Measles vaccination in HIV-infected children: systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and immunogenicity

Background. Measles control may be more challenging in regions with a high prevalence of HIV infection. HIV-infected children are likely to derive particular benefit from measles vaccines because of an increased risk of severe illness. However, HIV infection can impair vaccine effectiveness and may increase the risk of serious adverse events after receipt of live vaccines. We conducted a systematic review to assess the safety and immunogenicity of measles vaccine in HIV-infected children. Methods. The authors searched 8 databases through 12 February 2009 and reference lists. Study selection and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. Meta-analysis was conducted when appropriate. Results. Thirty-nine studies published from 1987 through 2008 were included. In 19 studies with information about measles vaccine safety, more than half reported no serious adverse events. Among HIV-infected children, 59% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 46–71%) were seropositive after receiving standard-titer measles vaccine at 6 months (1 study), comparable to the proportion of seropositive HIV-infected children vaccinated at 9 (8 studies) and 12 months (10 studies). Among HIV-exposed but uninfected and HIV-unexposed children, the proportion of seropositive children increased with increasing age at vaccination. Fewer HIV-infected children were protected after vaccination at 12 months than HIV-exposed but uninfected children (relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, .50–.73). Conclusions. Measles vaccines appear to be safe in HIV-infected children, but the evidence is limited. When the burden of measles is high, measles vaccination at 6 months of age is likely to benefit children of HIV-infected women, regardless of the child's HIV infection status.

Comparative effectiveness of long term drug treatment strategies to prevent asthma exacerbations: network meta-analysis

Objective To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of current maintenance strategies in preventing exacerbations of asthma. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis using Bayesian statistics. Data sources Cochrane systematic reviews on chronic asthma, complemented by an updated search when appropriate. Eligibility criteria Trials of adults with asthma randomised to maintenance treatments of at least 24 weeks duration and that reported on asthma exacerbations in full text. Low dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment was the comparator strategy. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of severe exacerbations. The secondary outcome was the composite of moderate or severe exacerbations. The rate of withdrawal was analysed as a safety outcome. Results 64 trials with 59 622 patient years of follow-up comparing 15 strategies and placebo were included. For prevention of severe exacerbations, combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists as maintenance and reliever treatment and combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists in a fixed daily dose performed equally well and were ranked first for effectiveness. The rate ratios compared with low dose inhaled corticosteroids were 0.44 (95% credible interval 0.29 to 0.66) and 0.51 (0.35 to 0.77), respectively. Other combined strategies were not superior to inhaled corticosteroids and all single drug treatments were inferior to single low dose inhaled corticosteroids. Safety was best for conventional best (guideline based) practice and combined maintenance and reliever therapy. Conclusions Strategies with combined inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β agonists are most effective and safe in preventing severe exacerbations of asthma, although some heterogeneity was observed in this network meta-analysis of full text reports.

Initial orthodontic alignment effectiveness with self-ligating and conventional appliances: a network meta-analysis in practice.

Systematic reviews of well-designed trials constitute a high level of scientific evidence and are important for medical decision making. Meta-analysis facilitates integration of the evidence using a transparent and systematic approach, leading to a broader interpretation of treatment effectiveness and safety than can be attained from individual studies. Traditional meta-analyses are limited to comparing just 2 interventions concurrently and cannot combine evidence concerning multiple treatments. A relatively recent extension of the traditional meta-analytical approach is network meta-analysis, which allows, under certain assumptions, the quantitative synthesis of all evidence under a unified framework and across a network of all eligible trials. Network meta-analysis combines evidence from direct and indirect information via common comparators; interventions can therefore be ranked in terms of the analyzed outcome. In this article, the network meta-analysis approach is introduced in a nontechnical manner using a worked example on the treatment effectiveness of conventional and self-ligating appliances.

The ring vaccination trial: a novel cluster randomised controlled trial design to evaluate vaccine efficacy and effectiveness during outbreaks, with special reference to Ebola

A World Health Organization expert meeting on Ebola vaccines proposed urgent safety and efficacy studies in response to the outbreak in West Africa. One approach to communicable disease control is ring vaccination of individuals at high risk of infection due to their social or geographical connection to a known case. This paper describes the protocol for a novel cluster randomised controlled trial design which uses ring vaccination.In the Ebola ça suffit ring vaccination trial, rings are randomised 1:1 to (a) immediate vaccination of eligible adults with single dose vaccination or (b) vaccination delayed by 21 days. Vaccine efficacy against disease is assessed in participants over equivalent periods from the day of randomisation. Secondary objectives include vaccine effectiveness at the level of the ring, and incidence of serious adverse events.Ring vaccination trials are adaptive, can be run until disease elimination, allow interim analysis, and can go dormant during inter-epidemic periods.

Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis. METHODS For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose-response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose. FINDINGS We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 74 randomised trials with a total of 58 556 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] -0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES -0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] -0·69 to -0·46) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES -0·58, -0·73 to -0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for celecoxib (p=0·030), diclofenac (p=0·031), and naproxen (p=0·026). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis. INTERPRETATION On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients. FUNDING Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.