Use of existing systematic reviews for the development of evidence-based vaccination recommendations: Guidance from the SYSVAC expert panel.

National immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) develop immunization-related recommendations and assist policy-makers in making evidence informed decisions. Systematic reviews (SRs) that summarize the available evidence on a specific topic are a valuable source of evidence in the development of such recommendations. However, conducting SRs requires significant human, time, and financial resources, which many NITAGs lack. Given that SRs already exist for many immunization-related topics, and to prevent duplication and overlap of reviews, a more practical approach may be for NITAGs to use existing SRs. Nevertheless, it can be challenging to identify relevant SRs, to select one SR from among multiple SRs, or to critically assess and effectively use them. To support NITAGs, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Robert Koch Institute and collaborators developed the SYSVAC project, which consists of an online registry of systematic reviews on immunization-related topics and an e-learning course, that supports the use of them (both freely accessible at https://www.nitag-resource.org/sysvac-systematic-reviews). Drawing from the e-learning course and recommendations from an expert panel, this paper outlines methods for using existing systematic reviews when making immunization-related recommendations. With specific examples and reference to the SYSVAC registry and other resources, it offers guidance on locating existing systematic reviews; assessing their relevance to a research question, up-to-dateness, and methodological quality and/or risk of bias; and considering the transferability and applicability of their findings to other populations or settings.

Using existing systematic reviews for developing vaccination recommendations: Results of an international expert workshop.

National immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) develop immunization-related recommendations. Systematic reviews are recommended to be used in this process, but conducting them requires significant resources, which many NITAGs lack. Using existing systematic reviews could help address this problem. The Robert Koch Institute and collaborators set up the SYSVAC2 project to facilitate the retrieval of existing systematic reviews and offer guidance on using them. This will include an online registry of systematic reviews relevant to immunization policy and an online course on how to use existing reviews. This report describes an international expert workshop held in December 2019 to develop consensus on methods for using existing reviews and other relevant factors for the registry and course. Members from NITAGs representing different regions of the world presented their experiences of using systematic reviews and reflected on challenges inhibiting use. Three methodologists considered different aspects of using systematic reviews. Interactive sessions followed, where implications for SYSVAC2 were discussed. Participants supported having critical appraisal ratings, plain language summaries, keyword search, and data visualization functions in the registry. They suggested tailoring course content to different audiences and including overviews of reviews as a topic and examples of how NITAGs have used or could use existing reviews. Participants agreed that whether a review is out-of-date should be decided by those using the review rather than registry staff. The registry could help by highlighting the date of literature search or included primary studies. Participants recommended a visualization function to highlight overlap across reviews and guidance on handling challenges to using reviews, ideally, involving a practical element. No consensus was reached on which critical appraisal tool to use for reviews in the registry, but a majority of participants wanted registry staff to perform appraisals. Formative research is planned before the registry and online course are launched in 2020.

The Supportive Care Needs of Cancer Patients: a Systematic Review.

Cancer, and the complex nature of treatment, has a profound impact on lives of patients and their families. Subsequently, cancer patients have a wide range of needs. This study aims to identify and synthesise cancer patients' views about areas where they need support throughout their care. A systematic  search of the literature from PsycInfo, Embase and Medline databases was conducted, and a narrative. Synthesis of results was carried out using the Corbin & Strauss "3 lines of work" framework. For each line of work, a group of key common needs were identified. For illness-work, the key needs idenitified were; understanding their illness and treatment options, knowing what to expect, communication with healthcare professionals, and staying well. In regards to everyday work, patients wanted to maintain a sense of normalcy and look after their loved ones. For biographical work, patients commonly struggled with the emotion impact of illness and a lack of control over their lives. Spiritual, sexual and financial problems were less universal. For some types of support, demographic factors influenced the level of need reported. While all patients are unique, there are a clear set of issues that are common to a majority of cancer journeys. To improve care, these needs should be prioritised by healthcare practitioners.

Vaccination against Japanese encephalitis with IC51: systematic review on immunogenicity, duration of protection and safety.

Japanese encephalitis is a disease caused by a flavivirus which is transmitted by mosquitos in endemic countries. Considering the potentially severe outcomes of the disease, vaccination is recommended for those at risk of exposure. During recent years, IC51 (IXIARO®, JESPECT®, JEVAL®) has increasingly been used to protect travellers from Europe and the USA. However, no systematic review exists that summarizes the currently available evidence on the immunogenicity and safety of this vaccine. We conducted a systematic review on the immunogenicity and safety of IC51, using the databases PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov (search date: 31 August 2019). Data extracted from included studies were grouped by outcomes and stratified by population and setting. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the RoB 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. Due to high heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not performed. A total of 32 studies from 16 countries met the inclusion criteria (15 RCTs, 17 non-randomized studies). ROB was serious or high in the majority of studies. Seroprotection rates ranged from 93 to 100% in adults (seven studies) and from 91 to 100% in children (four studies). In the study involving adults aged 64 years and older, seroprotection was 65% with higher rates in persons who were previously vaccinated against tick-borne encephalitis virus. Safety was investigated in 27 studies. Rates of serious adverse events were below 5% in all age groups, with the majority not being causally related to the vaccine. IC51 is a safe vaccine with good seroprotective abilities in persons aged >2 months to <64 years. The body of evidence, however, is weakened by a large amount of heterogeneity in study and clinical trial methodology. Further well-designed RCTs with special risk groups are needed.