The Impact of Vaccination Worldwide on SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Review on Vaccine Mechanisms, Results of Clinical Trials, Vaccinal Coverage and Interactions with Novel Variants.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic demanded a global effort towards quickly developing safe and effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to discuss the main vaccines available, their mechanisms of action, results of clinical trials, and epidemiological behavior. The implications of viral variants were also debated. METHODS: A non-systematic literature review was performed between February and March 2021 by searching the Pubmed, Scopus, and SciELO databases, using different combinations of the following terms: "vaccines", "clinical trials" , "SARS-CoV-2", "Coronavirus", "COVID-19", "mechanisms of action". Data regarding clinical trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and epidemiological information were also searched. RESULTS: The mechanisms of action included vector-virus, mRNA and inactivated virus vaccines. The vaccines showed positive results in phases 2/3 clinical trials. The efficacy of the mRNA 1273 and of mRNA BNT 162b2 vaccines were 94.1% and 95%, respectively. The effectiveness of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine varied according to the scheme, with an overall value of 70.4%. The Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine had an efficacy of 91.6%. Regarding the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 99% or more of seroconversion was observed in all subgroups 29 days after vaccination. The CoronaVac vaccine induced an immune response in 92% of the volunteers receiving 3ug and in 98% with 6ug, in comparison to 3% in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Global efforts have resulted in vaccines being available in record time, with good safety and immunogenicity profile. However, only long-term studies can provide more information on the duration of immunity and the need for additional doses.

Ciência, tecnologia e inovação em saúde na perspectiva da indução pública / Science, technology and innovation in health from the perspective of public induction

Introdução: verifica se a existência da assimetria no fluxo de recursos para financiamento das atividades de Pesquisa, Desenvolvimento e Inovação em Saúde no Brasil. Para melhor entendimento dessas disparidades torna se relevante a análise da Política de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação em Saúde considerando seus objetivos de indução pública à pesquisa estratégica. Objetivo: Analisar a Política de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação em Saúde na perspectiva da indução pública. Métodos: Estudo qualitativo desenvolvido por meio da análise documental abrangendo os processos da formação da Política de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação em Saúde. Resultados: Observa se a demonstração de entraves históricos que culminaram na criação da política. Apesar dos importantes marcos institucionais criados para organizar o fomento científico e tecnológico no país, ainda existem muitas disparidades na lógica de distribuição dos recursos. Conclusão: Observou se o papel do fomento a partir do resgate de importantes aspectos de conquistas da legitimação da ciência, tecnologia e inovação em saúde em períodos recentes da história. Espera se que apesar de baixo os dispêndios em temas fora da agenda, que as lacunas nas subagendas sejam superadas, para tanto, sugere se que a reavaliação contínua da agenda de prioridades em pesquisa.

Introduction: there is the existence of asymmetry in the flow of re sources to finance the research activities, development and innovation in Health in Brazil. For better understanding of these differences is relevant to analysis of the Science, Technology and Innovation in Health and the targeting of priorities for global health. The literature shows that public induction research is a challenge facing the existing asymmetry in the XXI century. Objective: To analyze the Politics of Science, Technology and Innovation in Health from the perspective of public induction. Methods: Qualitative study developed through the analysis of documents that address aspects of the processes of formation of the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy. Results: We observe the demonstration of historical barriers that culminated in the creation of policy. Despite the important institutional frame works created to organize the scientific and technological development in the country, there are still many disparities in resource distribution logic, which highlights the need for revision of the National Agenda of Priorities in Health Research and the definition of equity criteria. Conclusion: the role of promotion from the rescue important aspects of achievements of the legitimation of science, health and technology innovation in recent periods of history. It is expected that despite low expenditures on issues off the agenda, the gaps in the sub agendas are overcome, therefore, it is suggested that the continuous reassessment of the agenda of research priorities.