Clinical trials of bivalent A/New Jersey/76-A/Victoria/75 influenza vaccines in high-risk children

Anti-IL-5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of previously published reviews in the Cochrane Library (2015, first update 2017). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the proliferation, maturation, activation and survival of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Studies of monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) suggest they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function in appropriately selected patients, justifying their inclusion in the latest guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was 7 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies on about 7600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six used mepolizumab, five used reslizumab, and six used benralizumab. One study using benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. One was in children aged 6 to 17 years; nine others included children over 12 years but did not report results by age group separately. We deemed the overall risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. We considered the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, except for intravenous (IV) mepolizumab and subcutaneous (SC) reslizumab because these are not currently licensed delivery routes. The anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of 1.5 or more), except for reslizumab SC. The rate ratios for these effects were 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab SC, 0.53 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; moderate-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab IV, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for reslizumab IV, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.66; high-certainty evidence) for benralizumab SC. Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, an effect not seen with reslizumab IV, albeit in only one study. No data were available for non-eosinophilic participants treated with mepolizumab. There were improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. This met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the broader St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; 4-point change) for benralizumab only, but the improvement in the ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which focus on asthma symptoms, fell short of the MCID (0.5 point change for both ACQ and AQLQ) for all of the interventions. The evidence for an improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab and reslizumab was weak, but the tests for subgroup difference were negative. All anti-IL-5 treatments produced small improvements in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.15 L in eosinophilic participants, which may not be sufficient to be detected by patients. There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment; in fact, there was a reduction in such events with benralizumab, likely arising from fewer asthma-related hospital admissions. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (42/2026 (2.1%) benralizumab versus 11/1227 (0.9%) placebo). The implications for efficacy or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall this analysis supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor symptom control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. The studies did not report safety concerns for mepolizumab or reslizumab, or any excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation. Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in patients meeting relevant eligibility criteria, to other biological (monoclonal antibody) therapies. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

The consequences of influenza in the elderly (those age 65 years or older) are complications, hospitalisations, and death. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of death among people who are most vulnerable. This is an update of a review published in 2010. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in the elderly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016); Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016); Web of Science (1974 to 31 December 2016); CINAHL (1981 to 31 December 2016); LILACS (1982 to 31 December 2016); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. We considered any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation, or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention. Previous versions of this review included 67 cohort and case-control studies. The searches for these trial designs are no longer updated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE for the key outcomes of influenza, ILI, complications (hospitalisation, pneumonia), and adverse events. We have presented aggregate control group risks to illustrate the effect in absolute terms. We used them as the basis for calculating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of each event for influenza and ILI outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight RCTs (over 5000 participants), of which four assessed harms. The studies were conducted in community and residential care settings in Europe and the USA between 1965 and 2000. Risk of bias reduced our certainty in the findings for influenza and ILI, but not for other outcomes.Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may experience less influenza over a single season compared with placebo, from 6% to 2.4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.66; low-certainty evidence). We rated the evidence as low certainty due to uncertainty over how influenza was diagnosed. Older adults probably experience less ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (3.5% versus 6%; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). These results indicate that 30 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person experiencing influenza, and 42 would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person having an ILI.The study providing data for mortality and pneumonia was underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes. There were 3 deaths from 522 participants in the vaccination arm and 1 death from 177 participants in the placebo arm, providing very low-certainty evidence for the effect on mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.72). No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No data on hospitalisations were reported. Confidence intervaIs around the effect of vaccines on fever and nausea were wide, and we do not have enough information about these harms in older people (fever: 1.6% with placebo compared with 2.5% after vaccination (RR 1.57, 0.92 to 2.71; moderate-certainty evidence)); nausea (2.4% with placebo compared with 4.2% after vaccination (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.12; low-certainty evidence)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may have a lower risk of influenza (from 6% to 2.4%), and probably have a lower risk of ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (from 6% to 3.5%). We are uncertain how big a difference these vaccines will make across different seasons. Very few deaths occurred, and no data on hospitalisation were reported. No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome. We do not have enough information to assess harms relating to fever and nausea in this population.The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.

