Vaccines for preventing herpes zoster in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster, commonly known as shingles, is a neurocutaneous disease caused by the reactivation of the virus that causes varicella (chickenpox). After resolution of the varicella episode, the virus can remain latent in the sensitive dorsal ganglia of the spine. Years later, with declining immunity, the varicella zoster virus (VZV) can reactivate and cause herpes zoster, an extremely painful condition that can last many weeks or months and significantly compromise the quality of life of the affected person. The natural process of ageing is associated with a reduction in cellular immunity, and this predisposes older adults to herpes zoster. Vaccination with an attenuated form of the VZV activates specific T-cell production avoiding viral reactivation. Two types of herpes zoster vaccines are currently available. One of them is the single-dose live attenuated zoster vaccine (LZV), which contains the same live attenuated virus used in the chickenpox vaccine, but it has over 14-fold more plaque-forming units of the attenuated virus per dose. The other is the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) which does not contain the live attenuated virus, but rather a small fraction of the virus that cannot replicate but can boost immunogenicity. The recommended schedule for the RZV is two doses two months apart. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010, and updated in 2012, 2016, and 2019. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vaccination for preventing herpes zoster in older adults. SEARCH METHODS: For this 2022 update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1948 to October 2022), Embase (2010 to October 2022), CINAHL (1981 to October 2022), LILACS (1982 to October 2022), and three trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies involving healthy older adults (mean age 60 years or older). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing zoster vaccine (any dose and potency) versus any other type of intervention (e.g. varicella vaccine, antiviral medication), placebo, or no intervention (no vaccine). Outcomes were cumulative incidence of herpes zoster, adverse events (death, serious adverse events, systemic reactions, or local reaction occurring at any time after vaccination), and dropouts. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included two new studies involving 1736 participants in this update. The review now includes a total of 26 studies involving 90,259 healthy older adults with a mean age of 63.7 years. Only three studies assessed the cumulative incidence of herpes zoster in groups that received vaccines versus placebo. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries in Europe and North America and included healthy Caucasians (understood to be white participants) aged 60 years or over with no immunosuppressive comorbidities. Two studies were conducted in Japan and one study was conducted in the Republic of Korea. Sixteen studies used LZV. Ten studies tested an RZV. The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate, which indicates that the intervention probably works. Most data for the primary outcome (cumulative incidence of herpes zoster) and secondary outcomes (adverse events and dropouts) came from studies that had a low risk of bias and included a large number of participants. The cumulative incidence of herpes zoster at up to three years of follow-up was lower in participants who received the LZV (one dose subcutaneously) than in those who received placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.56; risk difference (RD) 2%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; moderate-certainty evidence) in the largest study, which included 38,546 participants. There were no differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups for serious adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21) or deaths (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). The vaccinated group had a higher cumulative incidence of one or more adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.11; RD 23%; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.3) and injection site adverse events (RR 3.73, 95% CI 1.93 to 7.21; RD 28%; NNTH 3.6; moderate-certainty evidence) of mild to moderate intensity. These data came from four studies with 6980 participants aged 60 years or older. Two studies (29,311 participants for safety evaluation and 22,022 participants for efficacy evaluation) compared RZV (two doses intramuscularly, two months apart) versus placebo. Participants who received the new vaccine had a lower cumulative incidence of herpes zoster at 3.2 years follow-up (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.23; RD 3%; NNTB 33; moderate-certainty evidence), probably indicating a favourable profile of the intervention. There were no differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups in cumulative incidence of serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) or deaths (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; moderate-certainty evidence). The vaccinated group had a higher cumulative incidence of adverse events, any systemic symptom (RR 2.23, 95% CI 2.12 to 2.34; RD 33%; NNTH 3.0), and any local symptom (RR 6.89, 95% CI 6.37 to 7.45; RD 67%; NNTH 1.5). Although most participants reported that their symptoms were of mild to moderate intensity, the risk of dropouts (participants not returning for the second dose, two months after the first dose) was higher in the vaccine group than in the placebo group (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.39; RD 1%; NNTH 100, moderate-certainty evidence). Only one study reported funding from a non-commercial source (a university research foundation). All other included studies received funding from pharmaceutical companies. We did not conduct subgroup and sensitivity analyses AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LZV (single dose) and RZV (two doses) are probably effective in preventing shingles disease for at least three years. To date, there are no data to recommend revaccination after receiving the basic schedule for each type of vaccine. Both vaccines produce systemic and injection site adverse events of mild to moderate intensity. The conclusions did not change in relation to the previous version of the systematic review.

