Population-Level Effectiveness of an Inactivated Whole-Virion COVID-19 Vaccine: A Test Negative Case-Control Study in the Dominican Republic.

Background: A continuing nationwide vaccination campaign began in the Dominican Republic on February 16, 2021 to prevent severe consequences of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness under real-world conditions are needed to support policy decision making and inform further vaccine selection. Methods: We conducted a test-negative case-control study to assess the real-world effectiveness of nationwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination program using an inactivated vaccine (CoronaVac) on preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and hospitalizations from August to November 2021 in the Dominican Republic. Participants were recruited from 10 hospitals in 5 provinces to estimate the effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after receipt of the second dose) and partial immunization (otherwise with at least 1 dose ≥14 days after receipt of the first dose). Results: Of 1078 adult participants seeking medical care for COVID-19-related symptoms, 395 (36.6%) had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for SARS-CoV-2; 142 (13.2%) were hospitalized during 15 days of follow up, including 91 (23%) among 395 PCR-positive and 51 (7.5%) among 683 PCR-negative participants. Full vaccination was associated with 31% lower odds of symptomatic infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.93) and partial vaccination was associated with 49% lower odds (OR, 0.51; CI, 0.30-0.86). Among 395 PCR-positive participants, full vaccination reduced the odds of COVID-19-related hospitalization by 85% (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.08-0.25) and partial vaccination reduced it by 75% (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.80); full vaccination was associated with reduced use of assisted ventilation by 73% (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.49). Conclusions: Given the ancestral and delta viral variants circulating during this study period, our results suggest that the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine offered moderate protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and high protection against COVID-19-related hospitalizations and assisted ventilation. This is reassuring given that, as of August 2022, an estimated 2.6 billion inactivated CoronaVac vaccine doses had been administered worldwide. This vaccine will become a basis for developing multivalent vaccine against the currently circulating omicron variant.

Outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome randomly assigned to invasive versus conservative treatment strategies: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to compare the prognoses of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes who were treated with invasive or conservative treatment strategies. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of studies of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes to assess the benefits of an invasive strategy vs. a conservative strategy for short- and long-term survival. We searched PubMed for studies published from 1990 to November 2012 that investigated the effects of an invasive vs. conservative strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. The following search terms were used: "non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction", "unstable angina", "acute coronary syndromes", "invasive strategy", and "conservative strategy". The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: Seven published studies were included in the present meta-analysis. The pooled analyses show that an invasive strategy decreased the risk of death (risk ratio [0.839] [95% confidence interval {0.648-1.086}; I 2, 86.46%] compared to a conservative strategy over a 30-day-period. Furthermore, invasive treatment also decreased patient mortality (risk ratio [0.276] [95% confidence interval {0.259-0.294}; I 2, 94.58%]) compared to a conservative strategy for one year. CONCLUSION: In non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, an invasive strategy is comparable to a conservative strategy for decreasing short- and long-term mortality rates.

Outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome randomly assigned to invasive versus conservative treatment strategies: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to compare the prognoses of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes who were treated with invasive or conservative treatment strategies. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of studies of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes to assess the benefits of an invasive strategy vs. a conservative strategy for short- and long-term survival. We searched PubMed for studies published from 1990 to November 2012 that investigated the effects of an invasive vs. conservative strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. The following search terms were used: “non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction”, “unstable angina”, “acute coronary syndromes”, “invasive strategy”, and “conservative strategy”. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: Seven published studies were included in the present meta-analysis. The pooled analyses show that an invasive strategy decreased the risk of death (risk ratio [0.839] [95% confidence interval {0.648-1.086}; I 2, 86.46%] compared to a conservative strategy over a 30-day-period. Furthermore, invasive treatment also decreased patient mortality (risk ratio [0.276] [95% confidence interval {0.259-0.294}; I 2, 94.58%]) compared to a conservative strategy for one year. CONCLUSION: In non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, an invasive strategy is comparable to a conservative strategy for decreasing short- and long-term mortality rates. .

Comparing percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis in patients with return of spontaneous circulation after cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis after restoration of spontaneous circulation in cardiac arrest patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction using meta-analysis. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of clinical studies indexed in the PUBMED, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and published between January 1995 and October 2012. In addition, we compared the hospital discharge and neurological recovery rates between the patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention and those who received thrombolysis. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies evaluating the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis after restoration of spontaneous circulation in cardiac arrest patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were included. Seventeen of the 24 studies were used in this meta-analysis. All studies were used to compare percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis. The meta-analysis showed that the rate of hospital discharge improved with both percutaneous coronary intervention (p<0.001) and thrombolysis (p<0.001). We also found that cardiac arrest patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction who received thrombolysis after restoration of spontaneous circulation did not have decreased hospital discharge (p = 0.543) or neurological recovery rates (p = 0.165) compared with those who received percutaneous coronary intervention. CONCLUSION: In cardiac arrest patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction who achieved restoration of spontaneous circulation, both percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis improved the hospital discharge rate. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the hospital discharge and neurological recovery rates between the percutaneous coronary intervention-treated group and the thrombolysis-treated group.

Comparing percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis in patients with return of spontaneous circulation after cardiac arrest

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis after restoration of spontaneous circulation in cardiac arrest patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction using meta-analysis. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of clinical studies indexed in the PUBMED, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and published between January 1995 and October 2012. In addition, we compared the hospital discharge and neurological recovery rates between the patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention and those who received thrombolysis. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies evaluating the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis after restoration of spontaneous circulation in cardiac arrest patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were included. Seventeen of the 24 studies were used in this meta-analysis. All studies were used to compare percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis. The meta-analysis showed that the rate of hospital discharge improved with both percutaneous coronary intervention (p<0.001) and thrombolysis (p<0.001). We also found that cardiac arrest patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction who received thrombolysis after restoration of spontaneous circulation did not have decreased hospital discharge (p = 0.543) or neurological recovery rates (p = 0.165) compared with those who received percutaneous coronary intervention. CONCLUSION: In cardiac arrest patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction who achieved restoration of spontaneous circulation, both percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis improved the hospital discharge rate. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the hospital discharge and neurological recovery rates between the percutaneous coronary intervention-treated group and the thrombolysis-treated group. .

Comparing the diagnostic values of circulating microRNAs and cardiac troponin T in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have shown that circulating microRNAs might be useful, novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. The aims of this study were to evaluate the expression of cardiac-specific miRNAs (miR-1, -133a, -208b, and -499) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and to compare the diagnostic values of these miRNAs with that of cardiac troponin T. METHODS: Sixty-seven plasma samples obtained from patients with acute myocardial infarction and 32 plasma specimens collected from healthy volunteers were analyzed in this study. The levels of cardiac-specific miRNAs (miR-1, -133a, -208b, and -499) were measured by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, and the concentrations of plasma cardiac troponin T were measured using electrochemiluminescence-based methods and an Elecsys 2010 Immunoassay Analyzer. RESULTS: The levels of plasma miR-1, -133a, -208b, and -499 were significantly higher in acute myocardial infarction patients (all p<0.001) than in healthy volunteers. The expression of the cardiac-specific miRNAs in acute myocardial infarction patients decreased to close to the baseline levels at the time of hospital discharge (all p>0.05). There were no correlations between the levels of the four circulating miRNAs and the clinical characteristics of the study population (all p>0.05). Furthermore, receiver operating characteristic curve analyses showed that the four plasma miRNAs were not superior to cardiac troponin T for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (all p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that circulating miR-1, -133a, -208b, and -499 may be useful biomarkers in acute myocardial infarction patients but that these miRNAs are not superior to cardiac troponin T for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction.

Comparing the diagnostic values of circulating microRNAs and cardiac troponin T in patients with acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have shown that circulating microRNAs might be useful, novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. The aims of this study were to evaluate the expression of cardiac-specific miRNAs (miR-1, -133a, -208b, and -499) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and to compare the diagnostic values of these miRNAs with that of cardiac troponin T. METHODS: Sixty-seven plasma samples obtained from patients with acute myocardial infarction and 32 plasma specimens collected from healthy volunteers were analyzed in this study. The levels of cardiac-specific miRNAs (miR-1, -133a, -208b, and -499) were measured by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, and the concentrations of plasma cardiac troponin T were measured using electrochemiluminescence-based methods and an Elecsys 2010 Immunoassay Analyzer. RESULTS: The levels of plasma miR-1, -133a, -208b, and -499 were significantly higher in acute myocardial infarction patients (all p<0.001) than in healthy volunteers. The expression of the cardiac-specific miRNAs in acute myocardial infarction patients decreased to close to the baseline levels at the time of hospital discharge (all p>0.05). There were no correlations between the levels of the four circulating miRNAs and the clinical characteristics of the study population (all p>0.05). Furthermore, receiver operating characteristic curve analyses showed that the four plasma miRNAs were not superior to cardiac troponin T for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (all p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that circulating miR-1, -133a, -208b, and -499 may be useful biomarkers in acute myocardial infarction patients but that these miRNAs are not superior to cardiac troponin T for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction.