Suppr超能文献

用于预防成人肺炎球菌感染的疫苗。

Vaccines for preventing pneumococcal infection in adults.

作者信息

Dear K, Holden J, Andrews R, Tatham D

机构信息

National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Building 62, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 0200.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003(4):CD000422. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000422.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Diseases caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) continue to cause substantial morbidity and mortality throughout the world. Polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccines have been developed for over 50 years and may have the potential to prevent disease and death.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccination in preventing disease or death in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified by electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) issue 2, 2003 (which includes the Cochrane ARI Group's specialised register); MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2003); and EMBASE (1974 to June 2003). We searched existing literature. The bibliographies of all newly revealed studies were read in order to identify further studies. The vaccine manufacturers, the lead authors of newly identified studies not included in existing meta-analyses were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

A) Prospective, randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing pneumococcal vaccines with placebo, control vaccines or no intervention.B) Case-control studies (including indirect cohort studies) assessing pneumococcal vaccine effectiveness against invasive pneumococcal disease. Cohort studies are excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A) Randomised studies. Trial quality assessment was conducted by two reviewers (JH and DT). Data extraction was done by three reviewers (JH, DT, KD). There were many instances of unclear or incomplete data in the trial reports, and the final dataset was arrived at after much deliberation and discussion, including comparison with the data used in two previous reviews of this question. Due to the age of the trials (dating back to 1954 in one case) it was not generally possible to obtain clarification from the authors, though a partial clarification was achieved in one case.B) Non-randomised studies. Study quality was assessed by two reviewers (RA and KD).

MAIN RESULTS

The combined results from the randomised studies fail to show that the polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine is effective in preventing either pneumonia (outcome 6: odds ratio = 0.77, confidence interval 0.58, 1.02, number = 14) or death (outcome 8: odds ratio 0.90, confidence interval 0.76, 1.07, number = 11). Despite encouraging data from some very early trials, pooling trials published from 1977 on suggests there is no effect (outcome 6; odds ratio = 0.96, confidence interval 0.80, 1.15, number = 12; outcome 9: odds ratio = 0.98, confidence interval 0.88, 1.09, number = 10). The available data cannot distinguish whether this heterogeneity in results is due to improvements in trial methodology and reporting, to differences in trial setting or to real loss of efficacy over time. This is because the early, poorly reported trials were conducted in high-risk healthy populations where the expected benefit is greatest. The case-control studies show significant efficacy in preventing invasive pneumococcal disease: OR 0.47 (CI 0.37, 0.59) corresponding to an efficacy of 53%.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: While polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccines do not appear to reduce the incidence of pneumonia or death in adults with or without chronic illness, or in the elderly (55 years and above), the evidence from non-randomised studies suggests that the vaccines are effective in the reducing the incidence of the more specific outcome, invasive pneumococcal disease, among adults and the immunocompetent elderly (55 years and above). Surveillance data suggest that infection rates vary widely between and also within countries, but a typical figure in developed countries is 0.01%, or 10 per 100,000 per year. Efficacy of 50% then corresponds to a number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 20,000 vaccinations per infection avoided, and perhaps 50,000 per death avoided.

摘要

背景

肺炎链球菌引起的疾病在全球范围内仍导致大量发病和死亡。多糖肺炎球菌疫苗已研发超过50年,可能具有预防疾病和死亡的潜力。

目的

评估多糖肺炎球菌疫苗在预防成人疾病或死亡方面的有效性。

检索策略

通过电子检索Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)2003年第2期(包括Cochrane ARI小组的专业注册库)、MEDLINE(1966年1月至2003年6月)和EMBASE(1974年至2003年6月)来识别试验。我们检索了现有文献。阅读所有新发现研究的参考文献以识别更多研究。联系了疫苗制造商以及现有荟萃分析未纳入的新发现研究的主要作者。

选择标准

A)比较肺炎球菌疫苗与安慰剂、对照疫苗或无干预措施的前瞻性、随机或半随机研究。B)评估肺炎球菌疫苗预防侵袭性肺炎球菌疾病有效性的病例对照研究(包括间接队列研究)。队列研究被排除。

数据收集与分析

A)随机研究。由两名评审员(JH和DT)进行试验质量评估。由三名评审员(JH、DT、KD)进行数据提取。试验报告中存在许多数据不明确或不完整的情况,最终数据集是经过大量审议和讨论得出的,包括与之前对此问题的两项综述中使用的数据进行比较。由于试验年代久远(其中一项可追溯到1954年),一般无法从作者处获得澄清,不过在一个案例中实现了部分澄清。B)非随机研究。由两名评审员(RA和KD)评估研究质量。

主要结果

随机研究的综合结果未能表明多糖肺炎球菌疫苗在预防肺炎(结果6:比值比 = 0.77,置信区间0.58,1.02,数量 = 14)或死亡(结果8:比值比0.90,置信区间0.76,1.07,数量 = 11)方面有效。尽管一些非常早期的试验有令人鼓舞的数据,但汇总1977年以后发表的试验表明没有效果(结果6;比值比 = 0.96,置信区间0.80,1.15,数量 = 12;结果9:比值比 = 0.98,置信区间0.88,1.09,数量 = 10)。现有数据无法区分结果的这种异质性是由于试验方法和报告的改进、试验环境的差异还是随着时间推移实际疗效的丧失。这是因为早期报告不佳的试验是在预期获益最大的高危健康人群中进行的。病例对照研究表明在预防侵袭性肺炎球菌疾病方面有显著疗效:OR 0.47(CI 0.37,0.59),对应疗效为53%。

评审员结论

虽然多糖肺炎球菌疫苗似乎并未降低患有或未患有慢性病的成年人或老年人(55岁及以上)的肺炎发病率或死亡率,但非随机研究的证据表明,该疫苗在降低成年人及免疫功能正常的老年人(55岁及以上)中更具体的结果——侵袭性肺炎球菌疾病的发病率方面是有效的。监测数据表明,各国之间以及国家内部的感染率差异很大,但发达国家的一个典型数字是0.01%,即每年每10万人中有10例。50%的疗效对应的需治疗人数(NNT)为每避免一例感染需要接种20,000次疫苗,每避免一例死亡可能需要接种50,000次疫苗。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验