRMS, including clinical (e.g. patients with relapse, risk to progression) and MRI (Gd-enhancing lesions) activity measures, seem to be similar or to show only small differences. When MRI lesion load accrual is considered, the effect of the two treatments differs, in that IFNs-beta were found to limit the increase in lesion burden as compared with GA. Evidence was insufficient for a comparison of the effects of the two treatments on patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life measures.

Avoidance of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs after negative provocation tests in urticaria/angioedema reactions: Real-world experience.

Drug provocation tests (DPTs) are the gold standard in diagnosing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) hypersensitivity; however, only few data about follow-up of patients with negative DPTs are actually available. The aim of this study was to assess patients' behavior in taking NSAIDs again and to evaluate NSAID tolerability after negative allergological workup. This is a follow-up study involving patients evaluated for history of cutaneous reactions (urticaria and or angioedema) after NSAID intake and with negative DPTs with the suspected NSAID. Patients were asked during a phone interview about the intake of NSAIDs, tolerance, or reasons of avoidance. The negative predictive value (NPV) of NSAIDs DPTs was calculated. One hundred eleven of 142 patients were successfully contacted; 46/111 (41.44%) took the same NSAID previously tested with two adverse reactions reported (4.34%). Fifty-three of 111 (47.74%) patients did not take the same NSAID, but 34 of them took at least another strong cyclooxygenase (COX) 1 inhibitor, with 1 adverse reaction (2.94%) and 19 of them took only weak COX-1 inhibitors. Twelve of 111 patients (10.8%) did not take any NSAID. Reasons for drug avoidance were mainly fear of reactions (70.8%) and no need (29.2%). NPV, overall, was 96.97% (95% confidence interval, 91-99%). Although NSAID hypersensitivity diagnosis was ruled out by oral provocation test, the majority of patients with a history of urticaria/angioedema avoided the intake of the tested NSAIDs for fear of new reactions, particularly when strong COX-1 inhibitor NSAIDs were involved. The high NPV value of DPT resulting from this study should reassure NSAID intake.

Interferon ß for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether recombinant ß interferons (IFNß) can be effective in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). The aim was to determine whether IFNß can reduce the risk of disability and cognitive impairment progression in SPMS. METHODS: Using Cochrane methodology, we reviewed all randomised placebo controlled trials of IFNß in SPMS patients (1995-March 2012). RESULTS: 5 trials (3082 patients) were included. After 3 years, interferons did not reduce disability progression, confirmed at 6 months (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16). A small reduction in the number of patients who had relapses during the first 3 years of treatment (RR 0.91, 0.84 to 0.97) was found. No analysis of cognitive data was possible. More treated than placebo patients dropped out for adverse events. CONCLUSION: 3 year treatment with IFNß does not delay permanent disability in SPMS but reduces relapse risk, indicating that the anti-inflammatory effect of IFNß is unable to prevent MS progression once it has become established.

Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different therapeutic strategies are available for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) including immunosuppressants, immunomodulators, and monoclonal antibodies. Their relative effectiveness in the prevention of relapse or disability progression is unclear due to the limited number of direct comparison trials. A summary of the results, including both direct and indirect comparisons of treatment effects, may help to clarify the above uncertainty. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the relative efficacy and acceptability of interferon ß-1b (IFNß-1b) (Betaseron), interferon ß-1a (IFNß-1a) (Rebif and Avonex), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, intravenous immunoglobulins, and long-term corticosteroids versus placebo or another active agent in participants with MS and to provide a ranking of the treatments according to their effectiveness and risk-benefit balance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports. The most recent search was run in February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one of the 11 treatments for use in adults with MS and that reported our pre-specified efficacy outcomes were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Identifying search results and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Data synthesis was performed by pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis that was performed within a Bayesian framework. The body of evidence for outcomes within the pairwise meta-analysis was assessed according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate, or high quality. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-four trials were included in this review, in which 17,401 participants had been randomised. Twenty-three trials included relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) (9096 participants, 52%), 18 trials included progressive MS (7726, 44%), and three trials included both RRMS and progressive MS (579, 3%). The majority of the included trials were short-term studies, with the median duration being 24 months. The results originated mostly from 33 trials on IFNß, glatiramer acetate, and natalizumab that overall contributed outcome data for 9881 participants (66%).From the pairwise meta-analysis, there was high quality evidence that natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) were effective against recurrence of relapses in RRMS during the first 24 months of treatment compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.43; OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71, respectively); they were more effective than IFNß-1a (Avonex) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.36; OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.60, respectively). IFNß-1b (Betaseron) and mitoxantrone probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having clinical relapses compared to placebo (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.54, respectively) but the quality of evidence for these treatments was graded as moderate. From the network meta-analysis, the most effective drug appeared to be natalizumab (median OR versus placebo 0.29, 95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.17 to 0.51), followed by IFNß-1a (Rebif) (median OR versus placebo 0.44, 95% CrI 0.24 to 0.70), mitoxantrone (median OR versus placebo 0.43, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.87), glatiramer acetate (median OR versus placebo 0.48, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.75), IFNß-1b (Betaseron) (median OR versus placebo 0.48, 95% CrI 0.29 to 0.78). However, our confidence was moderate for direct comparison of mitoxantrone and IFNB-1b vs placebo and very low for direct comparison of glatiramer vs placebo. The relapse outcome for RRMS at three years' follow-up was not reported by any of the included trials.Disability progression was based on surrogate markers in the majority of included studies and was unavailable for RRMS beyond two to three years. The pairwise meta-analysis suggested, with moderate quality evidence, that natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having disability progression at two years' follow-up, with an absolute reduction of 14% and 10%, respectively, compared to placebo. Natalizumab and IFNß-1b (Betaseron) were significantly more effective (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.78; OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70, respectively) than IFNß-1a (Avonex) in reducing the number of the participants with RRMS who had progression at two years' follow-up, and confidence in this result was graded as moderate. From the network meta-analyses, mitoxantrone appeared to be the most effective agent in decreasing the odds of the participants with RRMS having progression at two years' follow-up, but our confidence was very low for direct comparison of mitoxantrone vs placebo. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis revealed that none of the individual agents included in this review were effective in preventing disability progression over two or three years in patients with progressive MS.There was not a dose-effect relationship for any of the included treatments with the exception of mitoxantrone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review should provide some guidance to clinicians and patients. On the basis of high quality evidence, natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) are superior to all other treatments for preventing clinical relapses in RRMS in the short-term (24 months) compared to placebo. Moderate quality evidence supports a protective effect of natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) against disability progression in RRMS in the short-term compared to placebo. These treatments are associated with long-term serious adverse events and their benefit-risk balance might be unfavourable. IFNß-1b (Betaseron) and mitoxantrone probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having relapses, compared with placebo (moderate quality of evidence). The benefit-risk balance with azathioprine is uncertain, however this agent might be effective in decreasing the odds of the participants with RRMS having relapses and disability progression over 24 to 36 months, compared with placebo. The lack of convincing efficacy data shows that IFNß-1a (Avonex), intravenous immunoglobulins, cyclophosphamide and long-term steroids have an unfavourable benefit-risk balance in RRMS. None of the included treatments are effective in decreasing disability progression in patients with progressive MS. It is important to consider that the clinical effects of all these treatments beyond two years are uncertain, a relevant point for a disease of 30 to 40 years duration. Direct head-to-head comparison(s) between natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) or between azathioprine and IFNß-1a (Rebif) should be top priority on the research agenda and follow-up of the trial cohorts should be mandatory.

Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.