Vaccines for preventing herpes zoster in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster, commonly known as shingles, is a neurocutaneous disease caused by the reactivation of the virus that causes varicella (chickenpox). After resolution of the varicella episode, the virus can remain latent in the sensitive dorsal ganglia of the spine. Years later, with declining immunity, the varicella zoster virus (VZV) can reactivate and cause herpes zoster, an extremely painful condition that can last many weeks or months and significantly compromise the quality of life of the affected person. The natural process of aging is associated with a reduction in cellular immunity, and this predisposes older people to herpes zoster. Vaccination with an attenuated form of the VZV activates specific T-cell production avoiding viral reactivation. The USA Food and Drug Administration has approved a herpes zoster vaccine with an attenuated active virus, live zoster vaccine (LZV), for clinical use amongst older adults, which has been tested in large populations. A new adjuvanted recombinant VZV subunit zoster vaccine, recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV), has also been approved. It consists of recombinant VZV glycoprotein E and a liposome-based AS01B adjuvant system. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last updated in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vaccination for preventing herpes zoster in older adults. SEARCH METHODS: For this 2019 update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1, January 2019), MEDLINE (1948 to January 2019), Embase (2010 to January 2019), CINAHL (1981 to January 2019), LILACS (1982 to January 2019), WHO ICTRP (on 31 January 2019) and ClinicalTrials.gov (on 31 January 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing zoster vaccine (any dose and potency) versus any other type of intervention (e.g. varicella vaccine, antiviral medication), placebo, or no intervention (no vaccine). Outcomes were incidence of herpes zoster, adverse events (death, serious adverse events, systemic reactions, or local reaction occurring at any time after vaccination), and dropouts. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 new studies involving 18,615 participants in this update. The review now includes a total of 24 studies involving 88,531 participants. Only three studies assessed the incidence of herpes zoster in groups that received vaccines versus placebo. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries in Europe and North America and included healthy Caucasians (understood to be white participants) aged 60 years or over with no immunosuppressive comorbidities. Two studies were conducted in Japan. Fifteen studies used LZV. Nine studies tested an RZV. The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. Most data for the primary outcome (incidence of herpes zoster) and secondary outcomes (adverse events and dropouts) came from studies that had a low risk of bias and included a large number of participants. The incidence of herpes zoster at up to three years follow-up was lower in participants who received the LZV (one dose subcutaneously) than in those who received placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.56; risk difference (RD) 2%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; moderate-quality evidence) in the largest study, which included 38,546 participants. There were no differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups for serious adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21) or deaths (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence). The vaccinated group had a higher incidence of one or more adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.11; RD 23%; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.3) and injection site adverse events (RR 3.73, 95% CI 1.93 to 7.21; RD 28%; NNTH 3.6) of mild to moderate intensity (moderate-quality evidence). These data came from four studies with 6980 participants aged 60 years or over. Two studies (29,311 participants for safety evaluation and 22,022 participants for efficacy evaluation) compared RZV (two doses intramuscularly, two months apart) versus placebo. Participants who received the new vaccine had a lower incidence of herpes zoster at 3.2 years follow-up (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.23; RD 3%; NNTB 33; moderate-quality evidence). There were no differences between the vaccinated and placebo groups in incidence of serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) or deaths (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; moderate-quality evidence). The vaccinated group had a higher incidence of adverse events, any systemic symptom (RR 2.23, 95% CI 2.12 to 2.34; RD 33%; NNTH 3.0), and any local symptom (RR 6.89, 95% CI 6.37 to 7.45; RD 67%; NNTH 1.5). Although most participants reported that there symptoms were of mild to moderate intensity, the risk of dropouts (participants not returning for the second dose, two months after the first dose) was higher in the vaccine group than in the placebo group (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.39; RD 1%; NNTH 100, moderate-quality evidence). Only one study reported funding from a non-commercial source (a university research foundation). All of the other included studies received funding from pharmaceutical companies. We did not conduct subgroup and sensitivity analyses AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LZV and RZV are effective in preventing herpes zoster disease for up to three years (the main studies did not follow participants for more than three years). To date, there are no data to recommend revaccination after receiving the basic schedule for each type of vaccine. Both vaccines produce systemic and injection site adverse events of mild to moderate intensity.

