↓ Skip to main content

Haemophilus influenzae oral vaccination for preventing acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Haemophilus influenzae oral vaccination for preventing acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010010.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward Teo, Kathleen Lockhart, Sai Navya Purchuri, Jennifer Pushparajah, Allan W Cripps, Mieke L van Driel

Abstract

Chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are serious conditions in which patients are predisposed to viral and bacterial infections resulting in potentially fatal acute exacerbations. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is defined as a lung disease characterised by obstruction to lung airflow that interferes with normal breathing. Antibiotic therapy has not been particularly useful in eradicating bacteria such as non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi) because they are naturally occurring flora of the upper respiratory tract in many people. However, they can cause opportunistic infection. An oral NTHi vaccine has been developed to protect against recurrent infective acute exacerbations in chronic bronchitis. To assess the effectiveness of an oral, whole-cell NTHi vaccine in protecting against recurrent episodes of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and COPD in adults. To assess the effectiveness of NTHi vaccine in reducing NTHi colonising the respiratory tract during recurrent episodes of acute exacerbations of COPD. We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2017), Embase (1974 to January 2017), CINAHL (1981 to January 2017), LILACS (1985 to January 2017), and Web of Science (1955 to January 2017). We also searched trials registries and contacted authors of trials requesting unpublished data. We included randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of an oral monobacterial NTHi vaccine in adults with recurrent acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis or COPD when there was overt matching of the vaccine and placebo groups on clinical grounds. The selection criteria considered populations aged less than 65 years and those older than 65 years. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data from original records and publications for incidence and severity of bronchitis episodes and carriage rate of NTHi measured in the upper respiratory tract, as well as data relevant to other primary and secondary outcomes. We identified six placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials with a total of 557 participants. These trials investigated the efficacy of enteric-coated, killed preparations of H influenzae in populations prone to recurrent acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis or COPD. The vaccine preparation and immunisation regimen in all trials consisted of at least three courses of formalin-killed H influenzae in enteric-coated tablets taken at intervals (e.g. days 0, 28, and 56). Each course generally consisted of two tablets taken after breakfast over three consecutive days. In all cases the placebo groups took enteric-coated tablets containing glucose. Risk of bias was moderate across the studies, namely due to the lack of information provided about methods and inadequate presentation of results.Meta-analysis of the oral NTHi vaccine showed a small, non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis or COPD (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.10; P = 0.16). There was no significant difference in mortality rate between the vaccine and placebo groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.12; P = 0.31).We were unable to meta-analyse the carriage levels of NTHi in participants as each trial reported this result using different units and tools of measurement. Four trials showed no significant difference in carriage levels, while two trials showed a significant decrease in carriage levels in the vaccinated group compared with the placebo group.Four trials assessed severity of exacerbations measured by requirement for antibiotics. Three of these trials were comparable and when meta-analysed showed a statistically significant 80% increase in antibiotic courses per person in the placebo group (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.44; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to hospital admission rates (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.04; P = 0.97). Adverse events were reported in five trials but were not necessarily related to the vaccine; a point estimate is suggestive that they occurred more frequently in the vaccine group, however this result was not statistically significant (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.92; P = 0.87). Quality of life was not meta-analysed but was reported in two trials, with results at six months showing an improvement in quality of life in the vaccinated group (scoring at least two points better than placebo). Analyses demonstrate that NTHi oral vaccination of people with recurrent exacerbations of chronic bronchitis or COPD does not yield a significant reduction in the number and severity of exacerbations. Evidence was mixed, and the individual trials that showed a significant benefit of the vaccine are too small to advocate widespread oral vaccination of people with COPD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 32%
Unspecified 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 48%
Unspecified 15 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 11 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,992,404
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,706
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,364
of 265,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#154
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.