Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use

BACKGROUND:Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children under five years than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Rotavirus vaccines that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include a monovalent vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), a pentavalent vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck), and, more recently, another monovalent vaccine (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech). OBJECTIVES:To evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO (RV1, RV5, and Rotavac) for their efficacy and safety in children. SEARCH METHODS:On 4 April 2018 we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA:We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO versus placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risks of bias. One review author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analysis by country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty. MAIN RESULTS:Fifty-five trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 216,480 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed RV1, 15 trials (88,934 participants) RV5, and four trials (8432 participants) Rotavac. RV1 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; 43,779 participants, 7 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 41% of cases of severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.74; 28,051 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 6114 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RV1 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23; 36,002 participants, 9 trials; high-certainty evidence), and probably prevents 37% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). In high-mortality countries RV1 probably prevents 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83; 13,768 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 2764 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.88 95% CI 0.83 to 0.93; high-certainty evidence). There were 30 cases of intussusception reported in 53,032 children after RV1 vaccination and 28 cases in 44,214 children after placebo or no intervention (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; low-certainty evidence). RV5 Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life In low-mortality countries, RV5 probably prevents 92% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22; 4132 participants, 5 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62; 5916 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11; 1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Children vaccinated and followed up for two years In low-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; 7318 participants, 4 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low-mortality countries. In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 41% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; 5885 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; 5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate to high-certainty evidence). There were 16 cases of intussusception in 43,629 children after RV5 vaccination and 20 cases in 41,866 children after placebo (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence). Rotavac Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of life Rotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low child mortality. In India, a high-mortality country, Rotavac probably prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.60; 6799 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); the trial did not report on severe all-cause diarrhoea at one-year follow-up. Children vaccinated and followed up for two years Rotavac probably prevents 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases in India (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; 6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). No increased risk of serious adverse events (SAE) was detected (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; moderate-certainty evidence). There were eight cases of intussusception in 5764 children after Rotavac vaccination and three cases in 2818 children after placebo (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.02; very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of an effect on mortality from any rotavirus vaccine (198,381 participants, 44 trials; low- to very low-certainty evidence), as the trials were not powered to detect an effect at this endpoint. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:RV1, RV5, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. Whilst the relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, there is a greater number of episodes prevented in these settings as the baseline risk is much higher. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for schizophrenia (Review)

Background: People with schizophrenia often experience symptoms which fail to fully respond to antipsychotic medication. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been proposed as a new treatment for people with schizophrenia, especially those who experience persistent auditory hallucinations. Objectives: To estimate the effects of TMS alone, compared with sham TMS or with 'standard management' and any other comparison interventions in reducing psychotic symptoms associated with schizophrenia. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (June 2006, June 2008, April 2013). This register is compiled by methodical searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, LILACS, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED, and Sociofile, and is supplemented with handsearching of relevant journals and numerous conference proceedings. Selection criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials recruiting at least five participants and comparing TMS with sham TMS or any other treatment for people with schizophrenia. Data collection and analysis: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. We used a fixed-effect model. We assessed overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results: We included 41 studies with 1473 participants in the review. We found significant differences in favour of temporoparietal TMS compared to sham TMS for global state measured on the CGI scale (7 RCTs, n = 224, MD -0.5, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.23, very low-quality evidence) and positive symptoms measured on the PANSS scale (5 RCTs, n = 127, MD -6.09, 95% CI -10.95 to -1.22, very low-quality evidence). Participants experienced significantly more headaches in the temporoparietal TMS group (10 RCTs, n = 392, RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.56 to 4.50, very low-quality evidence). However, no more participants left the study early from the TMS group than from the sham group (very low-quality evidence). Cognitive state was assessed using 39 different measures, and all were equivocal (very low-quality evidence). We included only two trials which compared temporoparietal TMS with standard treatment. In both trials the participants received first- and second-generation antipsychotic medication in both treatment groups, therefore TMS was used an adjunctive therapy to medication. We found no significant differences in the number of participants that showed clinical improvement in global state (1 RCT, n = 100, RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.57) or left the study early (2 RCTs, n = 140, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.46) (both very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on global state score, mental state, cognitive state and adverse effects. For prefrontal TMS compared to sham TMS, global state was measured on three different scales, all of which presented equivocal results (very low quality evidence). We could not pool data for mental state on the PANSS scale due to high heterogeneity. Cognitive state was assessed using 19 different measures, with 15/19 being equivocal (very low-quality evidence). Prefrontal TMS caused more headaches (6 RCTs, n = 164, RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.22 to 6.26, very low-quality evidence) but there was no difference in the number of participants leaving the study early (very low-quality evidence). No studies reported data for clinical improvement. We found a significant difference in favour of prefrontal theta burst stimulation TMS compared to sham TMS for mental state on the PANNS scale (3 RCTs, n = 108, MD -5.71, 95% CI -9.32 to -2.10, very low evidence). We found no difference for clinical improvement, cognitive state, number of headaches, and leaving the study early (very low-quality evidence). None of the included studies reported satisfaction with care. Authors' conclusions: Based on this review, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of TMS to treat symptoms of schizophrenia. Although some evidence suggests that TMS, and in particular temporoparietal TMS, may improve certain symptoms (such as auditory hallucinations and positive symptoms of schizophrenia) compared to sham TMS, the results were not robust enough to be unequivocal across the assessment measures used. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any added benefit with TMS used as an adjunctive therapy to antipsychotic medication. The overall quality of evidence was graded as very low due to risk of bias, and this was accompanied by an imprecision in estimates due to the relatively small number of participants in the studies. Thus, consideration is required in improving the quality of trial processes, as well as the quality of reporting of ongoing and future TMS trials, so as to facilitate accurate future judgements in assessing risk of bias. Differences in TMS techniques in relation to stimulation intensity, stimulation length, brain areas stimulated and variations in the design of sham TMS all contributed to the heterogeneity of study findings and limited the interpretation and applicability of the results. In addition, the trials assessed their outcomes with a variety of scales, and usable data were limited. Therefore, to better evaluate the treatment effects of TMS in people with schizophrenia, we favour the use of standardised treatment protocols and outcome measures

