This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (22 MAY 2014)

Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Palivizumab for prophylaxis against respiratory syncytial virus infection in children with cystic fibrosis

  1. Karen A Robinson1,*,
  2. Olaide A Odelola2,
  3. Ian J Saldanha3,
  4. Naomi A Mckoy4

Editorial Group: Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group

Published Online: 5 JUN 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 17 APR 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007743.pub4


How to Cite

Robinson KA, Odelola OA, Saldanha IJ, Mckoy NA. Palivizumab for prophylaxis against respiratory syncytial virus infection in children with cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD007743. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007743.pub4.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Johns Hopkins University, Department of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

  2. 2

    Albert Einstein Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Philedelphia, PA, USA

  3. 3

    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Baltimore, MD, USA

  4. 4

    Human Genome Sciences, Inc., SSM Microbial Upstream Common Use Production, Rockville, Maryland, USA

*Karen A Robinson, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, 1830 E. Monument St., Suite 8068, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. krobin@jhmi.edu.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 5 JUN 2013

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (22 MAY 2014)

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms
 

Description of the condition

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection is a leading viral cause of acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in infants and young children worldwide, resulting in considerable morbidity and mortality. Seasonal peaks in rates of infection occur during winter in temperate climates and during the rainy season in tropical climates (Cane 2001). These peaks are often called 'RSV seasons'. By two years of age, almost all children in the United States of America (USA) have had their first infection and about half have been infected twice (Glezen 1986). In the USA, RSV bronchiolitis was the primary cause of hospitalisation for any reason among infants younger than one year between 1997 and 1999 (Leader 2002); while annual RSV hospitalisation rate in Spain was found to be 37 per 1000 among infants less than six months old, with a mean length of hospital stay of 5.9 days (Vicente 2003). In addition, RSV has been shown to be the most important viral cause of death in children under five years of age, especially in those younger than one year (Thompson 2003).

A significant cause of infant morbidity is RSV infection. Longer-term respiratory problems including increased rates of wheezing and allergy in affected infants have been demonstrated (Henderson 2005; Sigurs 1995; Sigurs 2000; Sigurs 2005; Stein 1999). Children born prematurely and those with pre-existing chronic lung or congenital heart diseases have the highest risk of developing severe infection requiring intensive care and respiratory support (Purcell 2004). Mortality from severe RSV infection is also increased by the presence of pre-existing diseases. In a hospital-based cohort study in the United Kingdom (UK), RSV mortality was 8.6% with a standardised mortality ratio of 0.76 and all the RSV deaths were associated with pre-existing conditions especially cardiac abnormalities and multiple co-morbidities (Thorburn 2009). Pohl also showed RSV to be an important pathogen in patients after solid organ transplantation (Pohl 1992).

Besides inducing cytotoxic and chemokine-mediated lung damage, RSV also directly impairs the mucus clearance mechanisms in the lungs (Tarran 2005). The resultant mucus stasis facilitates superimposition of bacteria, progressive lung disease and consequently respiratory failure. In addition, RSV has extra-pulmonary manifestations e.g. pancreatic dysfunction, hepatitis, encephalopathy, and myocarditis.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a multi-system genetic disorder characterised by mutation of the CF trans-membrane conductance regulator gene. The lungs of affected children produce viscous secretions and mucus plugging develops in the airways. Airway inflammation may be present as early as four weeks of age with an associated increase in susceptibility to respiratory infections in the presence of structurally normal lungs (Khan 1995; Kirchner 1996).

Children with CF are prone to recurrent lung inflammation, bacterial colonisation and subsequent chronic airway disease. This underlying lung disease puts them at high risk for severe RSV infections. In a prospective study of 80 children with CF, 31 (39%) were hospitalised for severe or persistent respiratory disease in the first year of life and respiratory viruses were isolated in 52% of the cases. The leading viral pathogen detected among them was RSV (Armstrong 1998). Furthermore, RSV infection has been shown to be a frequent cause of hospitalisation for acute respiratory illness, prolonged hospitalisation and mechanical ventilation as well as an important contributor to the initiation and progression of respiratory symptoms and early lung injury among infants with CF (Abman 1988).

It has been reported that children with CF are more likely to develop acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), require hospitalisation and develop a deterioration in lung function during a respiratory virus season, compared with children without CF. More importantly, this decline in lung function may persist for several months after the respiratory illness has cleared, further worsening the clinical course of lung disease (Hiatt 1999).

 

Description of the intervention

Currently, there is no cure for RSV infection, treatment mainly being supportive. Prevention is therefore very important. The development of active immunisation against RSV has been unsuccessful; however, passive immunisation with antibodies against RSV has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing RSV hospitalisation rates and serious complications among high risk children (Feltes 2003; Fenton 2004; IMpact-RSV 1998; Pedraz 2003). In addition, the use of antibodies against RSV has been shown to diminish the risk of developing long-term pulmonary complications (Simoes 2007).

Palivizumab (Synagis®) is a humanised monoclonal antibody directed against the RSV F glycoprotein. It is given intramuscularly at a dose of 15 mg/kg/monthly for five months and the first dose is given before the commencement of the RSV season (e.g. usually November in most states in the USA). The immunity elicited is only partial, hence the need for monthly injections throughout the duration of the RSV season.

In animal studies, palivizumab has been shown to reduce RSV-induced airway inflammation and obstruction with a resultant improvement in acute disease severity and long-term pulmonary function. It appears to decrease both the direct cell damage and immune inflammatory response caused by the virus (Mejias 2004) as well as prevent the persistent susceptibility to airway inflammation after the virus has been cleared (Piedimonte 2004). This is especially important because the airway inflammatory response is exaggerated in the CF mouse model (Colasurdo 2006).

In the large randomised controlled multi-centre IMpact-RSV trial, palivizumab prophylaxis was found to reduce the risk of hospitalisation for RSV by 55% among children with prematurity or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Among those with prematurity alone this risk reduction was increased to 78%, while among those with BPD it was 39%. There was no significant difference in the number of reported adverse events between the treatment and control groups (IMpact-RSV 1998).

Two non-randomised studies on the use of palivizumab for RSV prophylaxis among children with CF have been published (Giebels 2008; Speer 2008). Using data from the Palivizumab Outcomes Registry between 2000 and 2004, Speer reported that none of the 91 infants with CF who had received palivizumab prophylaxis required hospitalisation for RSV LRTI during this period (Speer 2008). Giebels carried out a retrospective study among 75 children diagnosed with CF between 1997 and 2005 in Canada (Giebels 2008). Three out of 35 children who received palivizumab prophylaxis and seven out of 40 who did not, were admitted for acute respiratory illness (ARI) with none in the palivizumab group and three non-treated children having laboratory-confirmed RSV infection. Children who received palivizumab also had fewer mean ARI hospitalisation days per patient (0.8 versus 1.73) and a 54% reduction in the number of hospital days. However, these differences did not reach statistical significance (Giebels 2008).

Palivizumab is very expensive, and needs to be administered monthly for five months each RSV season. The wholesale price of a 100 mg vial was US$1922.65 in the USA in 2009 (Red Book 2009). This amounts to a cost of US$9613.25 per RSV season. In Germany, the cost per RSV season was €3637 in 2003 (Roeckl-Wiedmann 2003). Also, because it is available only as a single-dose vial, wastages occur. In addition, limited data on the long-term effects of palivizumab use are available.

Presently, the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) recommends palivizumab prophylaxis in infants and children younger than two years with congenital heart disease (CHD), chronic lung disease of prematurity (CLD [formerly bronchopulmonary dysplasia]), and birth before 32 weeks 0 days of gestation (AAP 2009). It is recommended that these infants receive a maximal number of five doses. Among those with gestational age between 32 weeks 0 days and 34 weeks 6 days, the AAP recommends palivizumab prophylaxis if at least one of the following two risk factors are present: child care attendance; or one or more siblings or other children younger than five years live permanently in the child's household. These infants should receive palivizumab prophylaxis only until they reach 90 days of age or a maximum of three doses (whichever comes first). Although children with CF have morbidity rates comparable to those of children with CLD (Arnold 1999), a recommendation for routine palivizumab prophylaxis cannot be made for patients with CF due to insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of palivizumab among this population (AAP 2009).

There are currently no national guidelines for the use of palivizumab in the UK (McCormick 2007). However, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) does not recommend the routine use of palivizumab (SIGN 2006). It is recommended that palivizumab be considered for use, on a case-by-case basis, in infants less than 12 months old with extreme prematurity, acyanotic congenital heart disease, congenital or acquired significant orphan lung diseases, or immune deficiency (SIGN 2006).

 

Why it is important to do this review

Prospective cohort studies (Abman 1988; Armstrong 1998; Efthimiou 1984; Wang 1984) and an in-vitro study (Tarran 2005) have suggested that RSV infection may worsen CF lung disease. Infection with RSV predisposes individuals to bacterial colonisation and deterioration in lung function. Since there is currently no effective treatment against RSV infection, prevention remains important.

A previous Cochrane Systematic Review, which has been withdrawn, showed that prophylaxis with RSV immunoglobulin among high risk infants (prematurity, congenital heart disease and BPD) was effective in reducing RSV hospitalisations and admissions into the intensive care unit compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (Wang 2006). However, it is unclear whether the same effect holds among children with CF.

Currently, universal newborn screening is being performed in the USA (CFF 2009) and the UK (NHS 2009). Roll-out programmes for CF newborn screening are underway across Europe (Southern 2007).

A survey conducted among CF centres in the UK reported that less than 10% of infants identified had received RSV prophylaxis (McCormick 2007). The paucity of evidence and funding were discussed as the main reasons for the low rate of RSV prophylaxis among infants with CF in the UK.

While RSV may become an important pathogen again in later life, the current review will focus on children with CF because of the severity of its clinical implications in this age group.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

To determine the efficacy and safety of palivizumab (Synagis®) compared with either placebo or no prophylaxis or another type of prophylaxis, in preventing hospitalisation and mortality due to respiratory syncytial virus infection in children with cystic fibrosis.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing palivizumab against placebo or no prophylaxis or another type of prophylaxis in the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus infection.

 

Types of participants

Infants and children (up to 18 years) of both sexes with diagnosis of cystic fibrosis made by either sweat test or genetic testing or clinical criteria, and of any disease severity.

