Challenging the current hypothesis that thrombosis is responsible for the post-COVID-19 condition.

People with the post-COVID-19 condition suffer symptoms that persist beyond 12 weeks following acute COVID-19 infection. Fatigue, shortness of breath, and cognitive dysfunction ("brain fog") are common. Scientists, clinicians, and patients debate the pathophysiology. One pathophysiological hypothesis is that prothrombotic changes associated with acute COVID-19 persist, causing clots that lead to symptoms. This theory, arising from a research team in South Africa and supported by a paper in Nature Medicine, has been widely disseminated on social media and entered the public narrative as a cause of the post-COVID-19 condition. We describe the development of this theory, examine the findings of a Cochrane review that critically appraises the "microclot" beliefs, and critically appraise the influential study relating clotting biomarkers to cognitive deficits. We conclude the inferences for the hypothesis are not based on evidence, unlicensed use of antithrombotic medication is not justified, and apheresis should not be considered outside of a well-designed clinical trial.

Infection prevention and control measures to reduce the transmission of mpox: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To make inferences regarding the effectiveness of respiratory interventions and case isolation measures in reducing or preventing the transmission of mpox based on synthesis of available literature. METHODS: The WHO Clinical Management and Infection Prevention and Control 2022 guideline and droplet precautions in healthcare facilities and home isolation infection prevention control measures for patients with mpox. We conducted a systematic review that included a broad search of five electronic databases. In a two-stage process, we initially sought only randomized controlled trials and observational comparative studies; when the search failed to yield eligible studies, the subsequent search included all study designs including clinical and environmental sampling studies. RESULTS: No studies were identified that directly addressed airborne and droplet precautions and home isolation infection prevention control measures. To inform the review questions the review team synthesized route of transmission data in mpox. There were 2366/4309 (54.9%) cases in which investigators identified mpox infection occurring following transmission through direct physical sexual contact. There were no reported mpox cases in which investigators identified inhalation as a single route of transmission. There were 2/4309 cases in which investigators identified fomite as a single route of transmission. Clinical and environmental sampling studies isolated mpox virus in a minority of saliva, oropharangeal swabs, mpox skin lesions, and hospital room air. CONCLUSIONS: Current findings provide compelling evidence that transmission of mpox occurs through direct physical contact. Because investigators have not reported any cases of transmission via inhalation alone, the impact of airborne and droplet infection prevention control measures in reducing transmission will be minimal. Avoiding physical contact with others, covering mpox lesions and wearing a medical mask is likely to reduce onward mpox transmission; there may be minimal reduction in transmission from additionally physically isolating patients with mild disease at home.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. MAIN RESULTS: As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

Plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating the post-COVID-19 condition.

