Bites (Mammalian)

Mammalian bites are usually caused by dogs, cats, or humans, and are more prevalent in children (especially boys) than in adults. Animal bites are usually caused by the person's pet and, in children, frequently involve the face. Human bites tend to occur in children as a result of playing or fighting, while in adults they are usually the result of physical or sexual abuse. Mixed aerobe and anaerobe infection is the most common type of infection, and can occur in up to half of human bites.We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent complications of mammalian bites? What are the effects of treatments for infected mammalian bites? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).We found five systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotic prophylaxis (human bites, non-human bites), antibiotics, debridement, decontamination, irrigation, primary wound closure, and tetanus vaccination (after mammalian bites)

Does vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients result in adverse immunological sequelae? a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend vaccinations for solid-organ transplant recipients. However, concern exists that vaccination may stimulate adverse alloimmune responses. Methods: We systematically reviewed the published literature regarding this aspect of vaccine safety. Electronic databases were searched for interventional and observational studies assessing de novo donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and rejection episodes after vaccination against infectious pathogens. Graft loss was also assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted for prospective, controlled studies. PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed. Results: Ninety studies (15,645 vaccinated patients and 42,924 control patients) were included. Twelve studies included control groups. The incidence of de novo DSA (14 studies) was 23 of 1,244 patients (1.85%) at 21 to 94 days. The incidence of rejection (83 studies) was 107 episodes in 5,116 patients (2.1%) at 0.7 to 6 months. Meta-analysis of prospective controlled studies (n = 8) showed no increased rejection risk with vaccination compared with no vaccination (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.70). This finding was supported by data from 3 registry analyses. Conclusions: Although the current evidence lacks high-quality, controlled studies, the currently available data provide reassurance that clinicians should recommend appropriate vaccination for their transplant patients as the risk of de novo DSA and rejection is relatively low.</p

Does vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients result in adverse immunological sequelae? a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend vaccinations for solid-organ transplant recipients. However, concern exists that vaccination may stimulate adverse alloimmune responses. Methods: We systematically reviewed the published literature regarding this aspect of vaccine safety. Electronic databases were searched for interventional and observational studies assessing de novo donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and rejection episodes after vaccination against infectious pathogens. Graft loss was also assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted for prospective, controlled studies. PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed. Results: Ninety studies (15,645 vaccinated patients and 42,924 control patients) were included. Twelve studies included control groups. The incidence of de novo DSA (14 studies) was 23 of 1,244 patients (1.85%) at 21 to 94 days. The incidence of rejection (83 studies) was 107 episodes in 5,116 patients (2.1%) at 0.7 to 6 months. Meta-analysis of prospective controlled studies (n = 8) showed no increased rejection risk with vaccination compared with no vaccination (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.70). This finding was supported by data from 3 registry analyses. Conclusions: Although the current evidence lacks high-quality, controlled studies, the currently available data provide reassurance that clinicians should recommend appropriate vaccination for their transplant patients as the risk of de novo DSA and rejection is relatively low.</p