BACKGROUND: Mumps, measles and rubella (MMR) are serious diseases that can lead to potentially fatal illness, 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. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects associated with the MMR vaccine in children up to 15 years of age. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, PubMed (July 2004 to May week 2, 2011) and Embase.com (July 2004 to May 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: We used comparative prospective or retrospective trials assessing the effects of the MMR vaccine compared to placebo, do nothing or a combination of measles, mumps and rubella antigens on healthy individuals up to 15 years of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality of the included studies. One review author arbitrated in case of disagreement. MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one controlled clinical trial (CCT), 27 cohort studies, 17 case-control studies, five time-series trials, one case cross-over trial, two ecological studies, six self controlled case series studies involving in all about 14,700,000 children and assessing effectiveness and safety of MMR vaccine. Based on the available evidence, one MMR vaccine dose is at least 95% effective in preventing clinical measles and 92% effective in preventing secondary cases among household contacts.Effectiveness of at least one dose of MMR in preventing clinical mumps in children is estimated to be between 69% and 81% for the vaccine prepared with Jeryl Lynn mumps strain and between 70% and 75% for the vaccine containing the Urabe strain. Vaccination with MMR containing the Urabe strain has demonstrated to be 73% effective in preventing secondary mumps cases. Effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR in preventing laboratory-confirmed mumps cases in children and adolescents was estimated to be between 64% to 66% for one dose and 83% to 88% for two vaccine doses. We did not identify any studies assessing the effectiveness of MMR in preventing rubella.The highest risk of association with aseptic meningitis was observed within the third week after immunisation with Urabe-containing MMR (risk ratio (RR) 14.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) from 7.93 to 25.71) and within the third (RR 22.5; 95% CI 11.8 to 42.9) or fifth (RR 15.6; 95% CI 10.3 to 24.2) weeks after immunisation with the vaccine prepared with the Leningrad-Zagreb strain. A significant risk of association with febrile seizures and MMR exposure during the two previous weeks (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15) was assessed in one large person-time cohort study involving 537,171 children aged between three months and five year of age. Increased risk of febrile seizure has also been observed in children aged between 12 to 23 months (relative incidence (RI) 4.09; 95% CI 3.1 to 5.33) and children aged 12 to 35 months (RI 5.68; 95% CI 2.31 to 13.97) within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine. An increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR immunisation in children aged 12 to 23 months was assessed in one case-control study (RR 6.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 30.1) and in one small self controlled case series (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 5.38; 95% CI 2.72 to 10.62). Increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR exposure was also assessed in one other case-control study involving 2311 children and adolescents between one month and 18 years (odds ratio (OR) 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7). Exposure to the MMR vaccine was unlikely to be associated with autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, bacterial or viral infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children.

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. OBJECTIVES: To appraise all comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in healthy children, assess vaccine efficacy (prevention of confirmed influenza) and effectiveness (prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI)) and document adverse events associated with influenza vaccines. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, OLD MEDLINE (1950 to 1965), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2011), EMBASE (1974 to November 2011), Biological Abstracts (1969 to September 2007), and Science Citation Index (1974 to September 2007). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies of any influenza vaccine in healthy children under 16 years of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 studies with about 300,000 observations. We included 17 RCTs, 19 cohort studies and 11 case-control studies in the analysis of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. Evidence from RCTs shows that six children under the age of six need to be vaccinated with live attenuated vaccine to prevent one case of influenza (infection and symptoms). We could find no usable data for those aged two years or younger.Inactivated vaccines in children aged two years or younger are not significantly more efficacious than placebo. Twenty-eight children over the age of six need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza (infection and symptoms). Eight need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza-like-illness (ILI). We could find no evidence of effect on secondary cases, lower respiratory tract disease, drug prescriptions, otitis media and its consequences and socioeconomic impact. We found weak single-study evidence of effect on school absenteeism by children and caring parents from work. Variability in study design and presentation of data was such that a meta-analysis of safety outcome data was not feasible. Extensive evidence of reporting bias of safety outcomes from trials of live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) impeded meaningful analysis. One specific brand of monovalent pandemic vaccine is associated with cataplexy and narcolepsy in children and there is sparse evidence of serious harms (such as febrile convulsions) in specific situations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccines are efficacious in preventing cases of influenza in children older than two years of age, but little evidence is available for children younger than two years of age. There was a difference between vaccine efficacy and effectiveness, partly due to differing datasets, settings and viral circulation patterns. No safety comparisons could be carried out, emphasising the need for standardisation of methods and presentation of vaccine safety data in future studies. In specific cases, influenza vaccines were associated with serious harms such as narcolepsy and febrile convulsions. It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months of age in the USA, Canada, parts of Europe and Australia. If immunisation in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes, and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required. The degree of scrutiny needed to identify all global cases of potential harms is beyond the resources of this review. This review includes trials funded by industry. An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry-funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding.

