Trivalent and quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in adults aged 60 and older: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of influenza vaccines of any valency for adults 60 years and older.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, JBI Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Database, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Evidence -Based Medicine database were searched from inception to 20 June 20, 2022. Two reviewers screened, abstracted, and appraised articles (Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) 2.0 tool) independently. We assessed certainty of findings using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approaches. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), and estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for count outcomes along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals.

PARTICIPANTS

Older adults (≥60 years old) receiving an influenza vaccine licensed in Canada or the USA (vs placebo, no vaccine, or any other licensed vaccine), at any dose.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) and influenza-like illness (ILI). Secondary outcomes were the number of vascular adverse events, hospitalisation for acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI, inpatient hospitalisation, emergency room (ER) visit for ILI, outpatient visit, and mortality, among others.

RESULTS

We included 41 RCTs and 15 companion reports comprising 8 vaccine types and 206 032 participants. Vaccines may prevent LCI compared with placebo, with high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) (NMA: 9 RCTs, 52 202 participants, OR 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.11 to 0.51), low certainty of evidence) and recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) (OR 0.25, 95%CI (0.08 to 0.73), low certainty of evidence) among the most efficacious vaccines. Standard dose trivalent IIV3 (IIV3-SD) may prevent ILI compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (meta-analysis: 2 RCTs, 854 participants, OR 0.39, 95%CI (0.15 to 1.02), low certainty of evidence). Any HD was associated with prevention of ILI compared with placebo (NMA: 9 RCTs, 65 658 participants, OR 0.38, 95%CI (0.15 to 0.93)). Adjuvanted quadrivalent IIV (IIV4-Adj) may be associated with the least vascular adverse events, but the results were very uncertain (NMA: eight 8 RCTs, 57 677 participants, IRR 0.18, 95%CI (0.07 to 0.43), very low certainty of evidence). RIV on all-cause mortality may be comparable to placebo (NMA: 20 RCTs, 140 577 participants, OR 1.01, 95%CI (0.23 to 4.49), low certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrated efficacy associated with IIV3-HD and RIV vaccines in protecting older persons against LCI. RIV vaccine may reduce all-cause mortality when compared with other vaccines, but the evidence is uncertain. Differences in efficacy between influenza vaccines remain uncertain with very low to moderate certainty of evidence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020177357.

Make or break: Succeeding in transition from incarceration

Several factors impact successful reintegration after incarceration. We sought to better understand these factors such as pre-release preparedness or access to financial resources in provincial correctional facilities in Ontario, Canada with an underlying focus on the role of personal identification (PID) among people at risk of homelessness. We conducted a qualitative study with one-on-one telephone interviews. Eligibility criteria included having been released from a provincial correctional facility in the preceding 2 years, being over the age of 18, speaking English and having telephone access. Participants were recruited between February 2021 and July 2021. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data was analyzed using a thematic analysis framework along with strategies from grounded theory research. We interviewed 12 individuals and identified six key themes including 1) Degree of Preparedness Pre-Release 2) Managing Priorities Post-Release 3) Impact of Support Post-Release 4) Obstacles with Accessing Services 5) Influence of Personal Identification 6) Emotions and Uncertainty. We found that people with mental health and addiction challenges are uniquely at risk post-release. Solutions must include comprehensive and proactive case management that bridges the pre-release and post-release periods, simplified processes for obtaining PID, better connections to health and social services, and improved pre-release planning for community support.

School attendance and sexual and reproductive health outcomes among adolescent girls in Kenya: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Given the high burden of adverse sexual and reproductive health outcomes (SRH) and low levels of school attendance among adolescent girls in Kenya, this study sought to elucidate the association between school attendance and SRH outcomes among adolescent girls in Homa Bay and Narok counties.

METHODS

This study uses baseline quantitative data from the mixed-methods evaluation of the In Their Hands (ITH) program which occurred between September to October 2018 in Homa Bay and Narok counties. In total, 1840 adolescent girls aged 15-19 years participated in the baseline survey, of which 1810 were included in the present analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between school attendance (in- versus out-of-school) and ever having sex, condom use during last sex, and ever pregnant, controlling for age, orphan status, income generation, religion, county, relationship status, and correct SRH knowledge.

RESULTS

Across the 1810 participants included in our study, 61.3% were in-school and 38.7% were out-of-school. Compared to adolescent girls who were in-school, those out-of-school were more likely (AOR 5.74 95% CI 3.94, 8.46) to report ever having sex, less likely (AOR: 0.21, 95% CI 0.16, 0.31) to have used a condom during their last sexual intercourse, and more likely (AOR: 6.98, 95% CI 5.04, 9.74) to have ever been pregnant.