Interventions for morphea.

BACKGROUND: Morphea (morphoea) is an immune-mediated disease in which excess synthesis and deposition of collagen in the skin and underlying connective tissues results in hardened cutaneous areas. Morphea has different clinical features according to the subtype and stage of evolution of the disease. There is currently no consensus on optimal interventions for morphea. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of treatments for people with any form of morphea. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to July 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and five trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of topical, intralesional, or systemic treatments (isolated or combined) in anyone who has been clinically diagnosed by a medical practitioner with any form of morphea. Eligible controls were placebo, no intervention, any other treatment, or different doses or duration of a treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were global improvement of disease activity or damage assessed by a medical practitioner or by participants, and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were improvement of disease activity and improvement of disease damage. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials, with a total of 429 randomised participants, aged between 3 and 76 years. There were juvenile and adult participants; over half were female, and the majority had circumscribed morphea, followed by linear scleroderma. The settings of the studies (where described) included a dermatologic centre, a national laboratory centre, paediatric rheumatology and dermatology centres, and a university hospital or medical centre.The studies evaluated heterogenous therapies for different types of morphea, covering a wide range of comparisons. We were unable to conduct any meta-analyses. Seven studies investigated topical medications, two evaluated intralesional medications, and five investigated systemic medications. The study duration ranged from seven weeks to 15 months from baseline.We present here results for our primary outcomes for our four key comparisons. All of these results are based on low-quality evidence.The included studies were at high risk of performance, detection, attrition, and reporting bias.Global improvement of disease activity or damage after treatment may be higher with oral methotrexate (15 mg/m², maximum 20 mg, once a week, for 12 months or until disease flare) plus oral prednisone (1 mg/kg a day, maximum of 50 mg, in a single morning dose, for three months, and one month with gradually decreased dose until discontinuation) than with placebo plus oral prednisone in children and adolescents with active morphea (linear scleroderma, generalised morphea or mixed morphea: linear and circumscribed) (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 4.45; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3; 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT); 70 participants, all juvenile). This outcome was measured 12 months from the start of treatment or until flare of the disease. Data were not available separately for each morphea type. There may be little or no difference in the number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event with oral methotrexate (26/46) or placebo (11/24) (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.04; 1 RCT; 70 participants assessed during the 12-month follow-up). Adverse events related to methotrexate included alopecia, nausea, headache, fatigue and hepatotoxicity, whilst adverse events related to prednisone (given in both groups) included weight gain (more than 5% of body weight) and striae rubrae.One three-armed RCT compared the following treatments: medium-dose (50 J/cm²) UVA-1; low-dose (20 J/cm²) UVA-1; and narrowband UVB phototherapy. There may be little or no difference between treatments in global improvement of disease activity or damage, as assessed through the modified skin score (where high values represent a worse outcome): medium-dose UVA-1 phototherapy versus low-dose UVA-1 group: MD 1.60, 95% CI -1.70 to 4.90 (44 participants); narrowband UVB phototherapy versus medium-dose UVA-1 group: MD -1.70, 95% CI -5.27 to 1.87 (35 participants); and narrowband UVB versus low-dose UVA-1 group: MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.49 to 2.29 (45 participants). This RCT included children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma (with trunk/limb variant and head variant), generalised morphea, or mixed morphea), who received phototherapy five times a week, for eight weeks. Outcomes were measured at eight weeks from the start of treatment.Safety data, measured throughout treatment, from the same RCT (62 participants) showed that treatment with UVA-1 phototherapy may cause mild tanning compared to narrowband UVB: narrowband UVB versus medium-dose UVA-1: RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.42; 35 participants; narrowband UVB versus low-dose UVA-1: RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.41; 45 participants. However, there may be no difference in the