Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Medicina (B Aires) ; 84(4): 689-707, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39172569

ABSTRACT

In Argentina, the dengue virus has experienced an increase in recent years. This study aims to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the TAK-003 tetravalent dengue vaccine in this context. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine with placebo in the general population was conducted. The search was carried out in Epistemonikos, and two researchers independently assessed the studies. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Rob 2 tool. A meta-analysis of the results was performed, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. We concluded, with high certainty of evidence, that the tetravalent dengue vaccine reduces severe infections (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.24) and infections by the dengue virus (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.45) in a population ≤17 years. The vaccine may not increase the risk of serious adverse events, although it is important to note the low certainty of evidence (RR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.69-1.55). The use of the tetravalent dengue vaccine decreases the risk of severe and non-severe dengue infections in this population. However, there is low certainty of evidence regarding the vaccine's safety. The decision to vaccinate should consider the magnitude of benefits relative to the risk of infection.


En Argentina, el virus del dengue ha experimentado un aumento en los últimos años. Este estudio se propone realizar una revisión sistemática para evaluar la efectividad y seguridad de la vacuna TAK-003 tetravalente contra el dengue en este contexto. Se llevó a cabo una revisión sistemática de ensayos clínicos controlados aleatorizados que comparaban la efectividad y seguridad de la vacuna con placebo en la población general. La búsqueda se efectuó en Epistemonikos y dos investigadores evaluaron los estudios de manera independiente. El riesgo de sesgo se evaluó con la herramienta Rob 2 de Cochrane. Se realizó un metaanálisis de los resultados y la certeza en la evidencia se evaluó mediante la metodología GRADE. Concluimos, con alta certeza de evidencia, que la vacuna tetravalente contra el dengue reduce las infecciones graves (RR 0.17, IC 95% 0.12 a 0.24) e infecciones por el virus del dengue (RR 0.40, IC 95% 0.36 a 0.45) en una población de ≤17 años. La vacuna podría no incrementar el riesgo de eventos adversos serios, aunque es importante destacar la baja certeza de evidencia (RR 1.04, IC 95%: 0.69-1.55). La aplicación de la vacuna tetravalente contra el dengue disminuye el riesgo de infecciones graves y no graves por el dengue en esta población. No obstante, existe baja certeza en la evidencia en relación a la seguridad de la vacuna. La decisión de la vacunación debe considerar la magnitud de los beneficios en función del riesgo de infección.


Subject(s)
Dengue Vaccines , Dengue , Humans , Dengue Vaccines/adverse effects , Dengue Vaccines/administration & dosage , Dengue Vaccines/immunology , Dengue/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Vaccine Efficacy , Dengue Virus/immunology
3.
PLoS One ; 15(11): e0241955, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33201896

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The objective of our systematic review is to identify prognostic factors that may be used in decision-making related to the care of patients infected with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: We conducted highly sensitive searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase. The searches covered the period from the inception date of each database until April 28, 2020. No study design, publication status or language restriction were applied. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: We included studies that assessed patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infectious disease and examined one or more prognostic factors for mortality or disease severity. Reviewers working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each prognostic factor and outcome. RESULTS: We included 207 studies and found high or moderate certainty that the following 49 variables provide valuable prognostic information on mortality and/or severe disease in patients with COVID-19 infectious disease: Demographic factors (age, male sex, smoking), patient history factors (comorbidities, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, cardiac arrhythmia, arterial hypertension, diabetes, dementia, cancer and dyslipidemia), physical examination factors (respiratory failure, low blood pressure, hypoxemia, tachycardia, dyspnea, anorexia, tachypnea, haemoptysis, abdominal pain, fatigue, fever and myalgia or arthralgia), laboratory factors (high blood procalcitonin, myocardial injury markers, high blood White Blood Cell count (WBC), high blood lactate, low blood platelet count, plasma creatinine increase, high blood D-dimer, high blood lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), high blood C-reactive protein (CRP), decrease in lymphocyte count, high blood aspartate aminotransferase (AST), decrease in blood albumin, high blood interleukin-6 (IL-6), high blood neutrophil count, high blood B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), high blood urea nitrogen (BUN), high blood creatine kinase (CK), high blood bilirubin and high erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)), radiological factors (consolidative infiltrate and pleural effusion) and high SOFA score (sequential organ failure assessment score). CONCLUSION: Identified prognostic factors can help clinicians and policy makers in tailoring management strategies for patients with COVID-19 infectious disease while researchers can utilise our findings to develop multivariable prognostic models that could eventually facilitate decision-making and improve patient important outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Prospero registration number: CRD42020178802. Protocol available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20056598v1.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Aged , Aging , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Comorbidity , Data Management , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prognosis , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Socioeconomic Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL