RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8 ºC). Whilst the common cold is generally not harmful, it is a cause of economic burden due to school and work absenteeism. In the United States, economic loss due to the common cold is estimated at more than USD 40 billion per year, including an estimate of 70 million workdays missed by employees, 189 million school days missed by children, and 126 million workdays missed by parents caring for children with a cold. Additionally, data from Europe show that the total cost per episode may be up to EUR 1102. There is also a large expenditure due to inappropriate antimicrobial prescription. Vaccine development for the common cold has been difficult due to antigenic variability of the common cold viruses; even bacteria can act as infective agents. Uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people, thus we performed an update of this Cochrane Review, which was first published in 2011 and updated in 2013 and 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (April 2022), MEDLINE (1948 to April 2022), Embase (1974 to April 2022), CINAHL (1981 to April 2022), and LILACS (1982 to April 2022). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies, and four websites for additional trials (April 2022). We did not impose any language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccine compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow to assess the initial search results. Four review authors independently performed title and abstract screening to identify potentially relevant studies. We retrieved the full-text articles for those studies deemed potentially relevant, and the review authors independently screened the full-text reports for inclusion in the review, recording reasons for exclusion of the excluded studies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author when needed. Two review authors independently collected data on a data extraction form, resolving any disagreements by consensus or by involving a third review author. We double-checked data transferred into Review Manager 5 software. Three review authors independently assessed risk of bias using RoB 1 tool as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We did not conduct a meta-analysis, and we did not assess publication bias. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the certainty of the evidence and to create a summary of findings table. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT conducted in 1965 with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy young men in a military facility, all of whom were included in the analyses, and compared the effect of three adenovirus vaccines (live, inactivated type 4, and inactivated type 4 and 7) against a placebo (injection of physiological saline or gelatin capsule). There were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccine group, and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group. Overall, we do not know if there is a difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, no difference in adverse events when comparing live vaccine preparation with placebo was reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low due to unclear risk of bias, indirectness because the population of this study was only young men, and imprecision because confidence intervals were wide and the number of events was low. The included study did not assess vaccine-related or all-cause mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review was based on one study with very low-certainty evidence, which showed that there may be no difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Future trials on interventions for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition, and should measure such outcomes as common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality (all-cause and related to the vaccine).
Assuntos
Vacinas contra Adenovirus , Resfriado Comum , Criança , Humanos , Masculino , Vacinas contra Adenovirus/efeitos adversos , Resfriado Comum/prevenção & controle , Incidência , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Vacinas Atenuadas/efeitos adversos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
With the arrival of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Brazil in February 2020, several preventive measures were taken by the population aiming to avoid severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection including the use of masks, social distancing, and frequent hand washing then, these measures may have contributed to preventing infection also by other respiratory viruses. Our goal was to determine the frequencies of Influenza A and B viruses (FLUAV/FLUBV), human mastadenovirus C (HAdV-C), Enterovirus 68 (EV-68), and rhinovirus (RV) besides SARS-CoV-2 among hospitalized patients suspect of COVID-19 with cases of acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS) in the period of March to December 2020 and to detect possible coinfections among them. Nucleic acid detection was performed using reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) in respiratory samples using naso-oropharyngeal swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage. A total of 418 samples of the 987 analyzed (42.3%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, 16 (1.62%) samples were positive for FLUAV, no sample was positive for FLUBV or EV-68, 67 (6.78%) samples were positive for HAdV-C, 55 samples were positive for RV 1/2 (26.3%) and 37 for RV 2/2 (13.6%). Coinfections were also detected, including a triple coinfection with SARS-CoV-2, FLUAV, and HAdV-C. In the present work, a very low frequency of FLUV was reported among hospitalized patients with ARDS compared to the past years, probably due to preventive measures taken to avoid COVID-19 and the high influenza vaccination coverage in the region in which this study was performed.