Association of BCG, DTP, and measles containing vaccines with childhood mortality:systematic review

Objectives To evaluate the effects on non-specific and all cause mortality, in children under 5, of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), and standard titre measles containing vaccines (MCV); to examine internal validity of the studies; and to examine any modifying effects of sex, age, vaccine sequence, and co-administration of vitamin A. Design Systematic review, including assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analyses of similar studies. Study eligibility criteria Clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies of the effects on mortality of BCG, whole cell DTP, and standard titre MCV in children under 5. Data sources Searches of Medline, Embase, Global Index Medicus, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, supplemented by contact with experts in the field. To avoid overlap in children studied across the included articles, findings from non-overlapping birth cohorts were identified. Results Results from 34 birth cohorts were identified. Most evidence was from observational studies, with some from short term clinical trials. Most studies reported on all cause (rather than non-specific) mortality. Receipt of BCG vaccine was associated with a reduction in all cause mortality: the average relative risks were 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.49 to 1.01) from five clinical trials and 0.47 (0.32 to 0.69) from nine observational studies at high risk of bias. Receipt of DTP (almost always with oral polio vaccine) was associated with a possible increase in all cause mortality on average (relative risk 1.38, 0.92 to 2.08) from 10 studies at high risk of bias; this effect seemed stronger in girls than in boys. Receipt of standard titre MCV was associated with a reduction in all cause mortality (relative risks 0.74 (0.51 to 1.07) from four clinical trials and 0.51 (0.42 to 0.63) from 18 observational studies at high risk of bias); this effect seemed stronger in girls than in boys. Seven observational studies, assessed as being at high risk of bias, have compared sequences of vaccines; results of a subset of these suggest that administering DTP with or after MCV may be associated with higher mortality than administering it before MCV. Conclusions Evidence suggests that receipt of BCG and MCV reduce overall mortality by more than would be expected through their effects on the diseases they prevent, and receipt of DTP may be associated with an increase in all cause mortality. Although efforts should be made to ensure that all children are immunised on schedule with BCG, DTP, and MCV, randomised trials are needed to compare the effects of different sequences

Rapid research needs appraisal methodology

The aim is to develop a rigorous, transparent and replicable methodology for researchers and clinicians to conduct an accelerated evidence review at the early stages of an epidemic to identify key knowledge gaps to prioritise patient-centred clinical research

A rapid research needs appraisal methodology to identify evidence gaps to inform clinical research priorities in response to outbreaks-results from the Lassa fever pilot

Abstract Background: Infectious disease epidemics are a constant threat, and while we can strengthen preparedness in advance, inevitably, we will sometimes be caught unaware by novel outbreaks. To address the challenge of rapidly identifying clinical research priorities in those circumstances, we developed and piloted a protocol for carrying out a systematic, rapid research needs appraisal (RRNA) of existing evidence within 5 days in response to outbreaks globally, with the aim to inform clinical research prioritization. Methods: The protocol was derived from rapid review methodologies and optimized through effective use of predefined templates and global time zones. It was piloted using a Lassa fever (LF) outbreak scenario. Databases were searched from 1969 to July 2017. Systematic reviewers based in Canada, the UK, and the Philippines screened and extracted data using a systematic review software. The pilot was evaluated through internal analysis and by comparing the research priorities identified from the data, with those identified by an external LF expert panel. Results: The RRNA pilot was completed within 5 days. To accommodate the high number of articles identified, data extraction was prioritized by study design and year, and the clinical research prioritization done post-day 5. Of 118 potentially eligible articles, 52 met the data extraction criteria, of which 46 were extracted within the 5-day time frame. The RRNA team identified 19 clinical research priorities; the expert panel independently identified 21, of which 11 priorities overlapped. Each method identified a unique set of priorities, showing that combining both methods for clinical research prioritization is more robust than using either method alone. Conclusions: This pilot study shows that it is feasible to carry out a systematic RRNA within 5 days in response to a (re-) emerging outbreak to identify gaps in existing evidence, as long as sufficient resources are identified, and reviewers are experienced and trained in advance. Use of an online systematic review software and global time zones effectively optimized resources. Another 3 to 5 days are recommended for review of the extracted data and to formulate clinical research priorities. The RRNA can be used for a “Disease X” scenario and should optimally be combined with an expert panel to ensure breadth and depth of coverage of clinical research priorities. Keywords: Emerging infectious diseases, Clinical research priorities, Outbreak response, Lassa fever, Rapid research needs appraisal methodolog

