Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 287
Filtrar
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(12): e2141328, 2021 12 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34964849

RESUMO

Importance: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have high rates of morbidity and mortality. Objective: To assess the efficacy of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Estudios Clínicos Latino América (ECLA) Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) COLCOVID trial was a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial performed from April 17, 2020, to March 28, 2021, in adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection followed for up to 28 days. Participants received colchicine vs usual care if they were hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms and had severe acute respiratory syndrome or oxygen desaturation. The main exclusion criteria were clear indications or contraindications for colchicine, chronic kidney disease, and negative results on a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 before randomization. Data were analyzed from June 20 to July 25, 2021. Interventions: Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or usual care plus colchicine. Colchicine was administered orally in a loading dose of 1.5 mg immediately after randomization, followed by 0.5 mg orally within 2 hours of the initial dose and 0.5 mg orally twice a day for 14 days or discharge, whichever occurred first. Main Outcomes and Measures: The first coprimary outcome was the composite of a new requirement for mechanical ventilation or death evaluated at 28 days. The second coprimary outcome was death at 28 days. Results: A total of 1279 hospitalized patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [14.6] years; 449 [35.1%] women and 830 [64.9%] men) were randomized, including 639 patients in the usual care group and 640 patients in the colchicine group. Corticosteroids were used in 1171 patients (91.5%). The coprimary outcome of mechanical ventilation or 28-day death occurred in 160 patients (25.0%) in the colchicine group and 184 patients (28.8%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.02; P = .08). The second coprimary outcome, 28-day death, occurred in 131 patients (20.5%) in the colchicine group and 142 patients (22.2%) in the usual care group (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect of colchicine, reported in 68 patients (11.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that compared with usual care, colchicine did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04328480.


Assuntos
Anti-Inflamatórios/uso terapêutico , COVID-19/terapia , Colchicina/uso terapêutico , Hospitalização , Intubação Intratraqueal , Respiração Artificial , Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Idoso , Anti-Inflamatórios/efeitos adversos , COVID-19/mortalidade , COVID-19/patologia , Colchicina/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Inflamação/tratamento farmacológico , Inflamação/etiologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , SARS-CoV-2 , Padrão de Cuidado
2.
Vaccine ; 39(48): 7058-7065, 2021 11 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34756613

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although influenza vaccines provide protection against influenza viruses, concern has been raised that they may increase susceptibility to non-influenza respiratory viruses. As pandemic lockdowns end, temporal overlap of circulation of seasonal influenza viruses and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is expected. Understanding the impact of influenza vaccination on risk of coronavirus infection is therefore of considerable public health importance. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized trial where children and adolescents in Canadian Hutterite colonies were randomly assigned by colony to receive the 2008-2009 seasonal inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) or a control hepatitis A (HepA) vaccine. All 3273 colony members (vaccinated children and nonvaccine recipients) were followed for the primary outcome of RT-PCR confirmed seasonal coronavirus infection. Serum collected pre- and post-vaccination was analyzed for titers of IgG antibodies towards human coronaviruses (HCoV). RESULTS: The incidence of coronavirus infection was 0·18/1000 person-days in the colonies that received TIV vs 0.36/1000 person-days in the control group, hazard ratio (HR) 0.49 [0.21-1.17]. The risk reduction among non-vaccine recipients in the TIV group compared to the control group was HR 0.55 [0.24-1.23]. There was an increase in the geometric mean fold change of HCoV-OC43 antibody titers following TIV compared to HepA vaccine (mean difference 1.2 [0.38-2.06], p = 0.007), and an increase in geometric mean HCoV-NL63 antibody titers post-TIV (262.9 vs 342.9, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The influenza vaccine does not increase the risk of a coronavirus infection. Instead, the influenza vaccine may reduce the rate of coronavirus infections by inducing cross-reactive anti-coronavirus IgG antibodies.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana , Adolescente , Anticorpos Antivirais , Canadá , Criança , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis , Humanos , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinação , Vacinas de Produtos Inativados
3.
Expert Rev Vaccines ; : 1-7, 2021 Nov 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34738500