Assuntos
Infecções por Adenoviridae/epidemiologia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Resfriado Comum/epidemiologia , Infecções por Enterovirus/epidemiologia , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Distanciamento Físico , Infecções por Adenoviridae/prevenção & controle , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Brasil/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Coinfecção/epidemiologia , Coinfecção/virologia , Resfriado Comum/prevenção & controle , Enterovirus Humano D/genética , Enterovirus Humano D/isolamento & purificação , Infecções por Enterovirus/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Vírus da Influenza A/genética , Vírus da Influenza A/isolamento & purificação , Vírus da Influenza B/genética , Vírus da Influenza B/isolamento & purificação , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Masculino , Máscaras , Mastadenovirus/genética , Mastadenovirus/isolamento & purificação , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Técnicas de Amplificação de Ácido Nucleico/métodos , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase Via Transcriptase Reversa/métodos , Rhinovirus/genética , Rhinovirus/isolamento & purificação , SARS-CoV-2/genética , SARS-CoV-2/isolamento & purificação , Adulto JovemRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To describe the viruses involved, seasonality and coinfection in hospitalised children with suspected bronchiolitis. METHODS: Over the period 1/07/2007 to 31/12/2008, all children hospitalised for bronchiolitis in the paediatric ward were prospectively included, and had respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) screenings. We retrospectively tested all samples for RSVA, RSVB, rhinovirus (RV), human metapneumovirus, parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4, influenza A and influenza B. RESULTS: 198 children were tested, and 23% were negative for all viruses. RSVA was predominant in 2008 (64% of all viruses) and RSVB in 2007 (66% of all viruses). RV was frequent during both seasons (24% of all viruses). Flu was not found during the study period. Virus distribution was similar regardless of season or age, and identical to typical patterns in temperate countries. Coinfections were less frequent than in temperate regions because respiratory virus seasons seem to be better separated. The bronchiolitis season started in August and finished in December with a peak in October. CONCLUSION: The specific seasonality of bronchiolitis infection requires palivizumab prophylaxis starting in early July for high-risk infants.
OBJECTIF: Décrire les virus impliqués, la saisonnalité et la coinfection chez les enfants hospitalisés avec une suspicion de bronchiolite. MÉTHODES: Au cours de la période du 01/07/2007 au 31/12/2008, tous les enfants hospitalisés pour bronchiolite dans le service de pédiatrie ont été prospectivement inclus et soumis à un dépistage du virus respiratoire syncytial (VRS). Nous avons testé rétrospectivement tous les échantillons pour RSVA, RSVB, rhinovirus (RV), métapneumovirus humain, Parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4, Influenza A, et Influenza B. RÉSULTATS: 198 enfants ont été testés et 23% étaient négatifs pour tous les virus. RSVA était prédominant en 2008 (64% de tous les virus) et RSVB en 2007 (66% de tous les virus). RV était fréquent pendant les deux saisons (24% de tous les virus). La grippe n'a pas été trouvée pendant la période d'étude. La distribution des virus était similaire quelle que soit la saison ou l'âge, et identique aux modèles typiques dans les pays tempérés. Les coinfections étaient moins fréquentes que dans les régions tempérées car les saisons virales respiratoires semblent mieux séparées. La saison des bronchiolites a commencé en août et s'est terminée en décembre avec un pic en octobre. CONCLUSION: La saisonnalité spécifique de l'infection bronchiolite nécessite une prophylaxie au palivizumab débutant en juillet pour les nourrissons à haut risque.
Assuntos
Bronquiolite/epidemiologia , Resfriado Comum/epidemiologia , Infecções por Vírus Respiratório Sincicial/epidemiologia , Vírus Sincicial Respiratório Humano/isolamento & purificação , Rhinovirus/isolamento & purificação , Antivirais/administração & dosagem , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Bronquiolite/prevenção & controle , Bronquiolite/virologia , Criança , Criança Hospitalizada , Pré-Escolar , Coinfecção , Resfriado Comum/prevenção & controle , Resfriado Comum/virologia , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Martinica/epidemiologia , Palivizumab/administração & dosagem , Palivizumab/uso terapêutico , Estudos Prospectivos , Infecções por Vírus Respiratório Sincicial/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Vírus Respiratório Sincicial/virologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estações do Ano , Clima TropicalRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The common cold is one of the most common diseases. It is generally believed that the consumption of vitamin C prevents its appearance, but the actual efficacy of this measure is controversial. METHODS: To answer this question we used Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified eight systematic reviews including 45 studies overall, of which 31 were randomized trials. We concluded the consumption of vitamin C does not prevent the incidence of common cold.
INTRODUCCIÓN: El resfrío común es una enfermedad muy frecuente. Existe la creencia que el consumo de vitamina C previene su aparición, pero la real eficacia de esta medida es controvertida. MÉTODOS: Para responder esta pregunta utilizamos Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, reanalizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un metanálisis y preparamos una tabla de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES: Identificamos ocho revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyen 45 estudios primarios, de los cuales 31 corresponden a ensayos aleatorizados. Concluimos que el consumo de vitamina C no previene la aparición del resfrío común.
Assuntos
Antioxidantes/administração & dosagem , Ácido Ascórbico/administração & dosagem , Resfriado Comum/prevenção & controle , Resfriado Comum/epidemiologia , Bases de Dados Factuais , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
INTRODUCCIÓN: El resfrío común es una enfermedad muy frecuente. Existe la creencia que el consumo de vitamina C previene su aparición, pero la real eficacia de esta medida es controvertida. MÉTODOS: Para responder esta pregunta utilizamos Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, reanalizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un metanálisis y preparamos una tabla de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. RESULTADOS Y CONCLUSIONES Identificamos ocho revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyen 45 estudios primarios, de los cuales 31 corresponden a ensayos aleatorizados. Concluimos que el consumo de vitamina C no previene la aparición del resfrío común.
INTRODUCTION: The common cold is one of the most common diseases. It is generally believed that the consumption of vitamin C prevents its appearance, but the actual efficacy of this measure is controversial. METHODS: To answer this question we used Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified eight systematic reviews including 45 studies overall, of which 31 were randomized trials. We concluded the consumption of vitamin C does not prevent the incidence of common cold.
Assuntos
Humanos , Ácido Ascórbico/administração & dosagem , Resfriado Comum/prevenção & controle , Antioxidantes/administração & dosagem , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Bases de Dados Factuais , Resultado do Tratamento , Resfriado Comum/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8º C). The widespread morbidity caused by the common cold worldwide is related to its ubiquitousness rather than its severity. The development of vaccines for the common cold has been difficult because of antigenic variability of the common cold virus and the indistinguishable multiple other viruses and even bacteria acting as infective agents. There is uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and previously updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (September 2016), MEDLINE (1948 to September 2016), Embase (1974 to September 2016), CINAHL (1981 to September 2016), and LILACS (1982 to September 2016). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies and four websites for additional trials (February 2017). We included no language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccines compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted trial data. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by consulting a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: We found no additional RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT dating from the 1960s with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy participants, all of whom were included in analyses. This trial compared the effect of an adenovirus vaccine against placebo. No statistically significant difference in common cold incidence was found: there were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccines group and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; P = 0.90). No adverse events related to the live vaccine were reported. The quality of the evidence was low due to limitations in methodological quality and a wide 95% confidence interval. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review was based on one study with low-quality evidence. We found no conclusive results to support the use of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people compared with placebo. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Any future trials on medical treatments for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition. Outcome measures should include common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality related to the vaccine.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra Adenovirus/administração & dosagem , Resfriado Comum/prevenção & controle , Nível de Saúde , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Vacinas Atenuadas/administração & dosagemAssuntos
Humanos , Gênero Epidêmico/prevenção & controle , Resfriado Comum/prevenção & controle , Calcarea Carbonica/uso terapêutico , Lycopodium clavatum/uso terapêutico , Hepar Sulphuris Calcareum/uso terapêutico , Aconitum/uso terapêutico , Arsenicum Album/uso terapêutico , Sepia succus/uso terapêutico , Natrium Muriaticum/uso terapêutico , Sulphur/uso terapêutico , /uso terapêutico , /uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat and fever (usually < 37.8ËC). The widespread morbidity it causes worldwide is related to its ubiquitousness rather than its severity. The development of vaccines for the common cold has been difficult because of antigenic variability of the common cold virus and the indistinguishable multiple other viruses and even bacteria acting as infective agents. There is uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2012, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1948 to January week 1, 2013), EMBASE (1974 to January 2013), CINAHL (1981 to January 2013) and LILACS (1982 to January 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccines to prevent the common cold in healthy people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted trial data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: This review included one RCT with 2307 healthy participants; all of them were analysed. This trial compared the effect of an adenovirus vaccine against a placebo. No statistically significant difference in common cold incidence was found: there were 13 events in 1139 participants in the vaccines group and 14 events in 1168 participants in the placebo group; risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 2.02, P = 0.90). No adverse events related to the live vaccine were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane review has found a lack of evidence on the effects of vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Only one RCT was found and this did not show differences between comparison groups; it also had a high risk of bias. There are no conclusive data to support the use of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. We identified the need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Unless RCTs provide evidence of a treatment effect and the trade-off between potential benefits and harms is established, policy-makers, clinicians and academics should not recommend the use of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. Any future trials on medical treatments for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition. Outcome measures should include common cold incidence, vaccine safety and mortality related to the vaccine.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra Adenovirus/administração & dosagem , Resfriado Comum/prevenção & controle , Nível de Saúde , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Vacinas Atenuadas/administração & dosagemRESUMO
El rotafolio, como instrumento usado para la presentación de información, sirve de guía tanto para el personal de salud, como para la orientación de los pacientes, particularmente de madres con niños recién nacidos, lactantes y preescolares (menores de cinco años). En él, van paso a paso con los detalles sobre las formas de prevenir enfermedades por medios de hábitos de higiene en vivienda, tratamiento del agua, lavado de manos, entre otros; además, da los elementos necesarios para abordar síntomas como la diarrea, deshidratación, entre otros. Un instrumento didáctico de gran calidad fotográfica.