Anti-IL5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This review is the first update of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) have been developed, with recent studies suggesting that they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function. These are being incorporated into asthma guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related qualify of life (HRQoL) measures, and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, clinical trials registries, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was March 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies on 6000 participants met the inclusion criteria. Four used mepolizumab, four used reslizumab, and five used benralizumab. One study in benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. Eight included children over 12 years but these results were not reported separately. We deemed the risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data being of robust methodology. We considered the quality of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, with the exception of intravenous mepolizumab because this is not currently a licensed delivery route.All of the anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard of care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) 1.5 or more). Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, but no data were available for non-eosinophilic participants, and mepolizumab or reslizumab.We saw modest improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. However these did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference for ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), with St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) only assessed in two studies. The improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab, the only intervention for which data were available in this subset, was not statistically significant, but the test for subgroup difference was negative.All anti-IL-5 treatments produced a small but statistically significant improvement in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.11 L.There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment, and indeed a reduction in favour of mepolizumab that could be due to a beneficial effect on asthma-related serious adverse events. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (36/1599 benralizumab versus 9/998 placebo).Mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab all markedly reduced blood eosinophils, but benralizumab resulted in almost complete depletion, whereas a small number remained with mepolizumab and reslizumab. The implications for efficacy and/or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall our study supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard of care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. There were no safety concerns regarding mepolizumab or reslizumab, and no excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation.Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), and comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in people eligible for both, to anti-immunoglobulin E. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Mepolizumab versus placebo for asthma

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab is a human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5 (IL-5), the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which in turn causes airway inflammation. Recent studies have suggested these agents may have a role in reducing exacerbations and improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There are no recommendations for the use of mepolizumab in adults or children in the recent update of the BTS/SIGN guidelines (BTS/SIGN 2014).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of mepolizumab with placebo on exacerbations and HRQoL in adults and children with chronic asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register (CAGR) of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and the reference lists of included studies. Searches were conducted in November 2013 and updated in November 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies on 1707 participants met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies included children (over 12 years of age), but they did not report separate findings for the adolescents. Seven studies involved intravenous mepolizumab alone; one included a subcutaneous arm. There was heterogeneity in the severity and clinical pattern of asthma among the participants in the eight studies, varying from mild to moderate atopic asthma, to persistent asthma and eosinophilic asthma with recurrent exacerbations. Selection bias was a concern in several of the studies included in this review.Four trials compared intravenous mepolizumab to placebo in relation to HRQoL. Two studies measured scores from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which showed a non-significant difference between mepolizumab and placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.01 to 0.44; participants = 682), in the direction favouring mepolizumab. The third study used the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and found a significant difference between mepolizumab and placebo (MD 6.40, 95% CI 3.15 to 9.65; participants = 576), which indicated a clinically important benefit favouring mepolizumab. A fourth study noted that there was no significant difference but did not provide any data. The two studies in people with eosinophilic asthma showed a reduction in clinically significant exacerbation rates (Risk Ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.64; participants = 690). However, an analysis of four studies that were not confined to people with eosinophilic asthma indicated considerable heterogeneity and no significant difference in people with one or more exacerbations between mepolizumab and placebo using a random-effects model (Risk Ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31; participants = 468; I(2) = 59%).The analysis of serious adverse events indicated a significant difference favouring mepolizumab (Risk ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; participants = 1441; studies = 5; I(2) = 0%). It was not possible to combine the results for adverse events, and we deemed the quality of this evidence to be low.A single study compared subcutaneous mepolizumab to placebo in 385 adults with severe eosinophilic asthma and found an improvement in HRQoL scores and a reduction in asthma exacerbations, including exacerbations requiring admission to hospital.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible to draw firm conclusions from this review with respect to the role of mepolizumab in patients with asthma. Our confidence in the results of this review are limited by the fact that the intravenous route is not currently licensed for mepolizumab, and the evidence for the currently licenced subcutaneous route is limited to a single study in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma.The currently available studies provide evidence that mepolizumab can lead to an improvement in health-related quality of life scores and reduce asthma exacerbations in people with severe eosinophilic asthma.Further research is needed to clarify which subgroups of patients with asthma could potentially benefit from this treatment. Dosage, ideal dosing regimens and duration of treatment need to be clarified, as the studies included in this review differed in their protocols. There are no studies reporting results from children, so we cannot comment on treatment for this age group. At the present time, larger studies using licenced treatment regimens are required to establish the role of mepolizumab in the treatment of severe asthma.