CONCLUSIONS

School attendance plays an integral role in adolescent girls' SRH outcomes, and it is imperative that policy actors coordinate with the government and community to develop and implement initiatives that support adolescent girls' school attendance and education.

Knowledge user survey and Delphi process to inform development of a new risk of bias tool to assess systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (RoB NMA tool)

BACKGROUND

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is increasingly used in guideline development and other aspects of evidence-based decision-making. We aimed to develop a risk of bias (RoB) tool to assess NMAs (RoB NMA tool). An international steering committee recommended that the RoB NMA tool to be used in combination with the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool (i.e. because it was designed to assess biases only) or other similar quality appraisal tools (eg, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 [AMSTAR 2]) to assess quality of systematic reviews. The RoB NMA tool will assess NMA biases and limitations regarding how the analysis was planned, data were analysed and results were presented, including the way in which the evidence was assembled and interpreted.

OBJECTIVES

Conduct (a) a Delphi process to determine expert opinion on an item's inclusion and (b) a knowledge user survey to widen its impact.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey and Delphi process.

METHODS

Delphi panellists were asked to rate whether items should be included. All agreed-upon item were included in a second round of the survey (defined as 70% agreement). We surveyed knowledge users' views and preferences about the importance, utility and willingness to use the RoB NMA tool to evaluate evidence in practice and in policymaking. We included 12 closed and 10 open-ended questions, and we followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks.

RESULTS

22 items were entered into a Delphi survey of which 28 respondents completed round 1, and 22 completed round 2. Seven items did not reach consensus in round 2. A total of 298 knowledge users participated in the survey (14% respondent rate). 75% indicated that their organisation produced NMAs, and 78% showed high interest in the tool, especially if they had received adequate training (84%). Most knowledge users and Delphi panellists preferred a tool to assess both bias in individual NMA results and authors' conclusions. Response bias in our sample is a major limitation as knowledge users working in high-income countries were more represented. One of the limitations of the Delphi process is that it depends on the purposive selection of experts and their availability, thus limiting the variability in perspectives and scientific disciplines.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi process and knowledge user survey informs the development of the RoB NMA tool.

How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm

Introduction

The exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SRs) presents challenges for decision makers seeking to answer clinical, public health or policy questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad et al. to choose the best SR across multiple. Our study aims to replicate author assessments using the Jadad algorithm to determine: (i) if we chose the same SR as the authors; and (ii) if we reach the same results.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database of SRs. We included any study using the Jadad algorithm. We used consensus building strategies to operationalise the algorithm and to ensure a consistent approach to interpretation.

Results

We identified 21 studies that used the Jadad algorithm to choose one or more SRs. In 62% (13/21) of cases, we were unable to replicate the Jadad assessment and ultimately chose a different SR than the authors. Overall, 18 out of the 21 (86%) independent Jadad assessments agreed in direction of the findings despite 13 having chosen a different SR.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the Jadad algorithm is not reproducible between users as there are no prescriptive instructions about how to operationalise the algorithm. In the absence of a validated algorithm, we recommend that healthcare providers, policy makers, patients and researchers address conflicts between review findings by choosing the SR(s) with meta-analysis of RCTs that most closely resemble their clinical, public health, or policy question, are the most recent, comprehensive (i.e. number of included RCTs), and at the lowest risk of bias.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01750-2.

This is the first empirical study to replicate Jadad algorithm assessments to evaluate discordance across systematic reviews.

In 62% (13/21) of cases, we were unable to replicate the Jadad algorithm assessment and ultimately chose a different systematic review than the authors.

When assessing systematic reviews using the Jadad algorithm, some steps of the Jadad algorithm were vague in description, making it difficult to operationalise, interpret, and use.

The Jadad algorithm has several limitations as it does not account for the last literature search of the systematic review and publication recency of included trials.

To assess discordance in the absence of an algorithm, we recommend decision makers consider relevance (objectives that most closely resemble their clinical question), recency (dates of search), comprehensiveness (most trials), and risk of bias (lowest risk of bias SR) when choosing one systematic review across multiple.

Identifying and addressing conflicting results across multiple discordant systematic reviews on the same question: protocol for a replication study of the Jadad algorithm

INTRODUCTION

An increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same question. Our study aims to (1) replicate assessments done in a sample of studies using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (2) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency and comprehensiveness, and (3) describe how authors address discordance in results across multiple SRs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000-2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for studies assessing discordance (called discordant reviews). This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for overviews. We will include any study using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 studies screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate the authors' Jadad assessments. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the authors' assessment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance across multiple SRs.