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Inflammatory conditions affecting the heart and surrounding tissues have been recently reported following mRNA vaccination. Evaluating trends in the epidemiology of these events and possible mechanisms related to vaccination will enhance vaccine safety surveillance and inform best practices for future vaccine campaigns. AREAS COVERED: Epidemiology of the burden of vaccine-associated myocarditis are reviewed. Key summaries of available data from public health advisory bodies and vaccine safety surveillance databases are critically reviewed. The possible biological pathways for vaccine-associated heart inflammations are introduced. A critical synthesis of available information to inform vaccine recommendations and best practices is provided. The citations were selected by the authors based on PubMed searches of the literature, national vaccine safety surveillance databases and summaries from national public health bodies. EXPERT OPINION: Myocarditis may be associated with vaccination, through several biological mechanisms. Studies have shown that live viral vaccinations can act as a trigger for hypersensitivity inflammatory reactions, but further work is required to examine how the mRNA formulation may induce these autoimmune responses. Given that the risk of these adverse events is low, and the benefit of protection against disease is so great, the receipt of mRNA vaccines is recommended.

4.
Trials ; 22(1): 708, 2021 Oct 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34656155

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Numerous statistical methods can be used to calculate the confidence interval (CI) of risk differences. There is consensus in previous literature that the Wald method should be discouraged. We compared five statistical methods for estimating the CI of risk difference in terms of CI width and study conclusion in antibiotic non-inferiority trials. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of a systematic review, we included non-inferiority trials that compared different antibiotic regimens, reported risk differences for the primary outcome, and described the number of successes and/or failures as well as patients in each arm. For each study, we re-calculated the risk difference CI using the Wald, Agresti-Caffo, Newcombe, Miettinen-Nurminen, and skewness-corrected asymptotic score (SCAS) methods. The CIs by different statistical methods were compared in terms of CI width and conclusion on non-inferiority. A wider CI was considered to be more conservative. RESULTS: The analysis included 224 comparisons from 213 studies. The statistical method used to calculate CI was not reported in 134 (59.8%) cases. The median (interquartile range IQR) for CI width by Wald, Agresti-Caffo, Newcombe, Miettinen-Nurminen, and SCAS methods was 13.0% (10.8%, 17.4%), 13.3% (10.9%, 18.5%), 13.6% (11.1%, 18.9%), 13.6% (11.1% and 19.0%), and 13.4% (11.1%, 18.9%), respectively. In 216 comparisons that reported a non-inferiority margin, the conclusion on non-inferiority was the same across the five statistical methods in 211 (97.7%) cases. The differences in CI width were more in trials with a sample size of 100 or less in each group and treatment success rate above 90%. Of the 18 trials in this subgroup with a specified non-inferiority margin, non-inferiority was shown in 17 (94.4%), 16 (88.9%), 14 (77.8%), 14 (77.8%), and 15 (83.3%) cases based on CI by Wald, Agresti-Caffo, Newcombe, Miettinen-Nurminen, and SCAS methods, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The statistical method used to calculate CI was not reported in the majority of antibiotic non-inferiority trials. Different statistical methods for CI resulted in different conclusions on non-inferiority in 2.3% cases. The differences in CI widths were highest in trials with a sample size of 100 or less in each group and a treatment success rate above 90%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020165040 . April 28, 2020.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Projetos de Pesquisa , Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Intervalos de Confiança , Humanos , Tamanho da Amostra , Resultado do Tratamento
5.
Vaccine ; 39(47): 6843-6851, 2021 Nov 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34702621