number of participants reporting mild tanning when comparing medium and low dose UVA-1 phototherapy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 44 participants). Transient erythema was reported in three participants with narrowband UVB and no participants in the low- or medium-dose UVA-1 groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo plus oral prednisone, oral methotrexate plus oral prednisone may improve disease activity or damage in juvenile active morphea (linear scleroderma, generalised morphea or mixed morphea: linear and circumscribed), but there may be a slightly increased chance of experiencing at least one adverse event.When medium-dose UVA-1 (50 J/cm²), low-dose UVA-1 (20 J/cm²), and narrowband UVB were compared against each other in treating children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma, generalised morphea and mixed morphea), there may be little or no difference between these treatments on global improvement of disease activity or damage. UVA-1 phototherapy may cause more mild tanning than narrowband UVB, but there may be no difference between medium- and low-dose UVA-1 phototherapy. These results are based on low-quality evidence.Limitations of data and analyses include risk of bias and imprecision (small number of participants or events and wide confidence intervals). We encourage multicentre RCTs to increase sample size and evaluate, with validated tools, different treatment responses according to the subtypes of morphea and age groups.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for patellofemoral pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Patellofemoral pain syndrome, now generally referred to as patellofemoral pain (PFP), is one of the most common orthopaedic disorders, characterised by pain in the anterior or retropatellar knee region. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been proposed generally as a complementary treatment, associated with other interventions such as exercise, or as a single treatment to increase muscle force, reduce knee pain, and improve function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for people with patellofemoral pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, AMED, LILACS, trial registers, conference abstracts, and reference lists. We carried out the search in May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled clinical trials that evaluated the use of NMES for people with PFP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed the process of study selection, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment in duplicate. The primary outcomes were knee pain, knee function, and adverse events. The timing of outcome measurements was up to three months (short term), three to 12 months (medium term), and 12 months and above from trial entry (long term). We calculated risk ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences or standardised mean differences for continuous data. Where appropriate, we pooled data using the fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight randomised clinical trials, reporting results for 345 participants with PFP. The mean ages of trial populations ranged from 25 to 43 years, and the majority (53% to 100%) of participants were female. There was a wide duration of symptoms, with the minimum duration of symptoms for trial inclusion ranging from one to six months. In addition to the study inclusion criteria, studies varied widely in the characteristics of the NMES and its application, and associated co-interventions. We assessed all trials as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, particularly blinding and incomplete outcome data. The results of a laboratory-based trial reporting knee pain immediately after a single 15-minute session of NMES are not reported here as these are of questionable clinical relevance. The seven remaining trials provided evidence for three comparisons. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE, for all primary outcomes for all comparisons as very low, thus we are very unsure of the findings.Four studies compared NMES plus exercise versus exercise alone. Patellar taping was applied as well as exercise to all participants of one study, and patellar taping and ice were also applied in another study. Each trial tested a different multiple-session NMES programme. Pooled data from three studies (118 participants) provided very low-quality evidence that NMES is associated with reduced pain at the end of treatment (ranging from 3 to 12 weeks): mean difference -1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.23 to -1.02; visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10; higher scores = worse pain. However, this result may not be clinically relevant since the minimal clinically important difference for VAS during activities (1.5 to 2.0, out of 10 points) lies within the 95% CI. We found very low-quality evidence from pooled data from two trials of little effect of NMES on knee function, as measured by two knee function rating systems. We found inconclusive and very low-quality evidence from one trial (29 