RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In addition to preventing pneumococcal disease, emerging evidence indicates that pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) might indirectly reduce viral respiratory tract infections (RTI) by affecting pneumococcal-viral interactions. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of interventional and observational studies published during 2000-2022 on vaccine efficacy/adjusted effectiveness (VE) and overall effect of PCV7, PCV9, PCV10, or PCV13 against viral RTI. RESULTS: Sixteen of 1671 records identified were included. Thirteen publications described effects of PCVs against viral RTIs in children. VE against influenza ranged between 41-86% (n=4), except for the 2010-2011 influenza season. In a randomized controlled trial, PCV9 displayed efficacy against any viral RTI, human seasonal coronavirus, parainfluenza, and human metapneumovirus. Data in adults were limited (n=3). PCV13 VE ranged between 4-25% against viral lower RTI, 32-35% against COVID-19 outcomes, 24-51% against human seasonal coronavirus, and 13-36% against influenza A lower RTI, with some 95%CI spanning zero. No protection was found against adenovirus or rhinovirus in children or adults. CONCLUSIONS: PCVs were associated with protection against some viral RTI, with the strongest evidence for influenza in children. Limited evidence for adults was generally consistent with pediatric data. Restricting public health evaluations to confirmed pneumococcal outcomes may underestimate the full impact of PCVs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of three or four heterologous versus homologous booster regimens. METHODS: From November 3 2022 to December 21, 2023, we searched five databases for randomised clinical trials (RCT). Reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed bias risks independently with the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. We conducted meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) on our primary (all-cause mortality; laboratory confirmed symptomatic and severe COVID-19; serious adverse events [SAE]) and secondary outcomes (quality of life [QoL]; adverse events [AE] considered non-serious). We assessed the evidence with the GRADE approach. Subgroup analyses were stratified for trials before and after 2023, three or four boosters, immunocompromised status, follow-up, risk of bias, heterologous booster vaccine platforms, and valency of booster. RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs with 43 comparisons (12,538 participants). Heterologous booster regimens may not reduce the relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality (11 trials; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.26; I2 0%; very low certainty evidence); laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 (14 trials; RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; I2 0%; very low certainty); or severe COVID-19 (10 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.33; I2 0%; very low certainty). For safety outcomes, heterologous booster regimens may have no effect on SAE (27 trials; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.95; I2 0%; very low certainty) but may raise AE considered non-serious (20 trials; RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32; I2 64.4%; very low certainty). No data on QoL was available. Our TSAs showed that the cumulative Z curves did not reach futility for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: With our current sample sizes, we were not able to infer differences of effects for any outcomes, but heterologous booster regimens seem to cause more non-serious AE. Furthermore, more robust data are instrumental to update this review.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Imunização Secundária , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Imunização Secundária/métodos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Adulto , Qualidade de VidaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: HIV poses significant challenges for vaccine development due to its high genetic mutation and recombination rates. Understanding the distribution of HIV subtypes (clades) across regions and populations is crucial. In this study, a systematic review of the past decade was conducted to characterize HIV-1/HIV-2 subtypes. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and CABI Global Health, yielding 454 studies from 91 countries. RESULTS: Globally, circulating recombinant forms (CRFs)/unique recombinant forms (URFs) accounted for 29% of HIV-1 strains, followed by subtype C (23%) and subtype A (17%). Among studies reporting subtype breakdowns in key populations, 62% of HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) and 38% among people who inject drugs (PWIDs) were CRF/URFs. Latin America and the Caribbean exhibited a 25% increase in other CRFs (excluding CRF01_AE or CRF02_AG) prevalence between 2010-2015 and 2016-2021. CONCLUSIONS: This review underscores the global distribution of HIV subtypes, with an increasing prevalence of CRFs and a lower prevalence of subtype C. Data on HIV-2 were limited. Understanding subtype diversity is crucial for vaccine development, which need to elicit immune responses capable of targeting various subtypes. Further research is needed to enhance our knowledge and address the challenges posed by HIV subtype diversity.