 

Types of interventions

Prophylaxis with palivizumab (Synagis®) compared with either placebo or no prophylaxis or another type of prophylaxis. No limits were placed on setting, regimen or dose.

 

Types of outcome measures

 

Primary outcomes

  1. Need for hospitalisation with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection based on clinical diagnosis or validated laboratory diagnosis or both
  2. Mortality

 

Secondary outcomes

  1. Hospitalisation for RSV infection
    1. Length of stay in hospital
    2. Need for intensive care
  2. Oxygen therapy for RSV infection
    1. Need for oxygen therapy
    2. Duration of oxygen therapy
  3. Pulmonary function
    1. forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (absolute or per cent predicted for age, sex and height)
    2. forced vital capacity (FVC) (absolute or per cent predicted for age, sex and height)
    3. forced expiratory volume in 0.5 seconds (FEV0.5) measured by the raised volume rapid thoracic compression technique or thoracic gas volume (TGV) measured by whole body plethysmography in infants and young children
  4. Nutritional status (weight, weight-for-age, weight-for-age Z-score, height, height-for-age, height-for-age Z-score, weight-for-height, body mass index (BMI))
  5. Number of adverse events or number of children having adverse events
  6. Number of acute exacerbations
  7. Number of infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa
  8. Number of antibiotic courses

We accepted data from all provided time points for outcomes.

 

Search methods for identification of studies

No restrictions were placed on language.

 

Electronic searches

We identified relevant studies from the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register using the terms: respiratory syncytial virus AND palivizumab.

The Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register is compiled from electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (updated each new issue of The Cochrane Library), quarterly searches of MEDLINE, a search of EMBASE to 1995 and the prospective handsearching of two journals - Pediatric Pulmonology and the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. Unpublished work is identified by searching the abstract books of three major cystic fibrosis conferences: the International Cystic Fibrosis Conference; the European Cystic Fibrosis Conference and the North American Cystic Fibrosis Conference. For full details of all searching activities for the register, please see the relevant sections of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Module.

Date of most recent search: 11 October 2012.

 

Searching other resources

We searched the reference list of the eligible trial and existing review articles on palivizumab to identify additional relevant studies and trial reports. We contacted the drug manufacturer (MedImmune, Inc.) and authors to obtain information on ongoing or unpublished studies.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

Two review authors independently screened the article identified by the search methods, first using the title and abstract and subsequently using the full-text. Disagreements regarding eligibility were resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third review author.

 

Data extraction and management

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the eligible study using custom data abstraction forms designed for this review. We abstracted the information about study and participant characteristics, the intervention, and the outcomes directly into custom data abstraction forms. We corresponded with trial authors to address uncertainties in the identified study and to obtain additional information on missing data. We checked the data for accuracy and consistency, and resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third reviewer. Finally, we entered the data into Review Manager software for analysis (RevMan 2011).

We accepted data from all provided time-points for outcomes.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

We employed the method described in The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions to evaluate the risk of bias (Higgins 2011). We looked for adequacy of the random sequence generation; methods of concealment of treatment allocation; blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors; completeness of outcome data for each main outcome; and presence of selective outcome reporting.

 

Measures of treatment effect

We calculated risk ratios and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each treatment group for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated odds ratios for adverse events.

No continuous outcomes were reported in the included study. If in future updates we identify studies reporting continuous outcomes, we will report the mean relative change from baseline or the mean post-intervention value as well as the difference in means between treatment groups and their associated 95% CI. We will also report the standard deviations; where standard errors are provided, we will convert these to standard deviations.

 

Unit of analysis issues

We have not included any cross-over trials as this study design is not appropriate in evaluating vaccines.

 

Dealing with missing data

We contacted the authors of the included trial to obtain missing data and to clarify uncertainties in the available abstract and poster. We requested information regarding sequence generation, masking (blinding), intention-to-treat analysis, baseline characteristics (gender, nutritional status, pulmonary function), and outcome data (nutritional status, pulmonary function, airway colonisations with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, oxygen therapy for RSV infection, acute exacerbations, antibiotic courses, and any other outcomes). We also sought clarification on the criteria used for classifying adverse events as 'any', 'related', or 'serious'.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

If in future sufficient trials are included in the review, we will assess heterogeneity between study estimates using the chi-squared test (obtained from Forest plots) and the I2 statistic (Higgins 2003). We will consider a chi-squared P value of less than 0.10 indicative of heterogeneity. The chi-squared test must, however, be interpreted with caution since the test may be negative in the presence of heterogeneity, in studies with small sample sizes or where a small number of studies have been pooled together in the meta-analysis. In addition, where there are many studies, it has excessive power to detect clinically insignificant heterogeneity.

In order to quantify inconsistency across studies, we will calculate the I2 statistic. This statistic describes the percentage of total variation across studies that are due to heterogeneity rather than by chance. The values of I2 lie between 0% and 100%, and a simplified categorisation of heterogeneity that we plan to use is: heterogeneity might not be important (I2 value of up to 40%), heterogeneity may be moderate (I2 value of 30% to 60%), heterogeneity may be substantial (I2 value of 50% to 90%), and considerable heterogeneity (I2 value of 75% or above) (Deeks 2011).

