Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

Review confirmed that BCG vaccination provides protection against tuberculosis, and that effectiveness of BCG vaccines in protecting against tuberculosis varies considerably between populations, to an extent that cannot be attributed to chance alone. Age at which the vaccine was given, pre-vaccination tuberculin sensitivity status and latitude were the factors that explained most of the observed variation.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

I Abubakar,1,2,* L Pimpin,1 C Ariti,3 R Beynon,4 P Mangtani,3 JAC Sterne,4 PEM Fine,3 PG Smith,3 M Lipman,5 D Elliman,6 JM Watson,1 LN Drumright,1 PF Whiting,4 E Vynnycky,1 LC Rodrigues,3 

1 Respiratory Diseases Department, Public Health England, London, UK
2 Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
3 Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
4 School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
5 Department of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
6 Haringey Children's Community Health Services, Whittington Health Services, Whittington Hospital, London, UK
* Corresponding author ; Email:

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue:{{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://dx.doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

You might also be interested in:
{{classification.Category.Concept}}

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests that the duration of protection by bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) may exceed previous estimates with potential implications for estimating clinical and cost-efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the protection and duration of protection provided by BCG vaccination against tuberculosis, explore how this protection changes with time since vaccination, and examine the reasons behind the variation in protection and the rate of waning of protection.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cochrane Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Web of Knowledge, Biosciences Information Service (BIOSIS), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACs), MEDCARIB Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from inception to May 2009. Index to Theses, System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE), Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International (CABI) Abstracts, Scopus, Article First, Academic Complete, Africa-Wide Information, Google Scholar, Global Health, British National Bibliography for Report Literature, and clinical trial registration websites were searched from inception to October 2009.

REVIEW METHODS

Electronic databases searches, screening of identified studies, data extraction and analysis were undertaken. Meta-analysis was used to present numerical and graphical summaries of clinical efficacy and efficacy by time since vaccination. Evidence of heterogeneity was assessed using the tau-squared statistic. Meta-regression allowed the investigation of observed heterogeneity. Factors investigated included BCG strain, latitude, stringency of pre-BCG vaccination tuberculin testing, age at vaccination, site of disease, study design and vulnerability to biases. Rate of waning of protection was estimated using the ratio of the measure of efficacy after 10 years compared with the efficacy in the first 10 years of a study.

RESULTS

Study selection. A total of 21,030 references were identified, providing data on 132 studies after abstract and full-text review. Efficacy. Protection against pulmonary tuberculosis in adults is variable, ranging from substantial protection in the UK MRC trial {rate ratio 0.22 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.31]}, to absence of clinically important benefit, as in the large Chingleput trial [rate ratio 1.05 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.25)] and greater in latitudes further away from the equator. BCG vaccination efficacy was usually high, and varied little by form of disease (with higher protection against meningeal and miliary tuberculosis) or study design when BCG vaccination was given only to infants or to children after strict screening for tuberculin sensitivity. High levels of protection against death were observed from both trials and observational studies. The observed protective effect of BCG vaccination did not differ by the strain of BCG vaccine used in trials.

DURATION

Reviewed studies showed that BCG vaccination protects against pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis for up to 10 years. Most studies either did not follow up participants for long enough or had very few cases after 15 years. This should not be taken to indicate an absence of effect: five studies (one trial and four observational studies) provided evidence of measurable protection at least 15 years after vaccination. Efficacy declined with time. The rate of decline was variable, with faster decline in latitudes further from the equator and in situations where BCG vaccination was given to tuberculin-sensitive participants after stringent tuberculin testing.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation of this review relates to quality of included trials, most of which were conducted before current standards for reporting were formulated. In addition, data were lacking in some areas and the review had to rely on evidence from observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

BCG vaccination protection against tuberculosis varies between populations, to an extent that cannot be attributed to chance alone. Failure to exclude those already sensitised to mycobacteria and study latitude closer to the equator were associated with lower efficacy. These factors explained most of the observed variation. There is good evidence that BCG vaccination protection declines with time and that protection can last for up to 10 years. Data on protection beyond 15 years are limited; however, a small number of trials and observational studies suggest that BCG vaccination may protect for longer. Further studies are required to investigate the duration of protection by BCG vaccination.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests that the duration of protection by bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) may exceed previous estimates with potential implications for estimating clinical and cost-efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the protection and duration of protection provided by BCG vaccination against tuberculosis, explore how this protection changes with time since vaccination, and examine the reasons behind the variation in protection and the rate of waning of protection.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cochrane Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Web of Knowledge, Biosciences Information Service (BIOSIS), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACs), MEDCARIB Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from inception to May 2009. Index to Theses, System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE), Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International (CABI) Abstracts, Scopus, Article First, Academic Complete, Africa-Wide Information, Google Scholar, Global Health, British National Bibliography for Report Literature, and clinical trial registration websites were searched from inception to October 2009.

REVIEW METHODS

Electronic databases searches, screening of identified studies, data extraction and analysis were undertaken. Meta-analysis was used to present numerical and graphical summaries of clinical efficacy and efficacy by time since vaccination. Evidence of heterogeneity was assessed using the tau-squared statistic. Meta-regression allowed the investigation of observed heterogeneity. Factors investigated included BCG strain, latitude, stringency of pre-BCG vaccination tuberculin testing, age at vaccination, site of disease, study design and vulnerability to biases. Rate of waning of protection was estimated using the ratio of the measure of efficacy after 10 years compared with the efficacy in the first 10 years of a study.

RESULTS

Study selection. A total of 21,030 references were identified, providing data on 132 studies after abstract and full-text review. Efficacy. Protection against pulmonary tuberculosis in adults is variable, ranging from substantial protection in the UK MRC trial {rate ratio 0.22 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.31]}, to absence of clinically important benefit, as in the large Chingleput trial [rate ratio 1.05 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.25)] and greater in latitudes further away from the equator. BCG vaccination efficacy was usually high, and varied little by form of disease (with higher protection against meningeal and miliary tuberculosis) or study design when BCG vaccination was given only to infants or to children after strict screening for tuberculin sensitivity. High levels of protection against death were observed from both trials and observational studies. The observed protective effect of BCG vaccination did not differ by the strain of BCG vaccine used in trials.

DURATION

Reviewed studies showed that BCG vaccination protects against pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis for up to 10 years. Most studies either did not follow up participants for long enough or had very few cases after 15 years. This should not be taken to indicate an absence of effect: five studies (one trial and four observational studies) provided evidence of measurable protection at least 15 years after vaccination. Efficacy declined with time. The rate of decline was variable, with faster decline in latitudes further from the equator and in situations where BCG vaccination was given to tuberculin-sensitive participants after stringent tuberculin testing.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation of this review relates to quality of included trials, most of which were conducted before current standards for reporting were formulated. In addition, data were lacking in some areas and the review had to rely on evidence from observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

BCG vaccination protection against tuberculosis varies between populations, to an extent that cannot be attributed to chance alone. Failure to exclude those already sensitised to mycobacteria and study latitude closer to the equator were associated with lower efficacy. These factors explained most of the observed variation. There is good evidence that BCG vaccination protection declines with time and that protection can last for up to 10 years. Data on protection beyond 15 years are limited; however, a small number of trials and observational studies suggest that BCG vaccination may protect for longer. Further studies are required to investigate the duration of protection by BCG vaccination.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

An error has occurred in processing the XML document

 

Responses to this report

 

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions