Response to pneumococcal immunization in children with and without recurrent infections

Anti-IL-5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of previously published reviews in the Cochrane Library (2015, first update 2017). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the proliferation, maturation, activation and survival of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Studies of monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) suggest they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function in appropriately selected patients, justifying their inclusion in the latest guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was 7 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies on about 7600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six used mepolizumab, five used reslizumab, and six used benralizumab. One study using benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. One was in children aged 6 to 17 years; nine others included children over 12 years but did not report results by age group separately. We deemed the overall risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. We considered the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, except for intravenous (IV) mepolizumab and subcutaneous (SC) reslizumab because these are not currently licensed delivery routes. The anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of 1.5 or more), except for reslizumab SC. The rate ratios for these effects were 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab SC, 0.53 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; moderate-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab IV, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for reslizumab IV, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.66; high-certainty evidence) for benralizumab SC. Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, an effect not seen with reslizumab IV, albeit in only one study. No data were available for non-eosinophilic participants treated with mepolizumab. There were improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. This met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the broader St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; 4-point change) for benralizumab only, but the improvement in the ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which focus on asthma symptoms, fell short of the MCID (0.5 point change for both ACQ and AQLQ) for all of the interventions. The evidence for an improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab and reslizumab was weak, but the tests for subgroup difference were negative. All anti-IL-5 treatments produced small improvements in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.15 L in eosinophilic participants, which may not be sufficient to be detected by patients. There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment; in fact, there was a reduction in such events with benralizumab, likely arising from fewer asthma-related hospital admissions. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (42/2026 (2.1%) benralizumab versus 11/1227 (0.9%) placebo). The implications for efficacy or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall this analysis supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor symptom control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. The studies did not report safety concerns for mepolizumab or reslizumab, or any excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation. Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in patients meeting relevant eligibility criteria, to other biological (monoclonal antibody) therapies. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Anti-IL5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This review is the first update of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) have been developed, with recent studies suggesting that they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function. These are being incorporated into asthma guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related qualify of life (HRQoL) measures, and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, clinical trials registries, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was March 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies on 6000 participants met the inclusion criteria. Four used mepolizumab, four used reslizumab, and five used benralizumab. One study in benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. Eight included children over 12 years but these results were not reported separately. We deemed the risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data being of robust methodology. We considered the quality of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, with the exception of intravenous mepolizumab because this is not currently a licensed delivery route.All of the anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard of care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) 1.5 or more). Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, but no data were available for non-eosinophilic participants, and mepolizumab or reslizumab.We saw modest improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. However these did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference for ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), with St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) only assessed in two studies. The improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab, the only intervention for which data were available in this subset, was not statistically significant, but the test for subgroup difference was negative.All anti-IL-5 treatments produced a small but statistically significant improvement in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.11 L.There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment, and indeed a reduction in favour of mepolizumab that could be due to a beneficial effect on asthma-related serious adverse events. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (36/1599 benralizumab versus 9/998 placebo).Mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab all markedly reduced blood eosinophils, but benralizumab resulted in almost complete depletion, whereas a small number remained with mepolizumab and reslizumab. The implications for efficacy and/or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall our study supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard of care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. There were no safety concerns regarding mepolizumab or reslizumab, and no excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation.Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), and comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in people eligible for both, to anti-immunoglobulin E. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Mepolizumab versus placebo for asthma

