Assendelf W J J, Scholten R J P M, Offringa M
Dutch Cochrane Centre, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Neth J Med. 2004 Feb;62(2):36-44.
A question that is currently topical in the Netherlands is whether it makes sense to introduce on a national scale vaccination against pneumococcal infections for elderly people who are at present receiving the influenza vaccination. We recently studied the scientific literature on the subject in an attempt to answer this question.
We searched for systematic reviews (SRs), randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials and via Google (period 1966 to June 2002). The SRs and RCTs were assessed with a methodological checklist.
We identified four SRs, two trials (of which one was pseudo-random) and one retrospective cohort study. The methodological quality of the SRs was reasonable and in this respect differed little among themselves. The SRs differed strongly with regard to subgroups, outcome measures, valency of vaccines, duration of follow-up and combination with influenza vaccination. The SRs showed that vaccination has more effect in low-risk groups, does not appear to be effective in high-risk patients and the elderly and is more effective in nonindustrialised countries. The outcomes based on the various outcome measures showed major differences. The three studies into the effectiveness of the pneumococcal vaccination in the elderly all showed major methodological shortcomings. For the majority of outcome measures the outcomes were negative.
There is insufficient convincing evidence in favour of the introduction of the pneumococcal vaccination as a supplement to influenza vaccination for the elderly. It seems as if (international) opinion had already been fully formed before published studies and systematic reviews become available in the last few years. It is perhaps worth considering setting up a prospective trial in the elderly Dutch population.
目前在荷兰备受关注的一个问题是,对于目前正在接种流感疫苗的老年人,在全国范围内推行肺炎球菌感染疫苗接种是否有意义。我们最近研究了关于该主题的科学文献,试图回答这个问题。
我们在MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、当前对照试验库中以及通过谷歌搜索了系统评价(SRs)、随机临床试验(RCTs)和队列研究(时间段为1966年至2002年6月)。使用方法学清单对SRs和RCTs进行评估。
我们识别出四项SRs、两项试验(其中一项为伪随机试验)和一项回顾性队列研究。SRs的方法学质量合理,在这方面彼此间差异不大。SRs在亚组、结局指标、疫苗价数、随访持续时间以及与流感疫苗联合使用方面差异很大。SRs表明,疫苗接种在低风险组中效果更佳,在高风险患者和老年人中似乎无效,而在非工业化国家更有效。基于各种结局指标的结果显示出重大差异。三项关于老年人肺炎球菌疫苗接种有效性的研究均显示出重大方法学缺陷。对于大多数结局指标,结果均为阴性。
没有足够令人信服的证据支持为老年人引入肺炎球菌疫苗接种作为流感疫苗接种的补充。似乎在过去几年发表研究和系统评价之前,(国际)观点就已经完全形成了。或许值得考虑在荷兰老年人群中开展一项前瞻性试验。