Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Macartney,Kristine
Data de Publicação: 2012
Outros Autores: McIntyre,Peter
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: São Paulo medical journal (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802012000200014
Resumo: BACKGROUND: Live attenuated varicella vaccines for the prevention of varicella (chickenpox) has been demonstrated both in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and in population-based immunisation programmes in countries such as the United States. However, many countries do not routinely immunise children against varicella, and exposures continue to occur. Although the disease is often mild, complications such as secondary bacterial infection, pneumonitis and encephalitis occur in about 1% of cases, usually leading to hospitalisation. The use of varicella vaccine in persons who have recently been exposed to the varicella zoster virus has been studied as a form of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of vaccines for use as PEP for the prevention of varicella in children and adults. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES FOR THIS REVIEW: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2008, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008); and EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs and quasi-RCTs of varicella vaccine for PEP compared with placebo or no intervention. The outcome measures were efficacy in prevention of clinical cases and/or laboratory-confirmed clinical cases and adverse effects following vaccination. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and analysed data using Review Manager software. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies involving 110 healthy children who were siblings of household contacts were identified as suitable for inclusion. The studies varied in quality, study design, vaccine used, and outcomes measured and, as such, were not suitable for meta-analysis. Overall, 13 out of 56 vaccine recipients (18%) developed varicella compared with 42 out of 54 placebo (or no vaccine) recipients (78%). Of the vaccine recipients who developed varicella, the majority only had mild disease (with less than 50 skin lesions). In the three studies, most subjects received PEP within three days following exposure; too few subjects were vaccinated four to five days post exposure to ascertain the efficacy of vaccine given more than three days after exposure. No included studies reported on adverse events following immunisation. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: These small trials suggest varicella vaccine administered within three days to children following household contact with a varicella case reduces infection rates and severity of cases. No RCTs for adolescents or adults were identified. However safety was not adequately addressed.
id APM-1_89d24c0290e6e00e4b0ea478833150c1
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1516-31802012000200014
network_acronym_str APM-1
network_name_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adultsBACKGROUND: Live attenuated varicella vaccines for the prevention of varicella (chickenpox) has been demonstrated both in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and in population-based immunisation programmes in countries such as the United States. However, many countries do not routinely immunise children against varicella, and exposures continue to occur. Although the disease is often mild, complications such as secondary bacterial infection, pneumonitis and encephalitis occur in about 1% of cases, usually leading to hospitalisation. The use of varicella vaccine in persons who have recently been exposed to the varicella zoster virus has been studied as a form of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of vaccines for use as PEP for the prevention of varicella in children and adults. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES FOR THIS REVIEW: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2008, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008); and EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs and quasi-RCTs of varicella vaccine for PEP compared with placebo or no intervention. The outcome measures were efficacy in prevention of clinical cases and/or laboratory-confirmed clinical cases and adverse effects following vaccination. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and analysed data using Review Manager software. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies involving 110 healthy children who were siblings of household contacts were identified as suitable for inclusion. The studies varied in quality, study design, vaccine used, and outcomes measured and, as such, were not suitable for meta-analysis. Overall, 13 out of 56 vaccine recipients (18%) developed varicella compared with 42 out of 54 placebo (or no vaccine) recipients (78%). Of the vaccine recipients who developed varicella, the majority only had mild disease (with less than 50 skin lesions). In the three studies, most subjects received PEP within three days following exposure; too few subjects were vaccinated four to five days post exposure to ascertain the efficacy of vaccine given more than three days after exposure. No included studies reported on adverse events following immunisation. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: These small trials suggest varicella vaccine administered within three days to children following household contact with a varicella case reduces infection rates and severity of cases. No RCTs for adolescents or adults were identified. However safety was not adequately addressed.Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM2012-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802012000200014Sao Paulo Medical Journal v.130 n.2 2012reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)instname:Associação Paulista de Medicinainstacron:APM10.1590/S1516-31802012000200014info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMacartney,KristineMcIntyre,Petereng2012-04-03T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1516-31802012000200014Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/spmjhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevistas@apm.org.br1806-94601516-3180opendoar:2012-04-03T00:00São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicinafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults
title Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults
spellingShingle Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults
Macartney,Kristine
title_short Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults
title_full Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults
title_fullStr Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults
title_full_unstemmed Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults
title_sort Vaccines for post-exposure prophylaxis against varicella (chickenpox) in children and adults
author Macartney,Kristine
author_facet Macartney,Kristine
McIntyre,Peter
author_role author
author2 McIntyre,Peter
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Macartney,Kristine
McIntyre,Peter
description BACKGROUND: Live attenuated varicella vaccines for the prevention of varicella (chickenpox) has been demonstrated both in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and in population-based immunisation programmes in countries such as the United States. However, many countries do not routinely immunise children against varicella, and exposures continue to occur. Although the disease is often mild, complications such as secondary bacterial infection, pneumonitis and encephalitis occur in about 1% of cases, usually leading to hospitalisation. The use of varicella vaccine in persons who have recently been exposed to the varicella zoster virus has been studied as a form of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of vaccines for use as PEP for the prevention of varicella in children and adults. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES FOR THIS REVIEW: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2008, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008); and EMBASE (January 1990 to February 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs and quasi-RCTs of varicella vaccine for PEP compared with placebo or no intervention. The outcome measures were efficacy in prevention of clinical cases and/or laboratory-confirmed clinical cases and adverse effects following vaccination. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and analysed data using Review Manager software. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies involving 110 healthy children who were siblings of household contacts were identified as suitable for inclusion. The studies varied in quality, study design, vaccine used, and outcomes measured and, as such, were not suitable for meta-analysis. Overall, 13 out of 56 vaccine recipients (18%) developed varicella compared with 42 out of 54 placebo (or no vaccine) recipients (78%). Of the vaccine recipients who developed varicella, the majority only had mild disease (with less than 50 skin lesions). In the three studies, most subjects received PEP within three days following exposure; too few subjects were vaccinated four to five days post exposure to ascertain the efficacy of vaccine given more than three days after exposure. No included studies reported on adverse events following immunisation. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: These small trials suggest varicella vaccine administered within three days to children following household contact with a varicella case reduces infection rates and severity of cases. No RCTs for adolescents or adults were identified. However safety was not adequately addressed.
publishDate 2012
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2012-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802012000200014
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802012000200014
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1516-31802012000200014
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Sao Paulo Medical Journal v.130 n.2 2012
reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)
instname:Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron:APM
instname_str Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron_str APM
institution APM
reponame_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
collection São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicina
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revistas@apm.org.br
_version_ 1754209263379546112