BACKGROUND: The post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) consists of a wide array of symptoms including fatigue and impaired daily living. People seek a wide variety of approaches to help them recover. A new belief, arising from a few laboratory studies, is that 'microclots' cause the symptoms of PCC. This belief has been extended outside these studies, suggesting that to recover people need plasmapheresis (an expensive process where blood is filtered outside the body). We appraised the laboratory studies, and it was clear that the term 'microclots' is incorrect to describe the phenomenon being described. The particles are amyloid and include fibrin(ogen); amyloid is not a part of a thrombus which is a mix of fibrin mesh and platelets. Initial acute COVID-19 infection is associated with clotting abnormalities; this review concerns amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC only. We have reported here our appraisal of laboratory studies investigating the presence of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC, and of evidence that plasmapheresis may be an effective therapy to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating PCC. OBJECTIVES: Laboratory studies review To summarize and appraise the research reports on amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles related to PCC. Randomized controlled trials review To assess the evidence of the safety and efficacy of plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in individuals with PCC from randomized controlled trials. SEARCH METHODS: Laboratory studies review We searched for all relevant laboratory studies up to 27 October 2022 using a comprehensive search strategy which included the search terms 'COVID', 'amyloid', 'fibrin', 'fibrinogen'. Randomized controlled trials review We searched the following databases on 21 October 2022: Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); and BIOSIS Previews (Web of Science). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress. SELECTION CRITERIA: Laboratory studies review Laboratory studies that investigate the presence of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in plasma samples from patients with PCC were eligible. This included studies with or without controls. Randomized controlled trials review Studies were eligible if they were of randomized controlled design and investigated the effectiveness or safety of plasmapheresis for removing amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating PCC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies and extracted data. Laboratory studies review We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using pre-developed methods for laboratory studies. We planned to perform synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) as described in our protocol. Randomized controlled trials review We planned that if we identified any eligible studies, we would assess risk of bias and report results with 95% confidence intervals. The primary outcome was recovery, measured using the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status Scale (absence of symptoms related to the illness, ability to do usual daily activities, and a return to a previous state of health and mind). MAIN RESULTS: Laboratory studies review We identified five laboratory studies. Amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles were identified in participants across all studies, including those with PCC, healthy individuals, and those with diabetes. The results of three studies were based on visual images of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles, which did not quantify the amount or size of the particles identified. Formal risk of bias assessment showed concerns in how the studies were conducted and reported. This means the results were insufficient to support the belief that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles are associated with PCC, or to determine whether there is a difference in the amount or size of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in the plasma of people with PCC compared to healthy controls. Randomized controlled trials review We identified no trials meeting our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of reliable research showing that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles contribute to the pathophysiology of PCC, there is no rationale for plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC. Plasmapheresis for this indication should not be used outside the context of a well-conducted randomized controlled trial.

Therapeutics for treating mpox in humans.