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab is a human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5 (IL-5), the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which in turn causes airway inflammation. Recent studies have suggested these agents may have a role in reducing exacerbations and improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There are no recommendations for the use of mepolizumab in adults or children in the recent update of the BTS/SIGN guidelines (BTS/SIGN 2014).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of mepolizumab with placebo on exacerbations and HRQoL in adults and children with chronic asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register (CAGR) of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and the reference lists of included studies. Searches were conducted in November 2013 and updated in November 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies on 1707 participants met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies included children (over 12 years of age), but they did not report separate findings for the adolescents. Seven studies involved intravenous mepolizumab alone; one included a subcutaneous arm. There was heterogeneity in the severity and clinical pattern of asthma among the participants in the eight studies, varying from mild to moderate atopic asthma, to persistent asthma and eosinophilic asthma with recurrent exacerbations. Selection bias was a concern in several of the studies included in this review.Four trials compared intravenous mepolizumab to placebo in relation to HRQoL. Two studies measured scores from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which showed a non-significant difference between mepolizumab and placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.01 to 0.44; participants = 682), in the direction favouring mepolizumab. The third study used the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and found a significant difference between mepolizumab and placebo (MD 6.40, 95% CI 3.15 to 9.65; participants = 576), which indicated a clinically important benefit favouring mepolizumab. A fourth study noted that there was no significant difference but did not provide any data. The two studies in people with eosinophilic asthma showed a reduction in clinically significant exacerbation rates (Risk Ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.64; participants = 690). However, an analysis of four studies that were not confined to people with eosinophilic asthma indicated considerable heterogeneity and no significant difference in people with one or more exacerbations between mepolizumab and placebo using a random-effects model (Risk Ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31; participants = 468; I(2) = 59%).The analysis of serious adverse events indicated a significant difference favouring mepolizumab (Risk ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; participants = 1441; studies = 5; I(2) = 0%). It was not possible to combine the results for adverse events, and we deemed the quality of this evidence to be low.A single study compared subcutaneous mepolizumab to placebo in 385 adults with severe eosinophilic asthma and found an improvement in HRQoL scores and a reduction in asthma exacerbations, including exacerbations requiring admission to hospital.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible to draw firm conclusions from this review with respect to the role of mepolizumab in patients with asthma. Our confidence in the results of this review are limited by the fact that the intravenous route is not currently licensed for mepolizumab, and the evidence for the currently licenced subcutaneous route is limited to a single study in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma.The currently available studies provide evidence that mepolizumab can lead to an improvement in health-related quality of life scores and reduce asthma exacerbations in people with severe eosinophilic asthma.Further research is needed to clarify which subgroups of patients with asthma could potentially benefit from this treatment. Dosage, ideal dosing regimens and duration of treatment need to be clarified, as the studies included in this review differed in their protocols. There are no studies reporting results from children, so we cannot comment on treatment for this age group. At the present time, larger studies using licenced treatment regimens are required to establish the role of mepolizumab in the treatment of severe asthma.

The immunological investigation of a child with chronic wet cough

Immunological investigations need to be considered in any child presenting with chronic wet cough. Not infrequently, such children are subjected to a detailed, expensive battery of immune function tests, without consideration as to whether such extensive testing is necessary or indeed helpful. The main aim of this review is to discuss which immune function tests are and are not particularly helpful when investigating a child with persistent wet cough.

The immunogenicity of pneumococcal polysaccharides in infants and children: a meta-regression

The immunogenicity of plain (not conjugated) pneumococcal polysaccharides in children and infants was reviewed using a systematic literature search. Immunogenicity was defined as the fold-increase in serotype specific antibody concentration after a single dose of plain polysaccharide vaccine in unprimed subjects. Meta-regression was used to calculate the influence of study treatments including subject age, sampling time, dosage, immunization route, vaccine composition and study location. Immunogenicity increased with age for all serotypes, and the increase was more rapid in the first 11 months of life. Study location was the next most significant study variable, with higher responses in countries with lower GDP. A flat dose-response curve was observed over a range from 5 to 50 μg polysaccharide. Serotypes 6A, 6B, 14, 19F and 23F were significantly less immunogenic than serotypes 2, 3, 4, 7F, 8, 9N, 9V and 18C in 11 month old children, but continued to increase in immunogenicity with age until reaching similar levels at 6 years. Some proposed T-independent immune mechanisms could explain the differences in serotype immunogenicity.