Assuntos
Infecções por HIV , HIV-1 , Minorias Sexuais e de Gênero , Masculino , Humanos , Homossexualidade Masculina , HIV-1/genética , HIV-2/genética , Variação Genética , Filogenia , Prevalência , GenótipoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Most observational population-based studies identify respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) by nasal/nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (RT-PCR) only. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to quantify specimen and diagnostic testing-based underascertainment of adult RSV infection. METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched (January 2000-December 2021) for studies including adults using/comparing >1 RSV testing approach. We quantified test performance and RSV detection increase associated with using multiple specimen types. RESULTS: Among 8066 references identified, 154 met inclusion. Compared to RT-PCR, other methods were less sensitive: rapid antigen detection test (RADT; pooled sensitivity, 64%), direct fluorescent antibody (DFA; 83%), and viral culture (86%). Compared to singleplex PCR, multiplex PCR's sensitivity was lower (93%). Compared to nasal/nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR alone, adding another specimen type increased detection: sputum RT-PCR, 52%; 4-fold rise in paired serology, 44%; and oropharyngeal swab RT-PCR, 28%. Sensitivity was lower in estimates limited to only adults (for RADT, DFA, and viral culture), and detection rate increases were largely comparable. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR, particularly singleplex testing, is the most sensitive RSV diagnostic test in adults. Adding additional specimen types to nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR testing increased RSV detection. Synergistic effects of using ≥3 specimen types should be assessed, as this approach may improve the accuracy of adult RSV burden estimates.
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an important cause of illness and death among older adults. Most studies of how frequent RSV infection is among older adults use only nasal swab testing to identify RSV infection. These nasal swabs are checked for genetic material from the virus, known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. We examined published studies from January 2000 to December 2021 to estimate how many RSV infections would be missed by using only this approach to RSV testing. We found 154 studies had information to answer our question. Compared to PCR testing of nasal swab alone, adding sputum specimen PCR testing (ie, testing cough mucus or phlegm for RSV genetic material) increased RSV infections found by 52%. Adding blood testing increased RSV infections found by 44%. Adding mouth/throat swab PCR testing, increased RSV infections by 28%. In summary, adding additional specimen types to nasal swab PCR testing increased RSV detection. Impact of using 3 or more specimen types at the same time should be assessed, as this approach may further improve accuracy.
Assuntos
Infecções por Vírus Respiratório Sincicial , Vírus Sincicial Respiratório Humano , Adulto , Humanos , Infecções por Vírus Respiratório Sincicial/diagnóstico , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Vírus Sincicial Respiratório Humano/genética , Nasofaringe , Técnicas e Procedimentos Diagnósticos , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase Via Transcriptase ReversaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Adding additional specimen types (eg, serology or sputum) to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) increases respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) detection among adults. We assessed if a similar increase occurs in children and quantified underascertainment associated with diagnostic testing. METHODS: We searched databases for studies involving RSV detection in persons <18 years using ≥2 specimen types or tests. We assessed study quality using a validated checklist. We pooled detection rates by specimen and diagnostic tests and quantified performance. RESULTS: We included 157 studies. Added testing of additional specimens to NP aspirate (NPA), NPS, and/or nasal swab (NS) RT-PCR resulted in statistically nonsignificant increases in RSV detection. Adding paired serology testing increased RSV detection by 10%, NS by 8%, oropharyngeal swabs by 5%, and NPS by 1%. Compared to RT-PCR, direct fluorescence antibody tests, viral culture, and rapid antigen tests were 87%, 76%, and 74% sensitive, respectively (pooled specificities all ≥98%). Pooled sensitivity of multiplex versus singleplex RT-PCR was 96%. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR was the most sensitive pediatric RSV diagnostic test. Adding multiple specimens did not substantially increase RSV detection, but even small proportional increases could result in meaningful changes in burden estimates. The synergistic effect of adding multiple specimens should be evaluated.
Assuntos
Infecções por Vírus Respiratório Sincicial , Vírus Sincicial Respiratório Humano , Vírus , Adulto , Criança , Humanos , Infecções por Vírus Respiratório Sincicial/diagnóstico , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Vírus Sincicial Respiratório Humano/genética , Técnicas e Procedimentos Diagnósticos , Nasofaringe , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase Via Transcriptase ReversaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022. The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.
Assuntos
Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Interleucina-6 , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Viés , Citocinas , Interleucina-6/antagonistas & inibidoresRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Interleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 28; ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28; ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28; ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab. Effectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence. The evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence). Effectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).
Assuntos
Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Interleucina-1/antagonistas & inibidores , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Respiração ArtificialRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes. We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available. This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.