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Children play an important role in the transmission of influenza. The best choice of vaccine to achieve both direct and indirect protection is uncertain. The objective of the study was to test whether vaccinating children with MF59 adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV) can reduce influenza in children and their extended households compared to inactivated quadrivalent vaccine (QIV). METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized trial in 42 Hutterite colonies in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Colonies were randomized such that children were assigned in a blinded manner to receive aTIV (0.25 ml of pediatric aTIV for ages 6 months to < 36 months or 0.5 ml for ages ≥ 36 months to 6 years) or 0.5 ml of QIV. Participants included 424 children aged 6 months to 6 years who received the study vaccine and 1246 family cluster members who did not receive the study vaccine. The primary outcome was confirmed influenza A and B infection using a real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. An intent to treat analysis was used. Data were collected from January 2017 to June 2019. RESULTS: The mean percentage of children who received study vaccine was 62% for aTIV colonies and 74% for QIV colonies. There were 66 (3.4%) with RT-PCR confirmed influenza A and B in the aTIV colonies (children and family clusters) versus 93 (4.4%) in the QIV colonies, hazard ratio (HR) 0.78 (95 %CI 0.36-1.71). Of these, 48 (2.5%) in the aTIV colonies and 76 (3.6%) in the QIV colonies had influenza A, HR 0.69, (95 %CI 0.29-1.66) while 18 (0.9%) and 17 (0.8%) in the aTIV versus QIV colonies respectively had influenza B, HR 1.22, (95 %CI 0.20-7.41). In children who received study vaccine, there were 5 Influenza A infections in the aTIV colonies (1.1%) compared to 30 (5.8%) in the QIV colonies, relative efficacy of 80%, HR 0.20, (95 %CI 0.06-0.66). Adverse events were significantly more common among children who received aTIV. No serious vaccine adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Vaccinating children with aTIV compared to QIV resulted in similar community RT-PCR confirmed influenza illness and led to significant protection against influenza A in children.

6.
BMJ ; 374: n2231, 2021 09 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34556486

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS: As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).


Assuntos
Anticorpos Antivirais/uso terapêutico , COVID-19/terapia , Terapia Baseada em Transplante de Células e Tecidos/métodos , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Teorema de Bayes , COVID-19/imunologia , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Humanos , Imunização Passiva , Metanálise em Rede , Resultado do Tratamento
7.
Int J Antimicrob Agents ; 58(5): 106429, 2021 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34469802

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: We compared the effectiveness of cefazolin and cloxacillin as definitive antibiotic therapy for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) spinal epidural abscess (SEA). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with MSSA SEA from two academic hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, between 2014 and 2020. Patients treated with cefazolin were compared to those treated with cloxacillin. Co-primary outcomes included 90-day mortality, antibiotic failure, adverse reactions and recurrence. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores was used to balance important prognostic factors and to estimate an adjusted risk difference. RESULTS: Of 98 patients with MSSA SEA, 50 and 48 patients were treated with cefazolin and cloxacillin, respectively. Mortality at 90 days was 8% and 13% in the cefazolin and cloxacillin groups, respectively (P = 0.52). The antibiotic failure rate was 12% and 19% in the cefazolin and cloxacillin groups, respectively (P = 0.41). The serious adverse reactions rate was 0% and 4% in the cefazolin and cloxacillin groups, respectively (P = 0.24). The recurrence rate was 2% and 8% in the cefazolin and cloxacillin groups, respectively (P = 0.20). The adjusted risk difference for mortality at 90 days was -1% [95% confidence interval (CI) -10% to 8%] favouring cefazolin. The adjusted risk differences for antibiotic failure, adverse reactions and recurrence were 1% (95% CI -12% to 14%), -5% (95% CI -11% to 2%) and -18% (-36% to -1%) respectively. CONCLUSION: Cefazolin is likely as effective as an antistaphylococcal penicillin and may be considered as a first-line treatment for MSSA SEA.

8.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(10): 1429-1440, 2021 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34332706