When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist.

Updating of systematic reviews is generally more efficient than starting all over again when new evidence emerges, but to date there has been no clear guidance on how to do this. This guidance helps authors of systematic reviews, commissioners, and editors decide when to update a systematic review, and then how to go about updating the review.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from the BMJ Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i350

New living evidence resource of human and non-human studies for early intervention and research prioritisation in anxiety, depression and psychosis

In anxiety, depression and psychosis, there has been frustratingly slow progress in developing novel therapies that make a substantial difference in practice, as well as in predicting which treatments will work for whom and in what contexts. To intervene early in the process and deliver optimal care to patients, we need to understand the underlying mechanisms of mental health conditions, develop safe and effective interventions that target these mechanisms, and improve our capabilities in timely diagnosis and reliable prediction of symptom trajectories. Better synthesis of existing evidence is one way to reduce waste and improve efficiency in research towards these ends. Living systematic reviews produce rigorous, up-to-date and informative evidence summaries that are particularly important where research is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain and new findings might change policy or practice. Global Alliance for Living Evidence on aNxiety, depressiOn and pSychosis (GALENOS) aims to tackle the challenges of mental health science research by cataloguing and evaluating the full spectrum of relevant scientific research including both human and preclinical studies. GALENOS will also allow the mental health community-including patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and funders-to better identify the research questions that most urgently need to be answered. By creating open-access datasets and outputs in a state-of-the-art online resource, GALENOS will help identify promising signals early in the research process. This will accelerate translation from discovery science into effective new interventions for anxiety, depression and psychosis, ready to be translated in clinical practice across the world

New living evidence resource of human and non-human studies for early intervention and research prioritisation in anxiety, depression and psychosis

In anxiety, depression and psychosis, there has been frustratingly slow progress in developing novel therapies that make a substantial difference in practice, as well as in predicting which treatments will work for whom and in what contexts. To intervene early in the process and deliver optimal care to patients, we need to understand the underlying mechanisms of mental health conditions, develop safe and effective interventions that target these mechanisms, and improve our capabilities in timely diagnosis and reliable prediction of symptom trajectories. Better synthesis of existing evidence is one way to reduce waste and improve efficiency in research towards these ends. Living systematic reviews produce rigorous, up-to-date and informative evidence summaries that are particularly important where research is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain and new findings might change policy or practice. Global Alliance for Living Evidence on aNxiety, depressiOn and pSychosis (GALENOS) aims to tackle the challenges of mental health science research by cataloguing and evaluating the full spectrum of relevant scientific research including both human and preclinical studies. GALENOS will also allow the mental health community-including patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and funders-to better identify the research questions that most urgently need to be answered. By creating open-access datasets and outputs in a state-of-the-art online resource, GALENOS will help identify promising signals early in the research process. This will accelerate translation from discovery science into effective new interventions for anxiety, depression and psychosis, ready to be translated in clinical practice across the world

Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise

Background Methodological research into the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials is essential to optimise the process. UK specialists in the field have established a set of top priorities in aid of this research. These priorities, however, may not be reflected in the needs of similar research in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) with different healthcare provision, resources and research infrastructure. The aim of the study was to identify the top priorities for methodological research in LMICs to inform further research and ultimately to improve clinical trials in these regions. Methods An online, two-round survey was conducted from December 2016 to April 2017 amongst researchers and methodologists working on trials in LMICs. The first round required participants to suggest between three and six topics which they felt were priorities for trial methodological research in LMICs. The second round invited participants to grade the importance of a compulsory list of topics suggested by four or more individuals, and an optional list of the remaining topics. Findings Rounds 1 and 2 were completed by 412 and 314 participants, respectively. A wide spread of years of experience, discipline, current country of residence, origin of trials training and area of involvement in trials was reported. The topics deemed most important for methodological research were: choosing appropriate outcomes to measure and training of research staff. Conclusion By presenting these top priorities we have the foundations of a global health trials methodological research agenda which we hope will foster future research in specific areas in order to increase and improve trials in LMICs.</p