Influenza vaccination in children being treated with chemotherapy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Influenza infection is a potential cause of severe morbidity in children with cancer; therefore vaccination against influenza is recommended. However, data are conflicting regarding the immune response to influenza vaccination in children with cancer, and the value of vaccination remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in stimulating an immunological response in children with cancer during chemotherapy, compared with control groups.2. To assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in preventing confirmed influenza and influenza-like illness and/or in stimulating immunological response in children with cancer treated with chemotherapy, compared with placebo, no intervention or different dosage schedules.3. To identify the adverse effects associated with influenza vaccines in children with cancer treated with chemotherapy, compared with other control groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to 2012) up to August 2012. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and the International Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which the serological response to influenza vaccination of children with cancer was compared with that of control groups. We also considered RCTs and CCTs that compared the effects of influenza vaccination on clinical response and/or immunological response in children with cancer being treated with chemotherapy, compared with placebo, no intervention or different dosage schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors assessed the methodological quality of included studies and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 1 RCT and 9 CCTs (total number of participants = 770). None of the included studies reported clinical outcomes. All included studies reported on influenza immunity and adverse reactions to vaccination. In five studies, immune responses to influenza vaccine were compared in 272 children receiving chemotherapy and 166 children not receiving chemotherapy. In four studies, responses to influenza vaccine were assessed in 236 children receiving chemotherapy compared with responses in 142 healthy children. Measures used to assess immune responses included a four-fold rise in antibody titre after vaccination, development of a haemagglutination inhibition (HI) titre > 32 and pre- and post-vaccination geometric mean titres (GMTs). Immune responses in children receiving chemotherapy were consistently weaker (four-fold rise of 38% to 65%) than those in children who had completed chemotherapy (50% to 86%) and in healthy children (53% to 89%). In terms of adverse effects, 391 paediatric oncology patients received influenza vaccine, and the adverse effects described included mild local reactions and low-grade fever. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paediatric oncology patients receiving chemotherapy are able to generate an immune response to the influenza vaccine, but it remains unclear whether this immune response protects them from influenza infection or its complications. We are awaiting results from well-designed RCTs addressing the clinical benefit of influenza vaccination in these patients.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in people with asthma

