Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Language
Publication year range
1.
Eur Respir J ; 49(1): [pii: 1601090], jan. 2017.
Article in English | BIGG - GRADE guidelines | ID: biblio-964104

ABSTRACT

The diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia is often confirmed with standard, albeit complex and expensive, tests. In many cases, however, the diagnosis remains difficult despite the array of sophisticated diagnostic tests. There is no "gold standard" reference test. Hence, a Task Force supported by the European Respiratory Society has developed this guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations on diagnostic testing, especially in light of new developments in such tests, and the need for robust diagnoses of patients who might enter randomised controlled trials of treatments. The guideline is based on pre-defined questions relevant for clinical care, a systematic review of the literature, and assessment of the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. It focuses on clinical presentation, nasal nitric oxide, analysis of ciliary beat frequency and pattern by high-speed video-microscopy analysis, transmission electron microscopy, genotyping and immunofluorescence. It then used a modified Delphi survey to develop an algorithm for the use of diagnostic tests to definitively confirm and exclude the diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia; and to provide advice when the diagnosis was not conclusive. Finally, this guideline proposes a set of quality criteria for future research on the validity of diagnostic methods for primary ciliary dyskinesia


Subject(s)
Humans , Child , Adult , Ciliary Motility Disorders/diagnosis , Fluorescent Antibody Technique , Microscopy, Video , Microscopy, Electron, Transmission , Diagnosis, Differential , GRADE Approach , Nitric Oxide/analysis
2.
Health Technol Assess ; 14(46): 1-130, 2010 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20923610

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of an AS03(B)/oil-in-water emulsion-adjuvanted (AS03(B)) split-virion versus non-adjuvanted whole-virion H1N1 influenza vaccine in UK children aged 6 months to 12 years. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, head-to-head, open-label trial. SETTING: Five UK sites (Oxford, Bristol, Southampton, Exeter and London). PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 6 months to < 13 years, for whom a parent or guardian had provided written informed consent and who were able to comply with study procedures, were eligible for inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: A tocopherol/oil-in-water emulsion-adjuvanted (AS03(B)) egg culture-derived split-virion H1N1 vaccine and a non-adjuvanted cell culture-derived whole-virion vaccine, given as a two-dose schedule, 21 days apart, were compared. Participants were grouped into those aged 6 months to < 3 years (younger group) and 3 years to < 13 years of age (older group) and were randomised by study investigators (1 : 1 ratio) to receive one of the two vaccines. Vaccines were administered by intramuscular injection (deltoid or anterior-lateral thigh, depending on age and muscle bulk). Local reactions and systemic symptoms were collected for 1 week post immunisation, and serum was collected at baseline and after the second dose. To assess safety and tolerability, parents or guardians recorded the following information in diary cards from days 0-7 post vaccination: axillary temperature, injection site reactions, solicited and unsolicited systemic symptoms, and medications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Comparison between vaccines of the percentage of participants demonstrating seroconversion by microneutralisation assay. RESULTS: Among 937 children receiving vaccine, per-protocol seroconversion rates were higher after the AS03(B)-adjuvanted vaccine than after the whole-virion vaccine (98.2% vs 80.1% in children < 3 years, 99.1% vs 95.9% among those aged 3-12 years), as were severe local reactions (3.6% vs 0.0% in those under 5 years, 7.8% vs 1.1% in those aged 5-12 years), irritability in children < 5 years (46.7% vs 32.0%), and muscle pain in older children (28.9% vs 13.2%). The second dose of the adjuvanted vaccine was more reactogenic than the first, especially for fever > 38.0°C in those under 5 years of age (8.9% vs 22.4%). CONCLUSION: The adjuvanted vaccine, although reactogenic, was more immunogenic, especially in younger children, indicating the potential for improved immunogenicity of influenza vaccines in this age group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN89141709.


Subject(s)
Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Polysorbates/administration & dosage , Squalene/administration & dosage , alpha-Tocopherol/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Viral/biosynthesis , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Child , Child, Preschool , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Drug Combinations , Emulsions , Female , Humans , Immunization Programs , Infant , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Influenza Vaccines/immunology , Influenza Vaccines/standards , Male , Program Evaluation , Squalene/immunology , United Kingdom , alpha-Tocopherol/immunology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL