Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Prev Med Rep ; 41: 102711, 2024 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38606113

RESUMEN

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.

2.
Infect Dis Ther ; 12(4): 1073-1082, 2023 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36907951

RESUMEN

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.

3.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 883, 2021 Aug 28.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34454452

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Anciano , Femenino , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...