 

Assessment of reporting biases

If sufficient trials are included in the review in the future and if meta-analysis is possible, we will assess reporting bias using funnel plots. Interpretation of funnel-plots is primarily subjective and we will take this into account. To eliminate this subjectivity, the rank correlation test is commonly used (Lau 2006). But, this test relies on the presence of a large number of studies in the analysis (at least 30). Thus, small number of studies is a hindrance in the interpretation of funnel-plots. In theory, the funnel-plot evaluates the presence of differences in study results by size of study (precision of results). Thus, between-study heterogeneity further limits the validity of conclusions made from funnel-plots. We will interpret asymmetry of funnel-plots with caution (Lau 2006).

The authors' choice of reported outcomes can be influenced by the results, potentially making published results misleading (Higgins 2011). We compared the 'Methods' section of the abstract and poster with the 'Results' section, and we also considered if an outcome commonly reported in related studies was not reported. We contacted the authors for additional data.

 

Data synthesis

We entered the extracted data into RevMan 5 for data analysis using a fixed-effect model (RevMan 2011).

If sufficient trials are included in future updates, and if meta-analyses are appropriate, we will pool studies of the same design and assess effects of the interventions. We will consider performing analyses using both random-effects and fixed-effects models. We will use random-effects models if there is indication of heterogeneity between trials and we can not explain the source of heterogeneity. We will use random-effects models for analysis if the trials have small sample sizes or the number of trials is small, in which situation tests for heterogeneity may be underpowered (Higgins 2011). If there is no indication of heterogeneity after qualitative exploration of the included trials and the use of statistical tests (I2 statistic), we will conduct analyses using fixed-effect models.

We analysed dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR), but used the odds ratio (OR) for the analysis of adverse events. When available in future updates of the review, we will use the difference in means for continuous outcomes. Where different scales of measurement have been used, we will calculate a standardised difference in means (SMD).

When possible, we plan to conduct separate meta-analyses for each type of control group i.e. placebo, no prophylaxis, and each individual other type of prophylaxis.

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

When appropriate during future review updates, we will perform subgroup analyses based on the following variables:

  • Gender (males and females)
  • Age group (0 to 2 years, 3 to 6 years, and 7 to 18 years)
  • Presence or absence of other risk factors for severe RSV infection (premature birth, CHD, chronic lung disease of prematurity)
  • Geographical setting (urban and rural)
  • Dose used (15 mg/kg and other doses)
  • Regimen used (five monthly regimen and other regimens)
  • Definition of outcomes (as provided in included articles)
  • Duration of follow-up (up to one month, one month to six months, and beyond six months)
  • Delta F508 zygosity (homozygous and heterozygous)

 

Sensitivity analysis

When appropriate during future review updates, we will also conduct sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of including and excluding in the meta-analysis:

1. trials with inadequate methods of random sequence generation;

2. trials with inadequate methods of allocation concealment

3. trials with inadequate methods of masking (blinding) of participants, personnel, or outcome assessors;

4. trials with incomplete outcome data;

5. trials with selective outcome reporting; and

6. unpublished trials.

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms
 

Description of studies

 

Results of the search

The search identified one trial (Cohen 2005).

 

Included studies

The one trial identified by the search strategy was eligible for inclusion in the review (Cohen 2005). This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 186 children (mean (range) age: 12.8 (0.4 to 24.4) months) with CF across 40 centres in the USA. Participants were randomised to receive either 15 mg/kg palivizumab or placebo injections monthly over five months of one RSV season. Outcomes such as the number of patients hospitalised for RSV infection, mortality and adverse events, were assessed at 30 days after the end of the intervention (150 days from start of trial); and others such as nutritional status (weight to height ratio) and the number of infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, were assessed at 180 days after the end of the intervention (300 days from start of trial). Since the intervention lasted 120 days, we categorised those outcomes reported at 150 days from the start of the trial as 'up to six months' and those reported at 300 days from the start of the trial as 'up to 12 months'.

For this trial, we abstracted data from the published abstract and from the poster presented by the authors at the 2005 American Thoracic Society International Conference (San Diego, CA, USA) (Cohen 2005). The poster was obtained from the drug manufacturer (Medimmune, Inc.). In addition, we contacted the authors and the drug manufacturer to obtain additional data relevant to the outcomes of interest in this review. We obtained some relevant information. The current review (published 2013) discusses data abstracted from the available abstract and the poster as well as data obtained from the investigators (Cohen 2005).

 

Excluded studies

No trials were excluded.

 

Risk of bias in included studies

See the risk of bias table in the section 'Characteristics of included studies'.

 

Allocation

The method of random sequence generation was unclear. When contacted, the investigators clarified that the randomization schedule was controlled by a pharmacy (low risk).

 

Blinding

The included trial was described as double-blind and therefore this domain is graded as 'low risk of bias'. When contacted, the investigators clarified that participants, investigators, outcome assessors, and data analysts were all blinded.

 

Incomplete outcome data

The authors reported that five participants (2.7%) were lost to follow up: two (2.2%) in the palivizumab group and three (3.2%) in the placebo group, giving a low risk of bias.

 

Selective reporting

There is a high risk of bias for this domain as the authors mentioned that there were no clinically meaningful differences between treatment groups for all outcomes measured at 12 months follow up (weight gain (weight to height ratio), changes in use of pulmonary medications from baseline, incidence of Pseudomonas bacterial colonization, incidence of documented wheezing episodes, and duration of steroid usage), but no data were provided.

 

Other potential sources of bias

This industry-supported trial has not been published as a full report in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

Effects of interventions

 

Primary outcomes

 

1. Need for hospitalisation with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection based on clinical diagnosis or validated laboratory diagnosis or both

Although a total of 13 (14.1%) participants in the palivizumab group and 14 (14.9%) participants in the placebo group were hospitalised within the first six months, only one participant (1.1%) in each group was identified as hospitalised due to RSV infection (as identified by a positive RSV antigen test) (Cohen 2005). We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for RSV hospitalisations comparing palivizumab and placebo and there was no significant difference between groups, RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.06 to 16.09) ( Analysis 1.1).

 

2. Mortality

There were no deaths among either group of participants during the first six months follow up (Cohen 2005). This outcome was not reported at 12 months follow up.

 

Secondary outcomes

 

1. Hospitalisation for RSV infection

 
a. Length of stay in hospital

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 
b. Need for intensive care

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 

2. Oxygen therapy for RSV infection

 
a. Need for oxygen therapy

When contacted, the investigators of the included trial reported that one participant in the palivizumab treatment group and none in the placebo treatment group needed oxygen therapy during the trial (Cohen 2005). We calculated the RR as 3.06 (95% CI 0.13 to 74.27) ( Analysis 1.3).

 
b. Duration of oxygen therapy

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 

3. Pulmonary function

 
a. forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 
b. forced vital capacity (FVC)

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 
c. forced expiratory volume in 0.5 seconds (FEV0.5)

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 

4. Nutritional status

 
a. weight
 
i. weight

When contacted, the investigators reported that both treatment groups experienced a mean weight gain of 2.7 (standard error (SE) = 0.1) kg in the palivizumab group, weight gain ranged from 1.1 kg to 6.3 kg while in the placebo group, it ranged from 0.3 kg to 6.9 kg (Cohen 2005).

 
ii. weight-for-age

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 
iii. weight-for-age Z-score

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 
iv. weight-for-height

This outcome was not reported in the included trial. But, the authors reported no clinically significant differences between treatment groups for change in weight to height ratio at 12 months follow up (Cohen 2005). Data were not provided.

 
iv. body mass index (BMI)

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 
b. height
 
i. height

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 
ii. height-for-age

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 
iii. height-for-age Z-score

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 

5. Adverse events

 
a. number of adverse events

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 
b. number of children having adverse events

The authors of the included trial reported that the number of children experiencing adverse events was similar comparing palivizumab and placebo groups at six months follow up (Cohen 2005). We analysed adverse event data that were provided and calculated ORs and associated 95% CIs. The investigators defined an adverse event as "any unfavorable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporarily associated with the use of a medicinal product, whether or not considered related to the medicinal product" (Cohen 2005). The number of children with any adverse event were 89 (96.7%) and 90 (95.7%) in the palivizumab and placebo groups respectively, OR 1.32 (95% CI 0.29 to 6.06) (Analysis 1.4), while 5 (5.4%) and 4 (4.3%) children respectively had adverse events classified as related, OR 1.29 (95% CI 0.34 to 4.98) (Analysis 1.5). The investigators classified serious adverse events as those that resulted in any of the following outcomes: death; life-threatening; inpatient hospitalisation or prolongation of existing hospitalisation; persistent or significant disability or incapacity; congential anomaly or birth defect (in the offspring of a participant); or an important medical event that may not result in death, threaten life or require hospitalisation but, when based upon appropriate medical judgement, may jeopardise the patient and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above. In the palivizumab group 19 (20.7%) children suffered adverse events classified as serious and the placebo group this number was 16 children (17.0%), OR 1.27 (95% CI 0.61 to 2.65) (Analysis 1.6). To assess whether a serious adverse event was related to a study drug, the investigators classified the relationship as unlikely (none or remote relationship) or likely relationship (possible, probable, or definite relationship). No children in the palivizumab group and two children (2.1%) in the placebo group suffered related serious adverse events, OR 0.20 (95% CI 0.01 to 4.22) (Analysis 1.7).

Permanent discontinuation due to a serious adverse event occurred in one participant (1.1%) in the palivizumab group (Cohen 2005).

 

6. Number of acute exacerbations

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 

7. Number of infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa

When contacted, the authors of the included trial reported similar number of participants with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in the palivizumab and the placebo treatment groups (Cohen 2005); there were 14 participants (15.2%) and 12 participants (12.8%) respectively at 12 months follow up, RR 1.19 (95% CI 0.58 to 2.44) (Analysis 1.8).

 

8. Number of antibiotic courses

This outcome was not assessed in the included trial.

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms
 

Summary of main results

Palivizumab has been shown to be effective in reducing RSV hospitalisation rates and has been recommended for infants at high risk with other conditions. This systematic review identified only one randomised trial assessing the use of palivizumab in infants with CF. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in palivizumab and placebo groups. Thus, it is not possible to comment on the safety and tolerability of RSV prophylaxis with palivizumab in infants with CF from these data. The authors reported that there were no clinically meaningful differences in outcomes at 12-months follow up.

 

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

We identified only one randomised trial addressing the use of palivizumab in children with CF. The study included CF infants up to two years of age.

 

Quality of the evidence

Although the authors mentioned that the study was double-blinded, there was no mention about which two parties were blinded. Similarly, no information was provided about the method of random sequence generation or whether or not allocation was concealed. They reported that there were no clinically meaningful differences in weight gain, change in pulmonary medications, incidence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonisation, incidence of documented wheezing episodes, and duration of steroid usage between palivizumab and placebo recipients at 12 months follow up. However no data were provided for these outcomes.

 

Potential biases in the review process

Given our comprehensive search strategy and contact with the authors and the drug manufacturer, it is unlikely that we missed any relevant trials. We included the only randomised trial that was identified by our search. We were successful in obtaining additional data from the investigators of this trial.

 

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

The report of only one participant (1.1%) in each group being hospitalised due to RSV infection is in keeping with non-randomised studies in the literature; Speer reported that none of the 91 infants with CF from the Palivizumab Outcomes Registry who had received palivizumab prophylaxis required hospitalisation for RSV between 2000 and 2004 (Speer 2008). Giebels reported that 3 out of 35 children with CF who received palivizumab prophylaxis and 7 out of 40 who did not, were admitted for acute respiratory illness with none in the palivizumab group and three non-recipients having confirmed RSV infection (Giebels 2008).

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

 

Implications for practice

The strength of the current evidence (only one included randomised trial, with limited data) is insufficient to allow conclusions about the efficacy and safety of palivizumab prophylaxis in children with CF to be made.

 
Implications for research

Well-designed adequately powered multi-centre studies are required to provide evidence for safety and benefit of the use of palivizumab prophylaxis in children with CF.

No deaths were observed in the study included in this review (Cohen 2005) and mortality was not reported as an outcome in other studies of the use of palivizumab prophylaxis in children with CF (Giebels 2008; Speer 2008). Reductions in mortality rates associated with palivizumab prophylaxis in studies of other populations ranged from 21% to 78% (Feltes 2003; IMpact-RSV 1998; Pedraz 2003). While a reduction in mortality rates is the ultimate aim of this intervention, it would appear that in children with CF these rates are very low and powering a study to detect changes in these rates is not feasible.

Existing studies of children with CF (Giebels 2008) and other populations (Feltes 2003; IMpact-RSV 1998; Pedraz 2003; Singleton 2003) suggest an approximately 50% reduction in RSV hospitalisation rates associated with palivizumab prophylaxis. The study included in this review reported a 1.06% rate of hospitalisation due to RSV infection in the placebo group (Cohen 2005), while an observational study in infants with CF reported the control group rate to be higher (7.5%) (Giebels 2008). Depending on which rate is assumed, a randomised controlled trial would need a per treatment group sample size of 4777 or 644 participants respectively to detect a 50% or larger difference in hospitalisation rates between palivizumab and placebo groups (assuming Type I error = 0.05, power = 80%, 1:1 allocation ratio, no dropouts, and using Fisher’s exact test) (Dupont 1990) (Figure 1). Alternatively, we could use the rate of hospitalisation due to any respiratory cause in the sample size calculations. The study included in this review reported this rate in the placebo group to be 14.9% (Cohen 2005), while the observational study in infants with CF reported it to be 17.5% in the control group (Giebels 2008). Depending on which is assumed, a randomised controlled trial would need a per treatment group sample size of 306 or 255 participants respectively to detect a 50% or larger difference in hospitalisation rates between palivizumab and placebo groups (assuming Type I error = 0.05, power = 80%, 1:1 allocation ratio, no dropouts, and using Fisher’s exact test) (Dupont 1990) (Figure 2).

 FigureFigure 1. Sample size of needed randomised controlled trial as a function of power to detect a 50% reduction in rate of hospitalisation due to RSV infection (Type I error=0.05, 1:1 allocation ratio, no dropouts, and using Fisher’s exact test)

Upper Curve - Assuming rate of hospitalisation in control group = 1.06% (Cohen 2005)

Lower Curve - Assuming rate of hospitalisation in control group = 7.5% (Giebels 2008)
 FigureFigure 2. Sample size of needed randomised controlled trial as a function of power to detect a 50% reduction in rate of hospitalisation due to any respiratory cause (Type I error=0.05, 1:1 allocation ratio, no dropouts, and using Fisher’s exact test)

Upper Curve - Assuming rate of hospitalisation in control group = 14.9% (Cohen 2005)

Lower Curve - Assuming rate of hospitalisation in control group = 17.5% (Giebels 2008)

Whichever estimate of control group hospitalisation rate is used, the resulting sample size needed for a randomised clinical trial would be prohibitively large for the CF community. Physicians and other health-care workers need to consider longer-term outcomes when prescribing this intervention for infants with CF. Such long-term outcomes could include chronic airway infection, pulmonary function at school entry, etc.

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms
Download statistical data

 
Comparison 1. Palivizumab versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Need for hospitalisation for RSV infection1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    1.1 Up to 6 months
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 2 Mortality1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    2.1 Up to 6 months
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 3 Need for oxygen therapy1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    3.1 Up to 6 months
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 4 Adverse events - any1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    4.1 Up to 6 months
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 5 Related adverse events1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    5.1 Up to 6 months
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 6 Any serious adverse event1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    6.1 Up to 6 months
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 7 Related serious adverse event1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    7.1 Up to 6 months
1Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 8 Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Totals not selected

    8.1 Up to 6 months
1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

 

What's new

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

Last assessed as up-to-date: 17 April 2013.


DateEventDescription

17 April 2013New citation required but conclusions have not changedDespite the inclusion of additional data from the only included trial in this review, the authors' conclusions have not changed.

17 April 2013New search has been performedA search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Register did not identify any new references for this review. However, we obtained data from the sponsor of the only eligible trial and have included these data in the current update of this review.



 

History

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

Protocol first published: Issue 2, 2009
Review first published: Issue 2, 2010


DateEventDescription

9 November 2010New search has been performedA search of the Group's CF Trials Register did not identify any new references for inclusion in this review.

We have revised the section 'Implications for research' with updated sample size calculations for a required randomized controlled trial based on rates of hospitalizations due to any respiratory cause and specifically due to RSV infection. We have also done separate calculations using estimates from the one included randomized control trial and an observational study.



 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

Link with editorial base: Karen Robinson
Draft the protocol: all authors
Develop the search strategy: editorial base and Karen Robinson
Search for studies: all authors and editorial base
Retrieve copies of the studies: Olaide Odelola and Naomi Mckoy
Screening and abstraction of data: all authors
Enter data into RevMan and carry out the analysis: Olaide Odelola
Interpret analysis: all authors
Draft final review: all authors
Update the review: all authors

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

None known.

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms
 

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

 

External sources

  • Partially funded by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, USA.

 

Differences between protocol and review

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

None

 

Notes

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Data and analyses
  9. What's new
  10. History
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Notes
  16. Index terms

None.

* Indicates the major publication for the study

References

References to studies included in this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Data and analyses
  10. What's new
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Notes
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies included in this review
  19. Additional references
  20. References to other published versions of this review
Cohen 2005 {published and unpublished data}
  • Cohen AH, Boron ML, Dingivan C. A phase IV study of the safety of Synagis® (Palivizumab) for prophylaxis of respiratory syncytial virus disease in children with cystic fibrosis. Poster session presented at the American Thoracic Society International Conference 2005 May 20-25; San Diego, USA. 2005.
  • Cohen AH, Boron ML, Dingivan C. A phase IV study of the safety of Synagis® (Palivizumab) for prophylaxis of respiratory syncytial virus disease in children with cystic fibrosis [abstract]. Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society International Conference; 2005 May 20-25; San Diego, USA. 2005:A178.