BACKGROUND: Mpox was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 23 July 2022, following the identification of thousands of cases in several non-endemic countries in previous months. There are currently no licenced therapeutics for treating mpox; however, some medications may be authorized for use in an outbreak. The efficacy and safety of possible therapeutic options has not been studied in humans with mpox. There is a need to investigate the evidence on safety and effectiveness of treatments for mpox in humans; should any therapeutic option be efficacious and safe, it may be approved for use around the world. OBJECTIVES: There are two parts to this Cochrane Review: a review of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and a narrative review of safety data from non-randomized studies. Randomized controlled trials review To systematically review the existing evidence on the effectiveness of therapeutics for mpox infection in humans compared to: a) another different therapeutic for mpox, or b) placebo, or c) supportive care, defined as the treatment of physical and psychological symptoms arising from the disease. Non-randomized studies review To assess the safety of therapeutics for mpox infection from non-randomized studies (NRS). SEARCH METHODS: Randomized controlled trials review We searched the following databases up to 25 January 2023: MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), Biosis previews (Web of Science), CAB Abstracts (Web of science), and Cochrane CENTRAL (Issue 1 2023). We conducted a search of trial registries (Clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) on 25 January 2023. There were no date or language limits placed on the search. We undertook a call to experts in the field for relevant studies or ongoing trials to be considered for inclusion in the review. Non-randomized studies review We searched the following databases on 22 September 2022: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9 of 12, 2022), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); and Scopus (Elsevier). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress. SELECTION CRITERIA: For the RCT review and the narrative review, any therapeutic for the treatment of mpox in humans was eligible for inclusion, including tecovirimat, brincidofovir, cidofovir, NIOCH-14, immunomodulators, and vaccine immune globulin. Randomized controlled trials review Studies were eligible for the main review if they were of randomized controlled design and investigated the effectiveness or safety of therapeutics in human mpox infection. Non-randomized studies review Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review of non-randomized studies if they were of non-randomized design and contained data concerning the safety of any therapeutic in human mpox infection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Randomized controlled trials review Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies. If we had identified any eligible studies, we planned to assess the risk of bias, and report results with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The critical outcomes were serious adverse events, development of disease-related complications, admission to hospital for non-hospitalized participants, pain as judged by any visual or numerical pain scale, level of virus detected in clinical samples, time to healing of all skin lesions, and mortality. We planned to perform subgroup analysis to explore whether the effect of the therapeutic on the planned outcomes was modified by disease severity and days from symptom onset to therapeutic administration. We also intended to explore the following subgroups of absolute effects: immunosuppression, age, and pre-existing skin disease. Non-randomized studies review One review author applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies and extracted data. Studies of a non-randomized design containing data on the safety of therapeutics could not be meta-analyzed due to the absence of a comparator; we summarized these data narratively in an appendix. MAIN RESULTS: Randomized controlled trials review We did not identify any completed RCTs investigating the effectiveness of therapeutics for treating mpox for the main review. We identified five ongoing trials that plan to assess the effectiveness of one therapeutic option, tecovirimat, for treating mpox in adults and children. One of these ongoing trials intends to include populations with, or at greater risk of, severe disease, which will allow an assessment of safety in more vulnerable populations. Non-randomized studies review Three non-randomized studies met the inclusion criteria for the narrative review, concerning data on the safety of therapeutics in mpox. Very low-certainty evidence from non-randomized studies of small numbers of people indicates no serious safety signals emerging for the use of tecovirimat in people with mpox infection, but a possible safety signal for brincidofovir. All three participants who received brincidofovir had raised alanine aminotransferase (ALT), but not bilirubin, suggesting mild liver injury. No study reported severe drug-induced liver injury with brincidofovir. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled trials review This review found no evidence from randomized controlled trials concerning the efficacy and safety of therapeutics in humans with mpox. Non-randomized studies review Very low-certainty evidence from non-randomized studies indicates no serious safety signals emerging for the use of tecovirimat in people with mpox infection. In contrast, very low-certainty evidence raises a safety signal that brincidofovir may cause liver injury. This is also suggested by indirect evidence from brincidofovir use in smallpox. This warrants further investigation and monitoring. This Cochrane Review will be updated as new evidence becomes available to assist policymakers, health professionals, and consumers in making appropriate decisions for the treatment of mpox.

