Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in vaccine randomised clinical trials: a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in randomised clinical trials in relation to human vaccine development. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis assessing the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). DATA SOURCES: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science until 29 June 2021, and Chinese databases until September 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials irrespective of type, status and language of publication, with trial participants of any sex, age, ethnicity, diagnosis, comorbidity and country of residence. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Cochrane's RoB tool 1. Dichotomous data were analysed as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences. We explored both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was quantified with I2 statistic. We GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 102 randomised clinical trials (26 457 participants). Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may have no effect on serious adverse events (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.43; very low certainty) and on all-cause mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.41; very low certainty). No trial reported on quality of life. Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may increase adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.20; very low certainty). We found no or little evidence of a difference between aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention when assessing serology with geometric mean titres or concentrations or participants' seroprotection. CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence at very low certainty, we were unable to identify benefits of aluminium adjuvants, which may be associated with adverse events considered non-serious.

Delayed allergic skin reactions to vaccines.

Background: Recent advances in vaccination against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic have brought allergists and dermatologists to the forefront because both immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions have been reported. Objective: This literature review focused on delayed reactions to vaccines, including possible causative agents and practical information on how to diagnose, evaluate with patch testing, and manage subsequent dose administration. Methods: Currently published reviews and case reports in PubMed, along with data on vaccines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention web site. Relevant case reports and reviews that focused on delayed reactions to vaccines were selected. Results: Most delayed hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines include cutaneous manifestations, which vary from local persistent pruritic nodules to systemic rashes. The onset is usually within a few days but can be delayed by weeks. Multiple excipients have been identified that have been implicated in delayed vaccine reactions, including thimerosal, formaldehyde, aluminum, antibiotics, and gelatin. Treatment with antihistamines, topical corticosteroids, or systemic corticosteroids alleviates symptoms in most patients. Such reactions are generally not contraindications to future vaccination. However, for more-severe reactions, patch testing for causative agents can be used to aid in diagnosis and approach further vaccination. Conclusion: Delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines are not uncommon. If needed, patch testing can be used to confirm agents, including antibiotics, formaldehyde, thimerosal, and aluminum. In most cases, delayed cutaneous reactions are not contraindications to further vaccine administration.