Assuntos
Vacina de mRNA-1273 contra 2019-nCoV , COVID-19 , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Adolescente , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 (IL-6) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their immunosuppressive effect might be valuable in patients with COVID-19 characterised by substantial immune system dysfunction by controlling inflammation and promoting disease tolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to 11 February 2021) and the L-OVE platform, and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify trials up to 26 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two review authors independently collected data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes such as clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement on the scale used by trialists to evaluate clinical progression or recovery) (day (D) 28 / ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28 / ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28 / ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs with available data including one platform trial comparing tocilizumab and sarilumab with standard of care. These trials evaluated tocilizumab (nine RCTs including two platform trials; seven were reported as peer-reviewed articles, two as preprints; 6428 randomised participants); and two sarilumab (one platform trial reported as peer reviewed article, one reported as preprint, 880 randomised participants). All trials included were multicentre trials. They were conducted in Brazil, China, France, Italy, UK, USA, and four were multi-country trials. The mean age range of participants ranged from 56 to 65 years; 4572 (66.3%) of trial participants were male. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The reported proportion of participants on oxygen at baseline but not intubated varied from 56% to 100% where reported. Five trials reported the inclusion of intubated patients at baseline. We identified a further 20 registered RCTs of tocilizumab compared to placebo/standard care (five completed without available results, five terminated without available results, eight ongoing, two not recruiting); 11 RCTs of sarilumab (two completed without results, three terminated without available results, six ongoing); six RCTs of clazakisumab (five ongoing, one not recruiting); two RCTs of olokizumab (one completed, one not recruiting); one of siltuximab (ongoing) and one RCT of levilimab (completed without available results). Of note, three were cancelled (2 tocilizumab, 1 clazakisumab). One multiple-arm RCT evaluated both tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard of care, one three-arm RCT evaluated tocilizumab and siltuximab compared to standard of care and consequently they appear in each respective comparison. Tocilizumab versus standard care alone or with placebo a. Effectiveness of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 Tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome of clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; I2 = 40.9%; 7 RCTs, 5585 participants; absolute effect: 31 more with clinical improvement per 1000 (from 0 fewer to 67 more); moderate-certainty evidence). However, we cannot exclude that some subgroups of patients could benefit from the treatment. We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level of 7 or above is uncertain at D28 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.74; I2 = 64.4%; 3 RCTs, 712 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). Tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 6363 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 9 fewer); high-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests uncertainty around the effect on mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.40; I2 = 0.0%; 2 RCTs, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence). b. Safety of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tocilizumab on adverse events (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72; I2 = 86.4%; 7 RCTs, 1534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 2312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sarilumab versus standard care alone or with placebo The evidence is uncertain about the effect of sarilumab on all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty), on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty). It is unlikely that sarilumab results in an important increase of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; 1 RCT, 420 participants; moderate certainty). However, an increase cannot be excluded No data were available for other critical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo and probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement measured by trialist-defined scales) at D28. The impact of tocilizumab on other outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. With the data available, we were not able to explore heterogeneity. Individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to be able to identify which patients are more likely to benefit from this treatment. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab is uncertain and evidence for other anti-IL6 agents is unavailable. Thirty-nine RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents with no results are currently registered, of which nine are completed and seven trials were terminated with no results available. The findings of this review will be updated as new data are made available on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , Interleucina-6/antagonistas & inibidores , Idoso , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Viés , COVID-19/mortalidade , Progressão da Doença , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) related mortality has markedly declined. As HAART is becoming increasingly available, the infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV+) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is becoming a chronic condition. While pregnancy in HIV+ women in SSA has always been considered a challenging event for the mother and the fetus, for pregnant HIV+ women also diagnosed with epilepsy (WWE), there are additional risks as HIV increases the odds of developing seizures due to the vulnerability of the central nervous system to other infections, immune dysfunction, and overall metabolic disturbances. In light of a growing proportion of HIV+ WWE on HAART and an increasing number of pregnant women accessing mother-to-child transmission of HIV programs through provision of HAART in SSA, there is a need to develop contextualized and evidenced-based clinical strategies for the management of epilepsy in this population. In this study, we conduct a literature scoping review to identify issues that warrant consideration for clinical management. RESULT: Twenty-three articles were retained after screening, which covered six overarching clinical aspects: status epilepticus (SE), Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), dyslipidemia, congenital malformation (CM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and neurological development. No studies for our population of interest were identified, highlighting the need for a cautionary approach to be employed when extrapolating findings. CONCLUSION: High risks of CM and drug interactions with first-line antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) warrant measures to increase the accessibility and choices of safer second-line AEDs. To ensure evidence-based management of epilepsy within this population, the potential high prevalence of SE, CKD, dyslipidemia, and SJS/TEN and the cumulative effect of drug-drug interactions should be considered. Further understanding of the intersections between pregnancy and drug-drug interactions in SSA is needed to ensure evidenced-based management of epilepsy in pregnant HIV+ WWE. To prevent SE, the barriers for AED treatment adherence in pregnant HIV+ women should be explored. Our review underscores the need to conduct cohort studies of HIV+ WWE in reproductive age over time and across pregnancies to capture the cumulative effect of HAART and AED to inform clinical management.
