Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30;(4):CD006602. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006602.pub4.

Monoclonal antibody for reducing the risk of respiratory syncytial virus infection in children.

Author information

1
School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia. Tea.Andabaka@gmail.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is one of the most important viral pathogens causing acute respiratory infections in children. It results in about 3.4 million hospitalisations annually in children under five. Palivizumab is an anti-RSV monoclonal antibody, administered intramuscularly at a dose of 15 mg/kg once every 30 days. The efficacy and safety of palivizumab has been evaluated in multicentre, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a large number of economic evaluations (EEs) have tested its cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the effectiveness and safety of palivizumab prophylaxis compared with placebo, or another type of prophylaxis, in reducing the risk of complications (hospitalisation due to RSV infection) in high-risk infants and children. To assess the cost-effectiveness (or cost-utility) of palivizumab prophylaxis compared with no prophylaxis in infants and children in different risk groups.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched CENTRAL 2012, Issue 7, MEDLINE (1996 to July week 4, 2012), EMBASE (1996 to August 2012), CINAHL (1996 to August 2012) and LILACS (1996 to August 2012) for studies of effectiveness and safety. We searched the NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED 2012, Issue 4), Health Economics Evaluations Database (HEED, 9 August 2012) and Paediatric Economic Database Evaluations (PEDE, 1980 to 2009), MEDLINE (1996 to July week 4, 2012) and EMBASE (1996 to August 2012) for economic evaluations.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included RCTs comparing palivizumab prophylaxis with a placebo, no prophylaxis or another type of prophylaxis in preventing serious lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV in paediatric patients at high risk. We included cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-utility analyses comparing palivizumab prophylaxis with no prophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies and extracted data for both the RCTs and EEs. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and for adverse events (AEs). We provided a narrative summary of results for continuous outcomes, due to missing data on standard deviations. We performed fixed-effect meta-analyses for the estimation of pooled effects whenever there was no indication of heterogeneity between included RCTs. We summarised the results reported in included EEs, such as incremental costs, incremental effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness and/or cost-utility ratios (ICERs), and we calculated ICER present values in 2011 Euros for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS:

Of the seven available RCTs, three compared palivizumab with a placebo in a total of 2831 patients, and four compared palivizumab with motavizumab in a total of 8265 patients. All RCTs were sponsored by the drug manufacturing company. The overall quality of RCTs was good, but for most of the outcomes assessed only data from two studies contributed to the analysis. Palivizumab prophylaxis was associated with a statistically significant reduction in RSV hospitalisations (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.64) when compared to placebo. When compared to motavizumab, palivizumab recipients showed a non-significant increase in the risk of RSV hospitalisations (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.90). In both cases, the proportion of children with any AE or any AE related to the study drug was similar between the two groups.In terms of economic evidence, we included 34 studies that reported cost-effectiveness and/or cost-utility data for palivizumab prophylaxis compared with no prophylaxis, in high-risk children with different underlying medical conditions. The overall quality of EEs was good, but the variations in modelling approaches were considerable across the studies, leading to big differences in cost-effectiveness results. The cost-effectiveness of palivizumab prophylaxis depends on the consumption of resources taken into account by the study authors; and on the cost-effectiveness threshold set by the healthcare sector in each country.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

There is evidence that palivizumab prophylaxis is effective in reducing the frequency of hospitalisations due to RSV infection, i.e. in reducing the incidence of serious lower respiratory tract RSV disease in children with chronic lung disease, congenital heart disease or those born preterm.Results from economic evaluations of palivizumab prophylaxis are inconsistent, implying that economic findings must be interpreted with caution. ICER values varied considerably across studies, from highly cost-effective to not cost-effective. The availability of low-cost palivizumab would reduce its inequitable distribution, so that RSV prophylaxis would be available to the poorest countries where children are at greatest risk.

PMID:
23633336
DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD006602.pub4
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Wiley
    Loading ...
    Support Center