Objective To evaluate on immunogenicity and safety of measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine. Methods The PubMed, BIOSIS Previews, CDSR, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and VIP were searched between Jan. 1990 and April 2010. Studies were included in the review if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about measles (M) – mumps (M) – rubella (R) and varicella (V) vaccine. Trial screening, data exaction and quality assessment of the included trials were conducted by the method recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. Statistical analyses were conducted by using RevMan 4.2.10 software. Results Five RCTs were included. Among those there were 2 trials of B degree and 3 trials of C degree. Meta-analyses showed that to different inoculation methods, (MMRV or MMR+V) the rate of pain was not significantly different with RR 0.94 and 95%CI 0.83 to 1.05 (P=0.28). The rate of redness was not significantly different with RR 1.08 and 95%CI 0.90 to 1.29 (P=0.40). The rate of hardening was not significantly different with RR 1.16 and 95%CI 0.95 to 1.43 (P=0.14). The rate of fever was significantly different with RR 1.20 and 95%CI 1.12 to 1.29 (Plt;0.000 01). The rate of skin rash was not significantly different with RR 1.18 and 95%CI 1.00 to 1.41 (P=0.05). The serum measles antibody positive rate was not significantly different with RR 1.00 and 95%CI 0.99 to 1.01 (P=0.68). The serum mumps antibody positive rate was not significantly different with RR 0.99 and 95%CI 0.50 to 1.01 (P=0.11). The serum rubella antibody positive rate was not significantly different with RR 1.00 and 95%CI 0.99 to 1.01 (P=0.68). The se-rum varicella antibody positive rate was not significantly different with RR 1.00 and 95%CI 0.99 to 1.01 (P=0.58). Conclusion Compared with MMR+V vaccine, the MMRV vaccine has the same immune effect. In respect of immune safety, in addition to higher rate of fever after vaccination, other local or systemic reaction is good. For the role of reducing vaccination times and good performance on immune effect and safety, the MMRV vaccine can be regarded as candidate vaccine for children. The fever caused by the new component should be strengthened in the following study. Limited to the quality and account for the current original documents, citing evidence of this systematic review would be cautious. Future studies would expand the sample size, fulfill the test design, increase indicators to improve the quality of research and demonstration intensity.
ObjectiveTo explore the effect of early enteral nutrition (EEN) on immune status of patients in intenseive care unit (ICU). MethodsA prospective control study was conducted from July 2011 to December 2012, and 80 patients after trauma and surgery were admitted to ICU. The Patients were divided into EEN group and normal enteral nutrition (NEN) group randomly. Enteral nutrition in EEN group began within 24 hours after admitted to ICU, while within 48 hours in NEN group. ResultsIn 80 patients, 78(37 in EEN group and 41 in NEN group) completed the end point. The baseline in two groups was consistent (P>0.05). The indicators of lymphocyte, IgA, IgG, IgM and CD4+, CD8+, natural kill cell and pre-albumin values in EEN group were higher than those in NEN group (P<0.05). The incidence of diarrhea (8.1%, 26.8%) and infection of wound (2.7%, 17.1%) in EEN were less than those in NEN group. The hospitalization duration in ICU in EEN group[(7.94±3.72) days] was also shorter than that in NEN group[(10.62±3.14) days]. ConclusionEarly enteral nutrition improves immune function and nutrition status in ICU patients; it also protects gut barrier function and reduces the ICU hospitalization duration.