TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing the strength of evidence for a causal effect of respiratory syncytial virus lower respiratory tract infections on subsequent wheezing illness
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Brunwasser, Steven M.
AU - Snyder, Brittney M.
AU - Driscoll, Amanda J.
AU - Fell, Deshayne B.
AU - Savitz, David A.
AU - Feikin, Daniel R.
AU - Skidmore, Becky
AU - Bhat, Niranjan
AU - Bont, Louis J.
AU - Dupont, William D.
AU - Wu, Pingsheng
AU - Gebretsadik, Tebeb
AU - Holt, Patrick G.
AU - Zar, Heather J.
AU - Ortiz, Justin R.
AU - Hartert, Tina V.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was commissioned by WHO through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A WHO RSV expert (DRF) contributed to the study conceptual isation, protocol and search strategy development, interpretation of results, and manuscript editing. AJD was supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH). The NIH had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the paper for publication. The Gates Foundation had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Funding Information:
SMB reports grants from WHO during the conduct of the study. BMS and AJD report grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the conduct of the study. TVH reports grants from WHO during the conduct of the study; and grants from NIH and personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. WHO received a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support work related to RSV infection and asthma. WHO funded this work. DRF works for WHO but has no personal conflicts of interest in this topic. HJZ reports grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP 1017641), Novavax, Medimmune, South African Medical Research Council, National Research Foundation, outside the submitted work. LJB has regular interaction with pharmaceutical and other industrial partners and has not received personal fees or other personal benefits. LJB's institution University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU) has received major funding (>€100 000 per industrial partner) for investigator-initiated studies from AbbVie, MedImmune, Janssen, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Nutricia (Danone), and MeMed Diagnostics. UMCU has received major cash or in-kind funding as part of the public private partnership funded by the Innovative Medicine Initiative's REspiratory Syncytial virus Consortium in EUrope project from GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sanofi. UMCU has received major funding by Julius Clinical for participating in the INFORM study sponsored by MedImmune. UMCU has received minor funding for participation in trials by Regeneron and Janssen from 2015–17 (total annual estimate <€20 000). UMCU received minor funding for consultation and invited lectures by AbbVie, MedImmune, Ablynx, Bavaria Nordic, MabXience, Novavax, Pfizer, Janssen (total annual estimate less than €20 000). LJB is the founding chairman of the ReSViNET Foundation. DBF, DAS, BS, NB, WDD, PW, TG, PGH, and JRO declare no competing interests.
Funding Information:
This study was commissioned by WHO through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Global Health Grant OPP1114766). AJD was supported by NIH (T32 AI007524).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license
PY - 2020/8
Y1 - 2020/8
N2 - Background: Although a positive association has been established, it is unclear whether lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) cause chronic wheezing illnesses. If RSV-LRTI were causal, we would expect RSV-LRTI prevention to reduce the incidence of chronic wheezing illnesses in addition to reducing acute disease. We aimed to evaluate the strength of evidence for a causal effect of RSV-LRTI on subsequent chronic wheezing illness to inform public health expectations for RSV vaccines. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies evaluating the association between RSV-LRTI and subsequent wheezing illness (exposure studies) and studies evaluating the association between RSV immunoprophylaxis and subsequent wheezing illness (immunoprophylaxis studies). Exposure studies were included if the exposure group members had an LRTI with laboratory-confirmed RSV and if the exposure ascertainment period began before 2 years of age and ended before 5 years of age. We required a wash-out period of more than 30 days between the index RSV-LRTI and the outcome measurement to allow for resolution of the acute illness. Comparisons between RSV-LRTI and non-RSV-LRTI were not included. Immunoprophylaxis studies were included if they measured the association with subsequent wheezing illness relative to a control group, either in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) or an observational design. For the immunoprophylaxis drugs in question, we required evidence of efficacy in targeting RSV-LRTI from at least one RCT to ensure biological plausibility. All variations of wheezing illness were combined into a single outcome that refers broadly to asthma or any other respiratory illness with wheezing symptoms. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception up to Aug 28, 2018. We evaluated whether data from exposure studies could provide evidence against the most viable non-causal theory that RSV-LRTI is a marker of respiratory illness susceptibility rather than a causal factor. Additionally, we tested whether RSV immunoprophylaxis reduces the odds of subsequent wheezing illnesses. We used a random-effects modelling framework and, to accommodate studies providing multiple correlated estimates, robust variance estimation meta-regressions. Meta-regression coefficients (b) quantify differences between exposure and comparator groups on the loge odds ratio (loge OR) scale. Findings: From 14 235 records we identified 57 eligible articles that described 42 studies and provided 153 effect estimates. 35 studies estimated the direct effect of RSV-LRTI on wheezing illnesses (exposure studies) and eight evaluated the effect of RSV immunoprophylaxis (immunoprophylaxis studies). Exposure studies that adjusted for genetic influences yielded a smaller mean adjusted OR estimate (aOR+ 2·45, 95% CI 1·23–4·88) compared with those that did not (4·17, 2·36–7·37), a significant difference (b 0·53, 95% CI 0·04–1·02). Infants who were not protected with RSV immunoprophylaxis tended to have higher odds of subsequent wheezing illness, as we would expect if RSV-LRTI were causal, but the effect was not significant (OR+ 1·21, 95% CI 0·73–1·99). There was generally a high threat of confounding bias in the observational studies. Additionally, in both the observational studies and immunoprophylaxis RCTs, there was high risk of bias due to missing outcome data. Interpretation: Our findings, limited to exposure and immunoprophylaxis studies, do not support basing policy decisions on an assumption that prevention of RSV-LRTI will reduce recurrent chronic wheezing illnesses. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
AB - Background: Although a positive association has been established, it is unclear whether lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) cause chronic wheezing illnesses. If RSV-LRTI were causal, we would expect RSV-LRTI prevention to reduce the incidence of chronic wheezing illnesses in addition to reducing acute disease. We aimed to evaluate the strength of evidence for a causal effect of RSV-LRTI on subsequent chronic wheezing illness to inform public health expectations for RSV vaccines. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies evaluating the association between RSV-LRTI and subsequent wheezing illness (exposure studies) and studies evaluating the association between RSV immunoprophylaxis and subsequent wheezing illness (immunoprophylaxis studies). Exposure studies were included if the exposure group members had an LRTI with laboratory-confirmed RSV and if the exposure ascertainment period began before 2 years of age and ended before 5 years of age. We required a wash-out period of more than 30 days between the index RSV-LRTI and the outcome measurement to allow for resolution of the acute illness. Comparisons between RSV-LRTI and non-RSV-LRTI were not included. Immunoprophylaxis studies were included if they measured the association with subsequent wheezing illness relative to a control group, either in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) or an observational design. For the immunoprophylaxis drugs in question, we required evidence of efficacy in targeting RSV-LRTI from at least one RCT to ensure biological plausibility. All variations of wheezing illness were combined into a single outcome that refers broadly to asthma or any other respiratory illness with wheezing symptoms. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception up to Aug 28, 2018. We evaluated whether data from exposure studies could provide evidence against the most viable non-causal theory that RSV-LRTI is a marker of respiratory illness susceptibility rather than a causal factor. Additionally, we tested whether RSV immunoprophylaxis reduces the odds of subsequent wheezing illnesses. We used a random-effects modelling framework and, to accommodate studies providing multiple correlated estimates, robust variance estimation meta-regressions. Meta-regression coefficients (b) quantify differences between exposure and comparator groups on the loge odds ratio (loge OR) scale. Findings: From 14 235 records we identified 57 eligible articles that described 42 studies and provided 153 effect estimates. 35 studies estimated the direct effect of RSV-LRTI on wheezing illnesses (exposure studies) and eight evaluated the effect of RSV immunoprophylaxis (immunoprophylaxis studies). Exposure studies that adjusted for genetic influences yielded a smaller mean adjusted OR estimate (aOR+ 2·45, 95% CI 1·23–4·88) compared with those that did not (4·17, 2·36–7·37), a significant difference (b 0·53, 95% CI 0·04–1·02). Infants who were not protected with RSV immunoprophylaxis tended to have higher odds of subsequent wheezing illness, as we would expect if RSV-LRTI were causal, but the effect was not significant (OR+ 1·21, 95% CI 0·73–1·99). There was generally a high threat of confounding bias in the observational studies. Additionally, in both the observational studies and immunoprophylaxis RCTs, there was high risk of bias due to missing outcome data. Interpretation: Our findings, limited to exposure and immunoprophylaxis studies, do not support basing policy decisions on an assumption that prevention of RSV-LRTI will reduce recurrent chronic wheezing illnesses. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088877643&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85088877643&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30109-0
DO - 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30109-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 32763206
AN - SCOPUS:85088877643
SN - 2213-2600
VL - 8
SP - 795
EP - 806
JO - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
JF - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
IS - 8
ER -