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines classified antibiotics into Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) categories for the treatment of 31 priority bacterial infections as a tool to facilitate antibiotic stewardship and optimal use. We compared the listing of antibiotics on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) to those in the 2019 WHO Model List and the AWaRe classification database to determine the degree to which NEMLs are in alignment with the AWaRe classification framework recommended by WHO. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we obtained up-to-date (data after 2017) NEMLs from our Global Essential Medicines (GEM) database, WHO online resources, and individual countries' websites. From the 2019 WHO Model List we extracted, as a reference standard, a list of 37 antibiotics (44 unique antibiotics after accounting for combination drugs or therapeutically equivalent drugs as specified by WHO) that were considered essential in treating 31 of the most common and severe clinical infectious syndromes (priority infections). From the WHO AWaRe Classification Database, which contains commonly used antibiotics globally, we extracted a list of 122 AWaRe antibiotics listed by at least one country in the GEM database. We then assessed individual countries' NEMLs for listing of the 44 essential and 122 commonly used antibiotics, overall and according to AWaRe classification group. We also evaluated and summarised the listing of both first-choice and second-choice treatments for the 31 priority infections. A total coverage score was calculated for each country by assigning a treatment score of 0-3 for each priority infection on the basis of whether first-choice and second-choice treatments, according to the 2019 WHO Model List, were included in the country's NEML. Coverage scores were then compared against the score of the 2019 WHO Model List and across World Bank income groups and WHO regions. FINDINGS: As of July 7, 2020, we had up-to-date NEMLs for 138 countries. Of the 44 unique essential antibiotics, 24 were Access, 15 were Watch, and five were Reserve. The median number of total essential antibiotics listed across the 138 NEMLs was 26 (IQR 21-32). 102 (74%) countries listed at least 22 (50%) of the 44 essential antibiotics. The median number of total AWaRe antibiotics listed by the 138 countries was 35 (IQR 29-46), of Access antibiotics was 18 (16-21), of Watch antibiotics was 16 (11-22), and of Reserve antibiotics was one (0-2). 56 (41%) countries did not list any essential Reserve antibiotics. 131 (95%) countries had coverage scores of at least 60, equivalent to at least 75% of the score of the 2019 WHO Model List, which was 80. Nine (7%) countries listed fewer than 12 of 24 essential Access antibiotics, and seven (5%) did not list sufficient first-choice and second-choice treatments for priority infections (ie, they had coverage scores lower than 60). Of the 31 priority infections, acute neonatal meningitis and high-risk febrile neutropenia did not have enough listed treatments, with 82 (59%) countries listing no treatment for acute neonatal meningitis and 84 (61%) countries listing only a first-choice treatment, only a second-choice treatment, or no treatment for high-risk febrile neutropenia. Coverage scores differed between countries on the basis of World Bank income groups (p=0·025). INTERPRETATION: Our findings highlight potential changes to the antibiotics included in NEMLs that would increase adherence to international guidance aimed at effectively treating infectious diseases while addressing antimicrobial resistance. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/classificação , Infecções Bacterianas/tratamento farmacológico , Medicamentos Essenciais/classificação , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Gestão de Antimicrobianos , Estudos Transversais , Bases de Dados de Produtos Farmacêuticos , Medicamentos Essenciais/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Organização Mundial da Saúde
9.
BMJ Open ; 11(7): e046097, 2021 07 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34330853

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines that include antimicrobial recommendations should explicitly consider contextual factors that influence antimicrobial resistance and their downstream effects on resistance selection. The objectives were to analyse (1) how, and to what extent, tuberculosis, gonorrhoea and respiratory tract infection guidelines are considering antimicrobial resistance; (2) are of acceptable quality and (3) if they can be easily contextualised to fit the needs of specific populations and health systems. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and searched Ovid MEDLINE and Embase from 1 January 2007 to 7 June 2019 for tuberculosis, gonorrhoea and respiratory tract infection guidelines published in English. We also searched guideline databases, key websites and reference lists. We identified guidelines and recommendations that considered contextual factors including antimicrobial resistance, values, resource use, equity, acceptability and feasibility. We assessed quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool focusing on the domains scope and purpose, rigour of development, and editorial independence. RESULTS: We screened 10 365 records, of which 74 guidelines met inclusion criteria. Of these guidelines, 39% (n=29/74) met acceptable quality scores. Approximately two-thirds of recommendations considered antimicrobial resistance at the population and/or outcome level. Five of the 29 guidelines reported all factors required for recommendation contextualisation. Equity was the least considered across guidelines. DISCUSSION: Relatively few guidelines for highly prevalent infectious diseases are considering resistance at a local level, and many do not consider contextual factors necessary for appropriate antimicrobial use. Improving the quality of guidelines targeting specific regional areas is required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020145235.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Gonorreia , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Bases de Dados Factuais , Atenção à Saúde , Farmacorresistência Bacteriana , Humanos
10.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Jun 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34160592

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens are now commercially available. The most widely used tests are rapid lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) assays have also been developed. The overall accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests, however, is not well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is the third in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE: IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and non-medical settings. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on five diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Data on the clinical performance of U.S. Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization is mostly limited to single, one-time testing versus standard nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) as the reference standard. Rapid Ag tests have high specificity and low to modest sensitivity compared to reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared to asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the diagnostic methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing can help identify some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