Interferon beta for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Therapy with either recombinant beta-1a or beta-1b interferons (IFNs) is worldwide approved for Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS). A major unanswered question is whether this treatment is able to safely reverse or retard the progressive phase of the disease. OBJECTIVES: The main objective was to verify whether IFNs treatment in Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (SPMS) is more effective than placebo in reducing the number of patients who experience disability progression. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis Group's Trials Register (1995 to 15 February 2011), the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings. Regulatory agencies were used as additional sources of information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised, double or single blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of IFNs versus placebo in SPMS patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all reports retrieved from the search. They independently extracted clinical, safety and MRI data, using a predefined data extraction form, resolving disagreements after discussion with a third reviewer. Risk of bias was evaluated to assess the quality of the studies. Treatment effect was measured using Risk Ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the binary outcomes and Standard Mean Difference with 95% CI for the continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs met the inclusion criteria, from which 3122 (1829 IFN and 1293 placebo) treated patients contributed to the analysis. Included population was heterogeneous in terms of baseline clinical characteristics of the disease, in particular the percentage of patients affected by secondary progression with superimposed relapse ranging from 72% to 44%. IFN beta 1a and 1b did not decrease the risk of progression sustained at 6 months (RR, 95% CI: 0.98, [0.82-1.16]) after three years of treatment. A significant decrease of the risk of progression sustained at 3 months (RR, 95% CI: 0.88 [0.80, 0.97]) and of the risk of developing new relapses at three years (RR 0.91, [0.84-0.97]) were found. The risk of developing new active brain lesions decreased over time but this data was obtained from single studies on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), performed in subgroups of patients; in spite of no effect on progression, the radiological data supported an effect on MRI parameters. The safety profile reflects what is commonly reported in MS IFN-treated patients. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Well designed RCTs, evaluating a high number of patients were included in the review. Recombinant IFN beta does not prevent the development of permanent physical disability in SPMS. We were unable to verify the effect on cognitive function for the lack of comparable data. This treatment significantly reduces the risk of relapse and of short -term relapse-related disability.Overall, these results show that IFNs' anti-inflammatory effect is unable to retard progression, when established. In the future, no new RCTs for IFNs versus placebo in SPMS will probably be undertaken, because research is now focusing on innovative drugs. We believe that this review gives conclusive evidence on the clinical efficacy of IFNs versus placebo in SPMS.

Dietary interventions for multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and experimental data suggest that certain dietary regimens, particularly those including polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and vitamins, might improve outcomes in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Diets and dietary supplements are much used by people with MS in the belief that they might improve disease outcomes and overcome the effectiveness limits of conventional treatments.This is an update of the Cochrane review "Dietary intervention for multiple sclerosis" (first published on The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1). OBJECTIVES: To answer MS patients' questions regarding the efficacy and safety of dietary regimens for MS. Can changes in dietary habits be an effective intervention for MS patients? Are the potential side effects of these interventions known, and have they been measured? Are potential interactions between dietary interventions and other curative or symptomatic treatments known and have they been studied? SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Specialised Register (November 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1966 to November 2011), EMBASE (embase.com) (1974 to November 2011) and reference lists of papers found. SELECTION CRITERIA: All controlled trials (randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs)) on a specific dietary intervention, diet plan or dietary supplementation, except for vitamin D supplementation, compared to no dietary modification or placebo were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected articles, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were entered and analysed in RevMan.Dichotomous data were summarised as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using a random-effects model in the presence of heterogeneity (I² > 60%). Continuous data were analysed using weighted mean differences, determined by the difference between the pre- and post-intervention changes in the treatment and control groups. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs that investigated PUFAs emerged from the search strategy, accounting for 794 randomised patients.PUFAs did not have a significant effect on disease progression at 24 months. Omega-6 fatty acids (11 to 23 g/day linoleic acid) didn't show any benefit in 144 MS patients (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63). Linoleic acid (2.9 to 3.4 g/day) had no benefit in 65 chronic progressive MS patients (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.42). Omega-3 fatty acids had no benefit in 292 relapsing remitting MS patients (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.03, P = 0.08).Slight potential benefits in relapse outcomes were associated with omega-6 fatty acids in some studies, however these findings were limited by the reduced validity of the endpoints. No judgements about safety or patient-reported outcomes were possible. In general, trial quality was poor.No studies on vitamin supplementation and allergen-free diets were analysed as none met the eligibility criteria, mainly due to lack of clinical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PUFAs seem to have no major effect on the main clinical outcome in MS (disease progression), but they may tend to reduce the frequency of relapses over two years. However, the data that are available are insufficient to assess a real benefit or harm from PUFA supplementation because of their uncertain quality.Evidence on the possible benefits and risks of vitamin supplementation and antioxidant supplements in MS is lacking. More research is required to assess the effectiveness of dietary interventions in MS.

Provocation tests with the offending nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with urticaria/angioedema reactions.

The provocation test (PT) with the suspected drug represents the gold standard in the diagnosis of non-IgE hypersensitivity reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Nevertheless, there is no consensus regarding the clinical management of suspected NSAID-sensitive patients. This study assessed if a PT with the suspected drug is a reliable and safe proceeding to confirm NSAID hypersensitivity in patients with a clinical history of urticaria/angioedema (Urt/AE). It also analyzed different patient characteristics (such as gender, age, atopy, dermographism, time interval between the last drug reaction, and number of previous NSAID reactions) in relation to PT positivity. One hundred fifty-nine patients with Urt/AE apparently related to assumption of one or more NSAIDs underwent PT with the suspected drugs. Moreover, to distinguish single/multiple NSAID reactivity in patients who did not tolerate the offending NSAID, another strong cyclooxygenase-1 inhibitor PT was performed. PT was negative in 142/159 patients (89.31%), ruling out a diagnosis of NSAIDs hypersensitivity; 17/159 patients (10.69%) experienced a reaction of Urt/AE during the PT: 8 patients were diagnosed as single reactors to NSAIDs and 4 as multiple reactors to NSAIDs. Those with a history of multiple NSAID reactions and male patients were both more likely to have a positive PT. Our results suggest that in all patients with history of NSAID cutaneous reactions, the NSAID hypersensitivity should be confirmed by an oral PT and that the diagnostic proceeding can safely start with the offending NSAID.

Natalizumab for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Natalizumab (NTZ) (Tysabri(®)) is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits leukocyte migration across the blood-brain barrier, thus reducing inflammation in central nervous system, and has been approved worldwide for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and safety of NTZ in the treatment of patients with RRMS. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 2010, Issue 1), MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE, all up to 19 February 2010, and bibliographies of papers. Handsearching was carried out. Trialists and pharmaceutical companies were contacted. Furthermore, the websites of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMA) and the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) were also checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: All double-blind, randomised, controlled trials analysing more than a single infusion of NTZ (dosage > 3 mg/kg intravenous infusion every 4 weeks), also including its use as add-on treatment, versus placebo or other drugs in patients with RRMS. No restrictions on the basis of duration of treatment or length of follow up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently selected articles which met the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were solved by discussion. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of each trial. Missing data was sought by contacting principal authors and Biogen Idec, through Biogen-Dompé Italia. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies met the inclusion criteria. These included one placebo-controlled trial (942 patients) and two add-on placebo-controlled trials, i.e. one plus glatiramer acetate (110 patients) and the second plus interferon beta-1a (1171 patients).This review assessed the efficacy, tolerability and safety of NTZ in patients with RRMS. Data was conclusive with respect to efficacy and tolerability, but not safety. As far as efficacy is concerned, the results showed statistically significant evidence in favour of NTZ for all the primary outcomes and for the secondary ones where data was available. NTZ reduced the risk of experiencing at least one new exacerbation at 2 years by about 40% and of experiencing progression at 2 years by about 25% as compared to a control group. MRI parameters showed statistical evidence in favour of participants receiving NTZ. Infusion reactions, anxiety, sinus congestion, lower limb swelling, rigors, vaginitis and menstrual disorders were reported as adverse events (AEs) more frequently after NTZ treatment. In this review NTZ was found to be well tolerated over a follow-up period of two years: the number of patients experiencing at least one AE (including severe and serious AEs) during this period did not differ between NTZ-treated patients and controls. Safety concerns have been raised about Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy (PML). In the trials included in this review, two cases of PML were encountered: one in a patient who had received 29 doses of NTZ and a second fatal case of PML in another patient after 37 doses of NTZ. Our protocol was insufficient to evaluate PML risk as well as other rare and long-term adverse events such as cancers and other opportunistic infections, which are very important issues in considering the risk/benefit ratio of NTZ. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although one trial did not contribute to efficacy results due to its duration, we found robust evidence in favour of a reduction in relapses and disability at 2 years in RRMS patients treated with NTZ. The drug was well tolerated. There are current significant safety concerns due to reporting of an increasing number of PML cases in patients treated with NTZ. This review was unable to provide an up-to-date systematic assessment of the risk due to the maximum 2 year-duration of the trials included. An independent systematic review of the safety profile of NTZ is warranted. NTZ should be used only by skilled neurologists in MS centres under surveillance programs.All the data in this review came from trials supported by the Pharmaceutical Industry. In agreement with the Cochrane Collaboration policy, this may be considered a potential source of bias.