participants) of little effect of NMES on pain and function at one-year follow-up. None of the four trials reported on adverse effects of treatment.One study (94 participants) compared NMES, applied four hours per day on a daily basis for four weeks, with two types of exercises (isometric and isokinetic). The study did not report on knee pain or adverse events. The study provided very low-quality evidence of no important difference between the two groups in knee function at the end of the four-week treatment. Of note is the potentially onerous NMES schedule in this study, which does not correspond to that typically used in clinical practice.Two studies compared different types of NMES. Simultaneously delivered high-low frequencies NMES was compared with sequentially delivered high-low frequencies NMES in one trial (14 participants) and with fixed frequency NMES in the second trial (64 participants). The studies provided very low-quality evidence of no important differences at the end of the six-week treatment programme between the simultaneous frequencies NMES and the two other NMES programmes in overall knee pain, knee function, or in quadriceps fatigue (an adverse event). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found insufficient and inconclusive evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform on the role of NMES for treating people with PFP in current clinical practice. The very low-quality evidence available means that we are uncertain whether or not a multiple-session programme of NMES combined with exercise over several weeks versus exercise alone results in clinically important differences in knee pain and function at the end of the treatment period or at one year. There were no data on adverse effects such as muscle fatigue and discomfort. High-quality randomised clinical trials are needed to inform on the use of NMES for people with PFP. However, professional and stakeholder consensus is required on prioritisation of the research questions for interventions for treating people with PFP, including on the NMES treatment protocol for trials testing NMES.

Effectiveness and safety of procalcitonin evaluation for reducing mortality in adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Serum procalcitonin (PCT) evaluation has been proposed for early diagnosis and accurate staging and to guide decisions regarding patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock, with possible reduction in mortality. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of serum PCT evaluation for reducing mortality and duration of antimicrobial therapy in adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE (1950 to July 2015); Embase (Ovid SP, 1980 to July 2015); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS via BIREME, 1982 to July 2015); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO host, 1982 to July 2015), and trial registers (ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and CenterWatch, to July 2015). We reran the search in October 2016. We added three studies of interest to a list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate these into formal review findings during the review update. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing PCT-guided decisions in at least one of the comparison arms for adults (≥ 18 years old) with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock, according to international definitions and irrespective of the setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted study data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. We conducted meta-analysis with random-effects models for the following primary outcomes: mortality and time spent receiving antimicrobial therapy in hospital and in the intensive care unit (ICU), as well as time spent on mechanical ventilation and change in antimicrobial regimen from a broad to a narrower spectrum. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials with 1215 participants. Low-quality evidence showed no significant differences in mortality at longest follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.01; I2 = 10%; 10 trials; N = 1156), at 28 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; N = 316), at ICU discharge (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.11; I2 = 49%; three trials; N = 506) and at hospital discharge (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.27; I2 = 0%; seven trials; N = 805; moderate-quality evidence). However, mean time receiving antimicrobial therapy in the intervention groups was -1.28 days (95% CI to -1.95 to -0.61; I2 = 86%; four trials; N = 313; very low-quality evidence). No primary study has analysed the change in antimicrobial regimen from a broad to a narrower spectrum. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Up-to-date evidence of very low to moderate quality, with insufficient sample power per outcome, does not clearly support the use of procalcitonin-guided antimicrobial therapy to minimize mortality, mechanical ventilation, clinical severity, reinfection or duration of antimicrobial therapy of patients with septic conditions.