11.
J Rheumatol ; 48(8): 1330-1339, 2021 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33993119

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To develop guidance on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD). METHODS: The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) formed a multidisciplinary panel including rheumatologists, researchers, methodologists, vaccine experts, and patients. The panel used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Outcomes were prioritized according to their importance for patients and clinicians. Evidence from the COVID-19 clinical trials was summarized. Indirect evidence for non-COVID-19 vaccines in ARD was also considered. The GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to develop a recommendation for the use of the 4 COVID-19 vaccines approved in Canada as of March 25, 2021 (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1, and Ad26.COV2.S), over 4 virtual panel meetings. RESULTS: The CRA guideline panel suggests using COVID-19 vaccination in persons with ARD. The panel unanimously agreed that for the majority of patients, the potential health benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential harms in people with ARDs. The recommendation was graded as conditional because of low or very low certainty of the evidence on the effects in the population of interest, primarily due to indirectness and imprecise effect estimates. The panel felt strongly that persons with autoimmune rheumatic diseases who meet local eligibility should not be required to take additional steps compared to people without ARDs to obtain their vaccination. Guidance on medications, implementation, monitoring of vaccine uptake, and research priorities are also provided. CONCLUSION: This recommendation will be updated over time as new evidence emerges, with the latest recommendation, evidence summaries, and EtD available on the CRA website.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , COVID-19 , Doenças Reumáticas , Reumatologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Canadá , Humanos , Doenças Reumáticas/complicações , Vacinação
12.
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol ; 9(5): 276-292, 2021 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33798465

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention. We aimed to examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs in an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for studies listed from database inception to May 1, 2020. Double-blind RCTs of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) supplementation for any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if they had been approved by a research ethics committee, and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded. Aggregated study-level data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration and age, were obtained from study authors. Using the proportion of participants in each trial who had one or more ARIs, we did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to estimate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs (primary outcome) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses were done to estimate whether the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration (<25 nmol/L vs 25·0-49·9 nmol/L vs 50·0-74·9 nmol/L vs >75·0 nmol/L), vitamin D dose (daily equivalent of <400 international units [IU] vs 400-1000 IU vs 1001-2000 IU vs >2000 IU), dosing frequency (daily vs weekly vs once per month to once every 3 months), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months), age at enrolment (<1·00 years vs 1·00-15·99 years vs 16·00-64·99 years vs ≥65·00 years), and presence versus absence of airway disease (ie, asthma only, COPD only, or unrestricted). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190633. FINDINGS: We identified 1528 articles, of which 46 RCTs (75 541 participants) were eligible. Data for the primary outcome were obtained for 48 488 (98·1%) of 49 419 participants (aged 0-95 years) in 43 studies. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the vitamin D supplementation group had one or more ARIs (14 332 [61·3%] of 23 364 participants) than in the placebo group (14 217 [62·3%] of 22 802 participants), with an OR of 0·92 (95% CI 0·86-0·99; 37 studies; I2=35·6%, pheterogeneity=0·018). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects of supplementation were observed in trials in which vitamin D was given in a daily dosing regimen (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·65-0·94]; 19 studies; I2=53·5%, pheterogeneity=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I2=31·2%, pheterogeneity=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I2=38·1%, pheterogeneity=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I2=46·0%, pheterogeneity=0·027). No significant interaction between allocation to the vitamin D supplementation group versus the placebo group and dose, dose frequency, study duration, or age was observed. In addition, no significant difference in the proportion of participants who had at least one serious adverse event in the vitamin supplementation group compared with the placebo group was observed (0·97 [0·86-1·07]; 36 studies; I2=0·0%, pheterogeneity=0·99). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. INTERPRETATION: Despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials, vitamin D supplementation was safe and overall reduced the risk of ARI compared with placebo, although the risk reduction was small. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU for up to 12 months, and age at enrolment of 1·00-15·99 years. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires further investigation. FUNDING: None.


Assuntos
Infecções Respiratórias/dietoterapia , Infecções Respiratórias/prevenção & controle , Vitamina D/administração & dosagem , Suplementos Nutricionais , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento
13.
Cells ; 10(3)2021 03 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33806810

RESUMO

As highlighted by the COVID-19 global pandemic, elderly individuals comprise the majority of cases of severe viral infection outcomes and death. A combined inability to control viral replication and exacerbated inflammatory immune activation in elderly patients causes irreparable immune-mediated tissue pathology in response to infection. Key to these responses are type I, II, and III interferons (IFNs), which are involved in inducing an antiviral response, as well as controlling and suppressing inflammation and immunopathology. IFNs support monocyte/macrophage-stimulated immune responses that clear infection and promote their immunosuppressive functions that prevent excess inflammation and immune-mediated pathology. The timing and magnitude of IFN responses to infection are critical towards their immunoregulatory functions and ability to prevent immunopathology. Aging is associated with multiple defects in the ability of macrophages and dendritic cells to produce IFNs in response to viral infection, leading to a dysregulation of inflammatory immune responses. Understanding the implications of aging on IFN-regulated inflammation will give critical insights on how to treat and prevent severe infection in vulnerable individuals. In this review, we describe the causes of impaired IFN production in aging, and the evidence to suggest that these impairments impact the regulation of the innate and adaptive immune response to infection, thereby causing disease pathology.


Assuntos
Imunidade Adaptativa , Envelhecimento/imunologia , COVID-19/imunologia , Imunidade Inata , Interferons/fisiologia , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Replicação Viral/imunologia , Idoso , COVID-19/tratamento farmacológico , COVID-19/virologia , Humanos , Inflamação/tratamento farmacológico , Inflamação/imunologia , Interferon Tipo I/imunologia , Interferon Tipo I/uso terapêutico , Interferon gama/imunologia , Interferon gama/uso terapêutico , Interferons/imunologia , Interferons/uso terapêutico
14.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(4): JC47, 2021 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33819063

RESUMO

SOURCE CITATION: Guo CC, Mi JQ, Nie H. Seropositivity rate and diagnostic accuracy of serological tests in 2019-nCoV cases: a pooled analysis of individual studies. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020;24:10208-18. 33090430.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticorpos Antivirais , Humanos , Imunoglobulina G , Imunoglobulina M , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Testes Sorológicos
15.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 21(1): 75, 2021 04 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33874894

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In non-inferiority trials, there is a concern that intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, by including participants who did not receive the planned interventions, may bias towards making the treatment and control arms look similar and lead to mistaken claims of non-inferiority. In contrast, per protocol (PP) analysis is viewed as less likely to make this mistake and therefore preferable in non-inferiority trials. In a systematic review of antibiotic non-inferiority trials, we compared ITT and PP analyses to determine which analysis was more conservative. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of a systematic review, we included non-inferiority trials that compared different antibiotic regimens, used absolute risk reduction (ARR) as the main outcome and reported both ITT and PP analyses. All estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) were oriented so that a negative ARR favored the control arm, and a positive ARR favored the treatment arm. We compared ITT to PP analyses results. The more conservative analysis between ITT and PP analyses was defined as the one having a more negative lower CI limit. RESULTS: The analysis included 164 comparisons from 154 studies. In terms of the ARR, ITT analysis yielded the more conservative point estimate and lower CI limit in 83 (50.6%) and 92 (56.1%) comparisons respectively. The lower CI limits in ITT analysis favored the control arm more than in PP analysis (median of - 7.5% vs. -6.9%, p = 0.0402). CIs were slightly wider in ITT analyses than in PP analyses (median of 13.3% vs. 12.4%, p < 0.0001). The median success rate was 89% (interquartile range IQR 82 to 93%) in the PP population and 44% (IQR 23 to 60%) in the patients who were included in the ITT population but excluded from the PP population (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to common belief, ITT analysis was more conservative than PP analysis in the majority of antibiotic non-inferiority trials. The lower treatment success rate in the ITT analysis led to a larger variance and wider CI, resulting in a more conservative lower CI limit. ITT analysis should be mandatory and considered as either the primary or co-primary analysis for non-inferiority trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020165040 .


Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Viés , Protocolos Clínicos , Humanos , Análise de Intenção de Tratamento , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento
16.
BMJ ; 373: n949, 2021 04 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33903131

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: Random effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Carragenina/farmacologia , Saúde Global/estatística & dados numéricos , Hidroxicloroquina/farmacologia , Ivermectina/farmacologia , Anti-Infecciosos/farmacologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Quimioprevenção/métodos , Quimioprevenção/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado do Tratamento , Incerteza
17.
JAMA Pediatr ; 175(5): 475-482, 2021 May 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33683325

RESUMO

Importance: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common occurrence in childhood; consequently, evidence-based recommendations for its treatment are required. Objective: To determine whether 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin for CAP was associated with noninferior rates of clinical cure compared with 10 days of high-dose amoxicillin. Design, Setting, and Participants: The SAFER (Short-Course Antimicrobial Therapy for Pediatric Respiratory Infections) study was a 2-center, parallel-group, noninferiority randomized clinical trial consisting of a single-center pilot study from December 1, 2012, to March 31, 2014, and the follow-up main study from August 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019 at the emergency departments of McMaster Children's Hospital and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Research staff, participants, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. Eligible children were aged 6 months to 10 years and had fever within 48 hours, respiratory symptoms, chest radiography findings consistent with pneumonia as per the emergency department physician, and a primary diagnosis of pneumonia. Children were excluded if they required hospitalization, had comorbidities that would predispose them to severe disease and/or pneumonia of unusual origin, or had previous ß-lactam antibiotic therapy. Data were analyzed from March 1 to July 8, 2020. Interventions: Five days of high-dose amoxicillin therapy followed by 5 days of placebo (intervention group) vs 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin followed by a different formulation of 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin (control group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical cure at 14 to 21 days. Results: Among the 281 participants, the median age was 2.6 (interquartile range, 1.6-4.9) years (160 boys [57.7%] of 279 with sex listed). Clinical cure was observed in 101 of 114 children (88.6%) in the intervention group and in 99 of 109 (90.8%) in the control group in per-protocol analysis (risk difference, -0.016; 97.5% confidence limit, -0.087). Clinical cure at 14 to 21 days was observed in 108 of 126 (85.7%) in the intervention group and in 106 of 126 (84.1%) in the control group in the intention-to-treat analysis (risk difference, 0.023; 97.5% confidence limit, -0.061). Conclusions and Relevance: Short-course antibiotic therapy appeared to be comparable to standard care for the treatment of previously healthy children with CAP not requiring hospitalization. Clinical practice guidelines should consider recommending 5 days of amoxicillin for pediatric pneumonia management in accordance with antimicrobial stewardship principles. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02380352.

18.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 134: 138-149, 2021 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33762142

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Having up-to-date health policy recommendations accessible in one location is in high demand by guideline users. We developed an easy to navigate interactive approach to organize recommendations and applied it to tuberculosis (TB) guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO). STUDY DESIGN: We used a mixed-methods study design to develop a framework for recommendation mapping with seven key methodological considerations. We define a recommendation map as an online repository of recommendations from several guidelines on a condition, providing links to the underlying evidence and expert judgments that inform them, allowing users to filter and cross-tabulate the search results. We engaged guideline developers, users, and health software engineers in an iterative process to elaborate the WHO eTB recommendation map. RESULTS: Applying the seven-step framework, we included 228 recommendations, linked to 103 guideline questions and organized the recommendation map according to key components of the health question, including the original recommendations and rationale (https://who.tuberculosis.recmap.org/). CONCLUSION: The recommendation mapping framework provides the entire continuum of evidence mapping by framing recommendations within a guideline questions' population, interventions, and comparators domains. Recommendation maps should allow guideline developers to organize their work meaningfully, standardize the automated publication of guidelines through links to the GRADEpro guideline development tool, and increase their accessibility and usability.


Assuntos
Medicina Baseada em Evidências/organização & administração , Tuberculose , Humanos , Projetos de Pesquisa , Software , Organização Mundial da Saúde
19.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): e219-e234, 2021 03 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33555780

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , COVID-19/terapia , Cuidados Críticos , Dexametasona/uso terapêutico , Gerenciamento Clínico , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Monofosfato de Adenosina/análogos & derivados , Monofosfato de Adenosina/uso terapêutico , Alanina/análogos & derivados , Alanina/uso terapêutico , Anticoagulantes , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Hemodinâmica , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina , Imunização Passiva , Posicionamento do Paciente , Ventilação
20.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Jan 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33480973

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance. OBJECTIVE: The IDSA's goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space. METHODS: IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 17 diagnostic recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation timing. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...