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Data and analyses
  10. What's new
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Notes
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies included in this review
  19. Additional references
  20. References to other published versions of this review
AAP 2009
Abman 1988
  • Abman SH, Ogle JW, Butler-Simon N, Rumack CM, Accurso FJ. Role of respiratory syncytial virus in early hospitalization for respiratory distress of young infants with cystic fibrosis. Journal of Pediatrics 1988;113(5):826-30.
Armstrong 1998
Arnold 1999
  • Arnold SR, Wang EE, Law BJ, Boucher FD, Stephens D, Robinson JL, et al. Variable morbidity of respiratory syncytial virus infection in patients with underlying lung disease: a review of the PICNIC RSV Database. Pediatric Investigators Collaborative Network on Infections in Canada. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 1999;18(10):866-9.
Cane 2001
CFF 2009
  • Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. http://www.cff.org/GetInvolved/Advocate/NewbornScreening (accessed December 03, 2009).
Colasurdo 2006
Deeks 2011
  • Deeks J, Higgins J, Altman D. Chapter 9 Analysing data and undertaking meta-analysis. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Dupont 1990
Efthimiou 1984
  • Efthimiou J, Hodson ME, Taylor P, Taylor AG, Batten JC. Importance of viruses and Legionella pneumophila in respiratory exacerbations of young adults with cystic fibrosis. Thorax 1984 Feb;39(2):150-4.
Feltes 2003
  • Feltes TF, Cabalka AK, Meissner HC, Piazza FM, Carlin DA, Top FH, et al. Palivizumab prophylaxis reduces hospitalization due to respiratory syncytial virus in young children with hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease. Journal of Pediatrics 2003;143(4):532-40.
Fenton 2004
  • Fenton C, Scott LI, Plosker GL. Palivizumab: A review of its use as prophylaxis for serious respiratory syncytial virus infection. Pediatric Drugs 2004;6(3):177-97.
Giebels 2008
Glezen 1986
  • Glezen WP, Taber LH, Frank AL, Kasel JA. Risk of primary infection and reinfection with respiratory syncytial virus. American Journal of Diseases in Children 1986;140(6):543-6.
Henderson 2005
Hiatt 1999
  • Hiatt PW, Grace SC, Kozinetz CA, Raboudi SH, Treece DG, Taber LH, et al. Effects of viral lower respiratory tract infection on lung function in infants with cystic fibrosis. Pediatrics 1999;103(3):619-26.
Higgins 2003
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
IMpact-RSV 1998
  • The IMpact-RSV Study Group. Palivizumab, a humanized respiratory syncytial virus monoclonal antibody reduces hospitalization from respiratory syncytial virus infection in high-risk infants. Pediatrics 1998;102(3):531-7.
Khan 1995
  • Khan TZ, Wagener JS, Bost T, Martinez J, Accurso FJ, Riches DW. Early pulmonary inflammation in infants with cystic fibrosis. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1995;151(4):1075-82.
Kirchner 1996
  • Kirchner KK, Wagener JS, Khan TZ, Copenhaver SC, Accurso FJ. Increased DNA levels in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid obtained from infants with cystic fibrosis. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1996;154(5):1426-9.
Lau 2006
Leader 2002
McCormick 2007
Mejias 2004
  • Mejias A, Chavez-Bueno S, Rios AM, Saavedra-Lozano J, Aten MF, Hatfield J, et al. Anti-respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) neutralizing antibody decreases lung inflammation, airway obstruction, and airway hyperresponsiveness in a murine RSV model. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 2004;48(5):1811-22.
NHS 2009
  • National Health Service. Newborn Blood Spot screening across the UK . http://www.screening.nhs.uk/bloodspot-compare (accessed December 03, 2009).
Pedraz 2003
  • Pedraz C, Carbonell-Estrany X, Figueras-Aloy J, Quero J. Effect of palivizumab prophylaxis in decreasing respiratory syncytial virus hospitalizations in premature infants. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2003;22(9):823-7.
Piedimonte 2004
Pohl 1992
  • Pohl C, Green M, Wald ER, Ledesma-Medina J. Respiratory syncytial virus infections in pediatric liver transplant recipients. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1992;165(1):166-9.
Purcell 2004
  • Purcell K, Fergie J. Driscoll Children's Hospital respiratory syncytial virus database: risk factors, treatment and hospital course in 3308 infants and young children, 1991 to 2002. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2004;23(5):418-23.
Red Book 2009
  • Physician's Desk Reference. Red Book Drug Topics. Montvale, NJ: Thomson Reuters, 2009.
RevMan 2011
  • The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
Roeckl-Wiedmann 2003
  • Roeckl-Wiedmann I, Liese JG, Grill E, Fischer B, Carr D, Belohradsky BH. Economic evaluation of possible prevention of RSV-related hospitalizations in premature infants in Germany. European Journal of Pediatrics 2003;162(4):237-44.
SIGN 2006
  • Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Bronchiolitis in Children: A National Clinical Guideline. www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign91.pdf (accessed 22 January 2009).
Sigurs 1995
  • Sigurs N, Bjarnason R, Sigurbergsson F, Kjellman B, Björkstén B. Asthma and immunoglobulin E antibodies after respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis: a prospective cohort study with matched controls. Pediatrics 1995;95(4):500-5.
Sigurs 2000
  • Sigurs N, Bjarnason R, Sigurbergsson F, Kjellman B. Respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis in infancy is an important risk factor for asthma and allergy at age 7. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2000;161(5):1501-7.
Sigurs 2005
  • Sigurs N, Gustafsson PM, Bjarnason R, Lundberg F, Schmidt S, Sigurbergsson F, Kjellman B. Severe respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis in infancy and asthma and allergy at age 13. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2005;171(2):137-41.
Simoes 2007
  • Simoes EA, Groothuis JR, Carbonell-Estrany X, Rieger CH, Mitchell I, Fredrick LM, et al. Palivizumab prophylaxis, respiratory syncytial virus, and subsequent recurrent wheezing. Journal of Pediatrics 2007;151(1):34-42, 42.e1.
Singleton 2003
  • Singleton R, Dooley L, Bruden D, Raelson S, Butler JC. Impact of palivizumab prophylaxis on respiratory syncytial virus hospitalizations in high risk Alaska Native infants. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2003;22(6):540-5.
Southern 2007
Speer 2008
  • Speer ME, Fernandes CJ, Boron M, Groothuis JR. Use of palivizumab for prevention of hospitalization as a result of respiratory syncytial virus in infants with cystic fibrosis. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2008;27(6):559-61.
Stein 1999
Tarran 2005
  • Tarran R, Button B, Picher M, Paradiso AM, Ribeiro CM, Lazarowski ER, et al. Normal and cystic fibrosis airway surface liquid homeostasis. The effects of phasic shear stress and viral infections. Journal of Biological Chemistry 2005;280(42):35751-9.
Thompson 2003
  • Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, Brammer L, Cox N, Anderson LJ, et al. Mortality associated with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA 2003;289(2):179-86.
Thorburn 2009
Vicente 2003
  • Vicente D, Montes M, Cilla G, Perez-Yarza EG, Perez-Trallero E. Hospitalization for respiratory syncytial virus in the pediatric population in Spain. Epidemiology and Infection 2003;131(2):867-72.
Wang 1984
  • Wang EE, Prober CG, Manson B, Corey M, Levison H. Association of respiratory viral infections with pulmonary deterioration in patients with cystic fibrosis. New England Journal of Medicine 1984;311(26):1653-8.
Wang 2006

References to other published versions of this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Data and analyses
  10. What's new
  11. History
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Notes
  17. Characteristics of studies
  18. References to studies included in this review
  19. Additional references
  20. References to other published versions of this review
Robinson 2010
  • Robinson KA, Odelola OA, Saldanha IJ, Mckoy NA. Palivizumab for prophylaxis against respiratory syncytial virus infection in children with cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007743.pub2]
Robinson 2012