Pediatric Sweet syndrome and immunodeficiency successfully treated with intravenous immunoglobulin

Painful erythematous plaques and a pathognomonic, dense, dermal infiltrate of neutrophils characterize Sweet syndrome. Although numerous instances of this disease have been reported in children, only four have had an associated immunodeficiency to date. Sweet syndrome has been traditionally treated with systemic corticosteroids despite an unknown pathogenesis. Prior reports suggest that immunodeficient children with Sweet syndrome may have a persistent course and fail to respond to standard treatment. We describe a child with debilitating Sweet syndrome and a primary immunodeficiency whose symptoms were controlled with intravenous immunoglobulin and dapsone.

[Recurrent respiratory tract infections: how should we investigate and treat?]

Recurrent respiratory tract infections are a common reason for visits to primary care practitioners or hospital physicians. They are placed at the junction of several medical specialities: paediatrics, ENT, pneumology, allergology, immunology, infectiology. The great diversity of the laboratory tests requested and on the other hand the proposed treatments, are the consequences of the diversity of the patients encountered and the paucity of the evidence based-medicine studies in this setting. The dilemma is how to identify the child for which recurrent respiratory tract infections are the witness of underlying condition, without performing repeated medical examinations, laboratory tests and treatments for normal children for which immunologic development occurs normally. The essential tools are the history analysis, physical examination and few laboratory tests. The other questions are how to include, for these patients, influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in the immunization program and how to assess the benefit/risk ratio and the cost of surgical treatments. This paper presents the thought of an expert group trying to define the situations where biological tests or treatments are useful.

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for preventing vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and pneumonia with consolidation on x-ray in children under two years of age

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia, most commonly caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae (Pnc), is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among young children especially in developing countries. Recently, the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant Pnc has increased worldwide such that the effectiveness of preventive strategies, like the new pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) on rates of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumonia, needs to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of PCV in reducing the incidence of IPD due to vaccine serotypes (VT) and x-ray confirmed pneumonia with consolidation of unspecified etiology in children who received PCV before 12 months of age.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2004), MEDLINE (1990 to March 2004) and EMBASE (1990 to December 2003). Reference list of articles, and books of abstracts of relevant symposia, were hand searched. Researchers in the field were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCV with placebo, or another vaccine, among children below two years with IPD and clinical/radiographic pneumonia as outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Differences were resolved by discussion. The inverse variance method was used to pool effect sizes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four trials assessing the efficacy of PCV in reducing the incidence of IPD, two on x-ray confirmed pneumonia as outcome, and one on clinical pneumonia, with or without x-ray confirmation. Results from pooling HIV-1 negative children from the South African study with the other studies were as follows: the pooled vaccine efficacy (VE) for vaccine-type IPD was 88% (95% confidence interval (CI) 73% to 94%; fixed effect and random effects models), the effect measure was statistically significant (p <0.00001) and there was no heterogeneity (p = 0.77I2 0%); the pooled VE for all-serotype IPD was 66% (95% CI 46% to 79%; fixed effect model), the effect measure was statistically significant (p <0.00001) and there was no statistical heterogeneity (p = 0.09, I2 51%); the pooled VE for x-ray confirmed pneumonia was 22% (95% CI 11% to 31%; both fixed effect and random effects models) and there was no statistical heterogeneity (p = 0.80, I2 0%). Analyses that included all the children in the South African study (HIV-1 negative and HIV-1 positive children) and pooled with data from the other studies gave very similar results.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

PCV is effective in reducing the incidence of IPD from all serotypes but exerts a greater effect in reducing VT IPD. Although PCV is also effective in reducing the incidence of x-ray confirmed pneumonia, there are still uncertainties about the definition of this outcome. Additional randomised controlled trials are currently in progress.

Fatores de risco e medidas profiláticas nas pneumonias adquiridas na comunidade

Este artigo revisa os efeitos do envelhecimento, tabagismo, DPOC, insuficiência cardíaca, colonização da orofaringe, aspiração (micro e macro), alcoolismo, cirrose hepática, deficiência nutricional, imunossupressão e fatores ambientais sobre o risco de adquirir pneumonia na comunidade e sua gravidade. Na segunda parte, é feita revisão sobre a ação profilática das vacinas antiinfluenza e antipneumococo, assim como a ação das drogas antivirais, na profilaxia e tratamento das pneumonias adquiridas na comunidade.