Les vaccins contre le zona : efficacité, sécurité, et rapport coût/bénéfices [Vaccines against Herpes zoster: Effectiveness, safety, and cost/benefit ratio].

CONTEXT: A vaccination against herpes zoster and its complication is available in France since June 2015. Its exact benefit for public health is still controversial and its level of protection is not optimal. All those reasons seem to suggest a low acceptation rate from general practitioners. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness, the safety, and the cost/benefit ratio of the vaccination against herpes zoster in people aged 50 year or over. DOCUMENTARY SOURCE: Systematic review in Medline and PubMed with research by key words: "herpes zoster vaccine", "zoster vaccine" and "post herpetic neuralgia vaccine". SELECTION OF STUDIES: Randomized and observational studies published in English and French language have been selected by two readers. RESULTS: On 1886 articles identified, 62 studies were included in this systematic review of which 21 randomized trials, 21 observational studies, and 17 medico-economic studies concerned the unadjuvanted vaccine. Considered studies showed an effectiveness of 50% against herpes zoster and 60% on post-herpetic neuralgia incidence of the unadjuvanted vaccine. Five randomized controlled studies were identified for the adjuvanted vaccine. The overall effectiveness of this vaccine was > 90% whatever the age of subjects including those over age 70 and 80. The medico-economic studies conducted in many countries have shown that vaccine policies were beneficial in individuals aged 60 years or over. LIMITATION OF THE WORK: Most of data of effectiveness, and tolerance result from 2 large controlled studies only (SPS and ZEST) for the unadjuvanted vaccine and only one for the adjuvanted vaccine. CONCLUSION: Despite controversy and few uncertainties, the vaccine significantly reduces herpes zoster and its complication incidence. In terms of public health objectives, it reduces the burden of the disease and has a positive medico-economic impact. Preliminary data concerning the adjuvanted vaccine, whilst very promising, are still too limited. Up to now, no group of people with particularly high risk of herpes zoster-related complication who will beneficiate the most of the vaccination has been identified yet and only an age criteria has been considered for the recommendation.

Predicting the future effectiveness of protected areas for bird conservation in Mediterranean ecosystems under climate change and novel fire regime scenarios

AimGlobal environmental changes challenge traditional conservation approaches based on the selection of static protected areas due to their limited ability to deal with the dynamic nature of driving forces relevant to biodiversity. The Natura 2000 network (N2000) constitutes a major milestone in biodiversity conservation in Europe, but the degree to which this static network will be able to reach its long-term conservation objectives raises concern. We assessed the changes in the effectiveness of N2000 in a Mediterranean ecosystem between 2000 and 2050 under different combinations of climate and land cover change scenarios. LocationCatalonia, Spain. MethodsPotential distribution changes of several terrestrial bird species of conservation interest included in the European Union's Birds Directive were predicted within an ensemble-forecasting framework that hierarchically integrated climate change and land cover change scenarios. Land cover changes were simulated using a spatially explicit fire-succession model that integrates fire management strategies and vegetation encroachment after the abandonment of cultivated areas as the main drivers of landscape dynamics in Mediterranean ecosystems. ResultsOur results suggest that the amount of suitable habitats for the target species will strongly decrease both inside and outside N2000. However, the effectiveness of N2000 is expected to increase in the next decades because the amount of suitable habitats is predicted to decrease less inside than outside this network. Main conclusionsSuch predictions shed light on the key role that the current N2000may play in the near future and emphasize the need for an integrative conservation perspective wherein agricultural, forest and fire management policies should be considered to effectively preserve key habitats for threatened birds in fire-prone, highly dynamic Mediterranean ecosystems. Results also show the importance of considering landscape dynamics and the synergies between different driving forces when assessing the long-term effectiveness of protected areas for biodiversity conservation.

Cost-effectiveness of Tenofovir / Emtricitabine / Efavirenz versus Zidovudine / Lamivudine / Efavirenz as fist-line regimens for the treatment of HIV-infected patients in low-income settings

The Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) is the combination of at least three antiretroviral compounds. The combination purpose is to reduce the likelihood of drug resistance. However in the long-term the resistance to the first-line combination occurs and leads to treatment failure. Thus, a second-line and even a third-line regimen are recommended in the long run. [...] [P. 5] The two treatment alternatives under comparison: Tenofovir (300 mg) CO-formulated with Emtricitabine (200 mg) and Efavirenz (600 mg) currently known under the brand name Atripla (R) was introduced in July 2006 in the United States market. The excellent safety profile and ease of use make this combination a perfect first-line regimen in low-income settings. Therefore, this treatment option was recommended in WHO 2006 reviewed guidelines. Unfortunately, Tenofovir and Emtricitabine compounds are still costly and not yet widely available. For a matter of simplification this regimen is referred in this report as "the recent" therapy. Initially, we had in mind to consider the most frequently used first-line regimen in low-income countries (Stavudine / Larnivudme / Nevirapine) as a comparator for this economic evaluation. Unfortunately, according to the literature review results (see Annex 3); there was no data available comparing head to head the effectiveness of this regimen with the recent one. Instead, we selected a less frequently but commonly used first-line regimen in low-income countries as a comparator: Zidovudine, Lamivudine, Efavirenz. This combination has extensive experience in durability, safety and toxicity and seems to be an optimal choice for a first-line regimen according to the clinical trial group 384 team. Furthermore, Zidovudine, one of the compounds of this combination is now recommended as one of the preferred NNRTI [Non Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors] options to be considered by countries instead of Stavudine (the most used NNRTI in limited-income countries). As this combination has been included in the WHO guidelines as a first-line therapy since 2003 when WHO launched the "3 by 5" scaling-up initiative, this combination of drugs is referred in this report as the "old" therapy. Objectives: The primary objective of this economic evaluation is to compare the two first-line HAARTs introduced above, in a low-income setting context. Both of these combinations are recommended by the 2006 WHO guidelines as potential first-line regimens. The secondary objective is to provide a simplified and comprehensible cost-effectiveness modeling tool in order to help policy makers, in resource-limited settings, make decisions about which first-line HAART to fund using the scarce resources available. [P. 6-7]