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination is recommended for asthmatic patients in many countries as observational studies have shown that influenza infection can be associated with asthma exacerbations. However, influenza vaccination has the potential to cause wheezing and adversely affect pulmonary function. While an overview concluded that there was no clear benefit of influenza vaccination in patients with asthma, this conclusion was not based on a systematic search of the literature.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of influenza vaccination in children and adults with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reviewed reference lists of articles. The latest search was carried out in November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of influenza vaccination in children (over two years of age) and adults with asthma. We excluded studies involving people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion criteria and assessment of trial quality were applied by two review authors independently. Data extraction was done by two review authors independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were included in the first published version of this review, and nine further trials have been included in four updates. The included studies cover a wide diversity of people, settings and types of influenza vaccination, and we pooled data from the studies that employed similar vaccines. PROTECTIVE EFFECTS OF INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE DURING THE INFLUENZA SEASON: A single parallel-group trial, involving 696 children, was able to assess the protective effects of influenza vaccination. There was no significant reduction in the number, duration or severity of influenza-related asthma exacerbations. There was no difference in the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) although children who had been vaccinated had better symptom scores during influenza-positive weeks. Two parallel-group trials in adults did not contribute data to these outcomes due to very low levels of confirmed influenza infection. ADVERSE EFFECTS OF INACTIVATED INFLUENZA VACCINE IN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS FOLLOWING VACCINATION: Two cross-over trials involving 1526 adults and 712 children (over three years old) with asthma compared inactivated trivalent split-virus influenza vaccine with a placebo injection. These trials excluded any clinically important increase in asthma exacerbations in the two weeks following influenza vaccination (risk difference 0.014; 95% confidence interval -0.010 to 0.037). However, there was significant heterogeneity between the findings of two trials involving 1104 adults in terms of asthma exacerbations in the first three days after vaccination with split-virus or surface-antigen inactivated vaccines. There was no significant difference in measures of healthcare utilisation, days off school/symptom-free days, mean lung function or medication usage.EFFECTS OF LIVE ATTENUATED (INTRANASAL) INFLUENZA VACCINATION: There were no significant differences found in exacerbations or measures of lung function following live attenuated cold recombinant vaccine versus placebo in two small studies on 17 adults and 48 children. There were no significant differences in asthma exacerbations found for the comparison live attenuated vaccine (intranasal) versus trivalent inactivated vaccine (intramuscular) in one study on 2229 children (over six years of age).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty remains about the degree of protection that vaccination affords against asthma exacerbations that are related to influenza infection. Evidence from more recently published randomised trials of inactivated split-virus influenza vaccination indicates that there is no significant increase in asthma exacerbations immediately after vaccination in adults or children over three years of age. We were unable to address concerns regarding possible increased wheezing and hospital admissions in infants given live intranasal vaccination.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Vaccines have been the main global weapon to minimise the impact of influenza in the elderly for the last four decades and are recommended worldwide for individuals aged 65 years or older. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of complications among persons who are most vulnerable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospital admissions, complications and mortality in the elderly. To identify and appraise comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in the elderly. To document types and frequency of adverse effects associated with influenza vaccines in the elderly.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 4); MEDLINE (January 1966 to October Week 1 2009); EMBASE (1974 to October 2009) and Web of Science (1974 to October 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort and case-control studies assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. Any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention was considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We grouped reports first according to the setting of the study (community or long-term care facilities) and then by level of viral circulation and vaccine matching. We further stratified by co-administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and by different types of influenza vaccines. We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, hospital admissions, complications and deaths.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies. Overall we identified 100 data sets. We identified one RCT assessing efficacy and effectiveness. Although this seemed to show an effect against influenza symptoms it was underpowered to detect any effect on complications (1348 participants). The remainder of our evidence base included non-RCTs. Due to the general low quality of non-RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. To resolve the uncertainty, an adequately powered publicly-funded randomised, placebo-controlled trial run over several seasons should be undertaken.

Influenza vaccination in children being treated with chemotherapy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Influenza infection is a potential cause of severe morbidity in children with cancer, therefore vaccination against influenza is recommended. However, there are conflicting data concerning the immune response to influenza vaccination in children with cancer and the value of vaccination remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in stimulating immunological response in children with cancer during chemotherapy, compared to control groups. 2. To assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in preventing confirmed influenza and influenza-like illness and/or stimulating immunological response in children with cancer treated with chemotherapy, compared to placebo, no intervention or different dosage schedules. 3. To determine the adverse effects associated with influenza vaccination in children with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (1966 to 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to 2007) up to February 2007. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings of ICAAC, IDSA, MASCC and SIOP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which the serologic response to influenza vaccination of children with cancer was compared to other control groups. We also considered RCTs and CCTs comparing the effects of influenza vaccination on clinical response and/or immunological response in children with cancer, with placebo, no intervention or different dosage schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors assessed the methodological quality of included studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 1 RCT and 8 CCTs ( total number of participants=708). None of the included studies reported on clinical outcome. All included studies reported on influenza immunity and adverse reactions to vaccination. In five studies, immune responses to influenza vaccine were compared in 272 children on chemotherapy with 166 children not on chemotherapy. In three studies, responses to influenza vaccine were assessed in 204 children on chemotherapy compared with responses in 112 healthy children. The measures used to assess immune responses were: a four-fold rise in antibody titre after vaccination, development of haemagglutination inhibition (HI) titre > 32, and pre- and post-vaccination geometric mean titres (GMT). Immune responses in children receiving chemotherapy were consistently weaker (four-fold rise of 25% to 52%) than in those children who had completed chemotherapy (50% to 86%) and in healthy children (71% to 89%). Concerning adverse effects, 359 paediatric oncology patients received influenza vaccine and the side effects described were mild local reactions and low grade fever. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paediatric oncology patients receiving chemotherapy are able to generate an immune response to the influenza vaccine, but it remains unclear whether this immune response protects them from influenza infection or its complications. We are awaiting results from well-designed RCTs addressing the clinical benefit of influenza vaccination in these patients.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in people with asthma