Treatment of enteric fever (typhoid and paratyphoid fever) with cephalosporins.

BACKGROUND: Typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric fever) are febrile bacterial illnesses common in many low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) currently recommends treatment with azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, or ceftriaxone due to widespread resistance to older, first-line antimicrobials. Resistance patterns vary in different locations and are changing over time. Fluoroquinolone resistance in South Asia often precludes the use of ciprofloxacin. Extensively drug-resistant strains of enteric fever have emerged in Pakistan. In some areas of the world, susceptibility to old first-line antimicrobials, such as chloramphenicol, has re-appeared. A Cochrane Review of the use of fluoroquinolones and azithromycin in the treatment of enteric fever has previously been undertaken, but the use of cephalosporins has not been systematically investigated and the optimal choice of drug and duration of treatment are uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of cephalosporins for treating enteric fever in children and adults compared to other antimicrobials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 24 November 2021. We also searched reference lists of included trials, contacted researchers working in the field, and contacted relevant organizations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults and children with enteric fever that compared a cephalosporin to another antimicrobial, a different cephalosporin, or a different treatment duration of the intervention cephalosporin. Enteric fever was diagnosed on the basis of blood culture, bone marrow culture, or molecular tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse. Our secondary outcomes were time to defervescence, duration of hospital admission, convalescent faecal carriage, and adverse effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs with 2231 total participants published between 1986 and 2016 across Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Caribbean, with comparisons between cephalosporins and other antimicrobials used for the treatment of enteric fever in children and adults. The main comparisons are between antimicrobials in most common clinical use, namely cephalosporins compared to a fluoroquinolone and cephalosporins compared to azithromycin. Cephalosporin (cefixime) versus fluoroquinolones Clinical failure, microbiological failure and relapse may be increased in patients treated with cefixime compared to fluoroquinolones in three small trials published over 14 years ago: clinical failure (risk ratio (RR) 13.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24 to 55.39; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 4.07, 95% CI 0.46 to 36.41; 2 trials, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 4.45, 95% CI 1.11 to 17.84; 2 trials, 220 participants; low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with cefixime may be longer compared to participants treated with fluoroquinolones (mean difference (MD) 1.74 days, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.98, 3 trials, 425 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus azithromycin Ceftriaxone may result in a decrease in clinical failure compared to azithromycin, and it is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on microbiological failure compared to azithromycin in two small trials published over 18 years ago and in one more recent trial, all conducted in participants under 18 years of age: clinical failure (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.57; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.64, 3 trials, 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone increases or decreases relapse compared to azithromycin (RR 10.05, 95% CI 1.93 to 52.38; 3 trials, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to defervescence in participants treated with ceftriaxone may be shorter compared to participants treated with azithromycin (mean difference of -0.52 days, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.12; 3 trials, 196 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cephalosporin (ceftriaxone) versus fluoroquinolones It is unclear whether ceftriaxone has an effect on clinical failure, microbiological failure, relapse, and time to defervescence compared to fluoroquinolones in three trials published over 28 years ago and two more recent trials: clinical failure (RR 3.77, 95% CI 0.72 to 19.81; 4 trials, 359 participants; very low-certainty evidence); microbiological failure (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.83; 3 trials, 316 participants; very low-certainty evidence); relapse (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.92; 3 trials, 297 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and time to defervescence (MD 2.73 days, 95% CI -0.37 to 5.84; 3 trials, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether ceftriaxone decreases convalescent faecal carriage compared to the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.72; 1 trial, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and length of hospital stay may be longer in participants treated with ceftriaxone compared to participants treated with the fluoroquinolone ofloxacin (mean of 12 days (range 7 to 23 days) in the ceftriaxone group compared to a mean of 9 days (range 6 to 13 days) in the ofloxacin group; 1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low- to low-certainty evidence, ceftriaxone is an effective treatment for adults and children with enteric fever, with few adverse effects. Trials suggest that there may be no difference in the performance of ceftriaxone compared with azithromycin, fluoroquinolones, or chloramphenicol. Cefixime can also be used for treatment of enteric fever but may not perform as well as fluoroquinolones.  We are unable to draw firm general conclusions on comparative contemporary effectiveness given that most trials were small and conducted over 20 years previously. Clinicians need to take into account current, local resistance patterns in addition to route of administration when choosing an antimicrobial.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022.  This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. MAIN RESULTS: As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID-19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers.  We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high-risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence, and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance.  Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient.  The outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID-19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID-19 and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF.

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Fiji 2003-2009.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicate that cervical cancer is the second most frequent cancer and most common cause of cancer mortality among women in Fiji. There is little published data on the epidemiology of cervical cancer in Pacific countries. AIMS: To determine the incidence 2003-2009 of, and mortality 2003-2008 from, cervical cancer by ethnicity and period in Fiji, identify evidence of secular change and relate these data to other Pacific countries, Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: Counts of incident cervical cancer cases (2003-2009) and unit record mortality data (2003-2008) from the Fiji Ministry of Health were used to calculate age-standardised (to the WHO World Population) cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates, and cervical or uterine cancer mortality rates, by ethnicity, with 95% confidence intervals. On the basis of comparison of cervical cancer mortality with cervical or uterine cancer mortality in Fiji with similar populations, misclassification of cervical cancer deaths is unlikely. RESULTS: There is no evidence of secular change in cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates for the study period. For women of all ages and ethnicities, the age-standardised incidence rate of cervical cancer (2003-2009) was 27.6 per 100,000 (95% CI 25.4-29.8) and the age-standardised mortality rate (2003-2008) was 23.9 per 100,000 (95% CI 21.5-26.4). The mortality/incidence ratio was 87%. Fijians had statistically significant higher age-standardised incidence and mortality rates than Indians. Fiji has one of the highest estimated rates of cervical cancer incidence and mortality in the Pacific region. CONCLUSION: Cervical cancer screening in Fiji needs to be expanded and strengthened.