ABSTRACT
In Veneto Region, HPV vaccine has been actively offered to 12 year-old females since 2008, and to 12 year-old males since 2015. The study aims to analyze the safety profile of HPV4v and HPV9v vaccines and perform a case-by-case review of conditions of interest. Spontaneous reports related to HPV uploaded to the database of the Regional Pharmacovigilance Center between 2008-2022 were included. HPV vaccine doses administered until April 2022 in the Veneto Region were considered to calculate the reporting rate (RR). Potential "safety concerns" examined as conditions of interest were included through Standardized MedDRA or preferred terms searching queries. The level of diagnostic certainty was evaluated as per the Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria. A total of 637 reports and 1316 Adverse Events Following Immunizations (AEFI) were retrieved: 469 for HPV4v (73.6 %) and 168 for HPV9v (26.4 %). Serious reports were 71 (11.1 %): 49 (10.4 %) for HPV4v and 22 (13.1 %) for HPV9v. The RR for serious events between 2008-2022 was 6.9/100,000 administered doses, with no differences by vaccine type. Females and adults showed higher overall RR compared to males and to children and adolescents (p < 0.001), this result was confirmed by stratifying analysis by vaccine type. One case of Guillain Barré syndrome, anaphylactic shock, thrombocytopenia, Henoch Schoenlein purpura and four generalized seizures were reviewed. Vaccinovigilance data from the Veneto Region reaffirm a good safety profile for HPV vaccination and found no vaccine-related unexpected events. Such a detailed analysis may assist healthcare providers to advocate properly for HPV vaccination.
ABSTRACT
Objective: The vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella and varicella (MMR and V) have been mandatory in Italy since 2017. Two different vaccination strategies are suggested for the first dose: trivalent MMR and a separate V vaccine or the tetravalent MMRV vaccine. Our aim is to compare the safety profile of MMRV and MMR-V vaccines through the passive adverse event reporting system in the Veneto region and to perform a case-by-case review of a few conditions of interest (febrile and afebrile seizures, ataxia, encephalitis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and Henoch-Schönlein Purpura). Age and sex differences were also explored. Methods: We identified all reports following MMRV or MMR-V vaccination in the Veneto Region and received into the National Pharmacovigilance Network between 2007 and April 30, 2022. Results: 9,510 reports were retrieved, of which 5,662 (59.5 %) were related to MMRV and 3,848 (40.5 %) to MMR-V. No safety signals were detected supporting the evidence that MMRV and MMR-V vaccinations have a good safety profile. The reporting rate (RR) for serious events between 2007 and 2022 resulted in 13.67 per 10,000 administered doses for MMRV and 10.90 for MMR-V. Conclusion: Passive surveillance data show a significantly higher rate of serious events for males 0-2 years old, both overall and stratified per vaccination strategy. Further studies are needed to confirm this observation. The analyses suggest that retrieved differences do not have a significant impact on the overall safety of both formulations.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Detection strategies in vulnerable populations such as people experiencing homelessness (PEH) need to be explored to promptly recognize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks. This study investigated the diagnostic accuracy of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 Ag test in PEH during two pandemic waves compared with gold standard real-time multiplex reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR). METHODS: All PEH ≥ 18 years requesting residence at the available shelters in Verona, Italy, across two cold-weather emergency periods (November 2020-May 2021 and December 2021-April 2022) were prospectively screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection by means of a naso-pharyingeal swab. A lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (Biocredit® COVID-19 Ag) was used as antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). The rtRT-PCR was performed with Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay kit (Seegene). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated as measures for diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Overall, 503 participants were enrolled during the two intervention periods for a total of 732 paired swabs collected: 541 swabs in the first period and 191 in the second. No significant differences in demographic and infection-related characteristics were observed in tested subjects in the study periods, except for the rate of previous infection (0.8% versus 8%; p < 0.001) and vaccination (6% versus 73%; p < 0.001). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the cohort was 8% (58/732 swabs positive with rtRT-PCR). Seventeen swabs were collected from symptomatic patients (7%). Among them, the concordance between rtRT-PCR and Ag-RDT was 100%, 7 (41.2%) positive and 10 negative pairs. The overall sensitivity of Ag-RDT was 63.8% (95% CI 60.3-67.3) and specificity was 99.8% (95% CI 99.6-100). PPV and NPV were 97.5% and 96.8%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity did not change substantially across the two periods (65.1% and 99.8% in 2020-2021 vs. 60% and 100% in 2021-2022). CONCLUSIONS: A periodic Ag-RDT-based screening approach for PEH at point of care could guide preventive measures, including prompt isolation, without referral to hospital-based laboratories for molecular test confirmation in case of positive detection even in individuals asymptomatic for COVID-19. This could help reduce the risk of outbreaks in shelter facilities.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A major limitation of current predictive prognostic models in patients with COVID-19 is the heterogeneity of population in terms of disease stage and duration. This study aims at identifying a panel of clinical and laboratory parameters that at day-5 of symptoms onset could predict disease progression in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective cohort study on hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. Patient-level epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory data were collected at fixed time-points: day 5, 10, and 15 from symptoms onset. COVID-19 progression was defined as in-hospital death and/or transfer to ICU and/or respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 200) within day-11 of symptoms onset. Multivariate regression was performed to identify predictors of COVID-19 progression. A model assessed at day-5 of symptoms onset including male sex, age > 65 years, dyspnoea, cardiovascular disease, and at least three abnormal laboratory parameters among CRP (> 80 U/L), ALT (> 40 U/L), NLR (> 4.5), LDH (> 250 U/L), and CK (> 80 U/L) was proposed. Discrimination power was assessed by computing area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) values. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients with COVID-19 were prospectively included in a 3-month period. The majority of patients were male (148, 63%) and the mean age was 71 (SD 15.9). One hundred and ninety patients (81%) suffered from at least one underlying illness, most frequently cardiovascular disease (47%), neurological/psychiatric disorders (35%), and diabetes (21%). Among them 88 (37%) experienced COVID-19 progression. The proposed model showed an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.66-0.81) for predicting disease progression by day-11. CONCLUSION: An easy-to-use panel of laboratory/clinical parameters computed at day-5 of symptoms onset predicts, with fair discrimination ability, COVID-19 progression. Assessment of these features at day-5 of symptoms onset could facilitate clinicians' decision making. The model can also play a role as a tool to increase homogeneity of population in clinical trials on COVID-19 treatment in hospitalized patients.