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination is recommended for asthmatic patients in many countries as observational studies have shown that influenza infection can be associated with asthma exacerbations, but influenza vaccination itself has the potential to adversely affect pulmonary function. A recent overview concluded that there was no clear benefit of influenza vaccination in patients with asthma but this conclusion was not based on a systematic search of the literature.

OBJECTIVES

Whilst influenza may cause asthma exacerbations, there is controversy about the use of influenza vaccinations, since they may precipitate an asthma attack in some people. The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in children and adults with asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and checked reference lists of articles. The last search was carried out in September 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of influenza vaccination in children (over two years of age) and adults with asthma. Studies involving people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion criteria and assessment of trial quality were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction was done by two reviewers independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were initially included. Four of these trials were of high quality. Six further articles have been included in three updates (Bueving 2003; Castro 2001; Fleming 2006; Redding 2002; Reid 1998). The included studies covered a wide diversity of people, settings and types of influenza vaccination, but data from the more recent studies that used similar vaccines have been pooled.

BENEFITS

Bueving 2003 studied 696 children with asthma and did not demonstrate a significant reduction in influenza related asthma exacerbations (Risk Difference 0.01; 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.04).

HARMS

The pooled results of two trials involving 2306 people with asthma did not demonstrate a significant increase in asthma exacerbations in the two weeks following influenza vaccination (Risk Difference 0.00; 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.02).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty remains about the degree of protection vaccination affords against asthma exacerbations that are related to influenza infection. Evidence from recently published trials indicates that there is no significant increase in asthma exacerbations immediately after vaccination (at least with inactivated influenza vaccination). There is concern regarding possible increased wheezing and hospital admissions in infants given live intranasal vaccination.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination of elderly individuals is recommended worldwide and has been targeted toward the elderly and those at serious risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to review the evidence of efficacy, effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccines in individuals aged 65 years or older.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases on The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (Issue 1, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1966 to March Week 3 2006); EMBASE (Dialog 1974 to 1979; SilverPlatter 1980 to December 2005); Biological Abstracts (SilverPlatter 1969 to December 2004); and Science Citation Index (Web of Science 1974 to December 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised, quasi-randomised, cohort and case-control studies assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. Any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention was considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We grouped reports first according to the setting of the study (community or long-term care facilities) and then by level of viral circulation and vaccine matching. We further stratified by co-administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and by different types of influenza vaccines. We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, hospital admissions, complications and deaths.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-four studies were included in the efficacy / effectiveness assessment, resulting in 96 data sets. In homes for elderly individuals (with good vaccine match and high viral circulation) the effectiveness of vaccines against ILI was 23% (6% to 36%) and non-significant against influenza (RR 1.04: 95% CI 0.43 to 2.51). We found no correlation between vaccine coverage and ILI attack rate. Well matched vaccines prevented pneumonia (VE 46%; 30% to 58%), hospital admission (VE 45%; 16% to 64%) and deaths from influenza or pneumonia (VE 42%, 17% to 59%). In elderly individuals living in the community, vaccines were not significantly effective against influenza (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.02 to 2.01), ILI (RR 1.05: 95% CI 0.58 to 1.89), or pneumonia (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.20). Well matched vaccines prevented hospital admission for influenza and pneumonia (VE 26%; 12% to 38%) and all-cause mortality (VE 42%; 24% to 55%). After adjustment for confounders, vaccine performance was improved for admissions to hospital for influenza or pneumonia (VE* 27%; 21% to 33%), respiratory diseases (VE* 22%; 15% to 28%) and cardiac disease (VE* 24%; 18% to 30%); and for all-cause mortality (VE* 47%; 39% to 54%). The public health safety profiles of the vaccines appear to be acceptable.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In long-term care facilities, where vaccination is most effective against complications, the aims of the vaccination campaign are fulfilled, at least in part. However, according to reliable evidence the usefulness of vaccines in the community is modest. The apparent high effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing death from all causes may reflect a baseline imbalance in health status and other systematic differences in the two groups of participants.

Rationale and approach to target children with asthma for annual influenza immunization

Influenza virus infection can cause an acute exacerbation of asthma that may result in hospitalization. Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for children with asthma, but fewer than 10 percent receive it. This review summarizes the influenza-associated morbidity in children with asthma. The risk-versus-benefit of influenza vaccination in children with asthma is evaluated. Strategies to improve influenza vaccine uptake in children with asthma are investigated. Influenza virus infection causes substantial morbidity in children with asthma. Data on safety and effectiveness of the trivalent influenza vaccine in these children are limited. However, it is generally safe and effective in preventing influenza infection. The investigational live-attenuated, cold-adapted, trivalent nasal spray influenza vaccine needs evaluation for safety and efficacy in children with asthma. An annual, well-organized, computerized multicomponent strategy should be implemented for optimizing influenza immunization in the high-risk population. Children with asthma should be targeted for annual influenza immunization.

Influenza vaccines: present and future

Immunization is the most feasible method for preventing influenza. Vaccination against influenza is recommended for everyone 65 years of age and older and for persons less than 65 years of age who are at risk for developing complications of influenza. Immune correlates of protection have been established, and a global network is in place to monitor the appearance and circulation of antigenic variants of influenza viruses, as well as the appearance of novel subtypes of influenza A. Antigenic and genetic analyses of circulating viruses and testing of serum from vaccine recipients guide vaccine composition updates. The efficacy of influenza vaccines depends in part on the closeness of the antigenic match between the vaccine strain and the epidemic strain. Currently licensed influenza vaccines are trivalent, formalin-inactivated, egg-derived vaccines; their efficacy ranges from 70 to 90% in young, healthy populations when there is a close antigenic match between vaccine strains and epidemic strains. Development of intranasally administered alternative vaccines and improvement of the existing vaccine are areas of active research. A trivalent, ca live vaccine is the most promising LAIV candidate. In a field trial, efficacy rates of LAIV in young children were 96% against influenza A (H3N2) and 91% against influenza B. However, few data are available to compare this formulation of the trivalent ca live vaccine with the trivalent, inactivated vaccine. Influenza vaccine recommendations will most likely be revised on licensure of LAIV; each vaccine may offer distinct advantages in specific populations.

Randomised placebo-controlled crossover trial on effect of inactivated influenza vaccine on pulmonary function in asthma

BACKGROUND

Despite current recommendations, many people with asthma do not receive annual vaccination against influenza, partly because of concern that vaccine may trigger exacerbations. Colds can trigger exacerbations, which may be mistaken for vaccine-related adverse events. We undertook a double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre crossover study to assess the safety of influenza vaccine in patients with asthma, with allowance for the occurrence of colds.

METHODS

We studied 262 patients, aged 18-75 years, who recorded daily peak expiratory flow (PEF), respiratory symptoms, medication, medical consultations, and hospital admissions for 2 weeks before the first injection and until 2 weeks after the second injection. Order of injection (vaccine and placebo) was assigned randomly. There was an interval of 2 weeks between injections. The main outcome measure was an exacerbation of asthma within 72 h of injection (defined as a fall in PEF of >20%).

FINDINGS

Among 255 participants with paired data, 11 recorded a fall in PEF of more than 20% after vaccine compared with three after placebo (McNemar's test p=0.06); a fall of more than 30% was recorded by eight after vaccine compared with none after placebo (binomial test p=0.008). However, when participants with colds were excluded, there was no significant difference in the numbers with falls of more than 20% between vaccine and placebo (six vs three; binomial test p=0.51), although the difference for PEF decreases of more than 30% approached significance (five vs none; binomial test, p=0.06). This association was confined to first-time vaccinees.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings indicate that pulmonary-function abnormalities may occur as a complication of influenza vaccination. However, the risk of pulmonary complications is very small and outweighed by the benefits of vaccination.