Assuntos
Epilepsia/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções por HIV/complicações , Complicações na Gravidez/tratamento farmacológico , África Subsaariana , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , GestantesRESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence that tuberculosis (TB) can cause diabetes in those not previously known to be diabetic. Whilst the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends screening for Diabetes Mellitus (DM) at the onset of TB treatment, nevertheless, it remains to be elucidated which patients with TB-associated hyperglycemia are at higher risk for developing DM and stand to benefit from a more regular follow-up. This review aims to firstly quantify the reduction of newly detected hyperglycemia burden in TB patients who are on treatment over time; secondly, determine the burden of TB-associated hyperglycemia after follow-up, and thirdly, synthesize literature on risk factors for unresolved TB-associated hyperglycemia in previously undiagnosed individuals. METHODS: We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Global Health for articles on TB-associated hyperglycemia up to September 30th, 2019. Search terms included Tuberculosis and hyperglycemia/DM, and insulin resistance. We appraised studies, extracted data, and conducted a meta-analysis to assess the change of the burden of hyperglycemia in prospective studies. The review is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019118173). RESULTS: Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis yielding a total of 677 (27,3%) of patients with newly detected hyperglycemia at baseline. The mean quality score of eligible studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was 7.1 out of 9 (range 6-9). The pooled unresolved new cases of hyperglycemia at the end of follow up was 50% (95% CI: 36-64%) and the total pooled burden of hyperglycemia at 3-6 months of follow up was 11% (95% CI: 7-16%), with both estimates displaying a high heterogeneity, which remained significant after performing a sub-analysis by DM diagnostic method and 3 months of follow up. As only 2 studies explored risk factors for unresolved hyperglycemia, no meta-analysis was performed on risk factors. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that although in half of the patients with newly observed hyperglycemia at baseline, it remained unresolved at a follow-up of 3 to 6 months, the total burden of hyperglycemia is slightly above 10%, 3 months after initiating TB treatment. Studies are warranted to assess whether risk factors including HIV positivity, smoking, and extensive pulmonary TB disease put patients at higher risk for DM.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/diagnóstico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiologia , Hiperglicemia/epidemiologia , Mycobacterium tuberculosis , Tuberculose Pulmonar/epidemiologia , Adolescente , Adulto , África Subsaariana/epidemiologia , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Seguimentos , Saúde Global , Humanos , Masculino , Programas de Rastreamento , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Oriente Médio/epidemiologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Tuberculose Pulmonar/microbiologia , Adulto JovemAssuntos
Neoplasias , Feminino , Humanos , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Neoplasias/terapia , Política de SaúdeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: All women are potentially at risk of developing cervical cancer at some point in their life, yet it is avoidable cause of death among women in Sub- Saharan Africa with a world incidence of 530,000 every year. It is the 4th commonest cancer affecting women worldwide with over 260,000 deaths reported in 2012. Low resource settings account for over 75% of the global cervical cancer burden. Uptake of HPV vaccination is limited in the developing world. WHO recommended that 2 doses of HPV vaccine could be given to young girls, based on studies in developed countries. However in Africa high rates of infections like malaria and worms can affect immune responses to vaccines, therefore three doses may still be necessary. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators associated with uptake of HPV vaccine. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at Eldoret, Kenya involving 3000 girls aged 9 to 14 years from 40 schools. Parents/guardians gave consent through a questionnaire. RESULTS: Of all 3083 the school girls 93.8% had received childhood vaccines and 63.8% had a second HPV dose, and 39.1% had a third dose. Administration of second dose and HPV knowledge were both strong predictors of completion of the third dose. Distance to the hospital was a statistically significant risk factor for non-completion (P: 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Distance to vaccination centers requires a more innovative vaccine-delivery strategy and education of parents/guardians on cervical screening to increase attainment of the HPV vaccination.
Assuntos
Infecções por Papillomavirus/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra Papillomavirus/administração & dosagem , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/prevenção & controle , Vacinação/métodos , Adolescente , Criança , Estudos Transversais , Doenças Endêmicas , Feminino , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Humanos , Esquemas de Imunização , Imunogenicidade da Vacina , Incidência , Quênia/epidemiologia , Malária/epidemiologia , Malária/imunologia , Infecções por Papillomavirus/imunologia , Infecções por Papillomavirus/virologia , Vacinas contra Papillomavirus/imunologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Instituições Acadêmicas/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/imunologia , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/virologia , Vacinação/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have established human papillomavirus (HPV) infection as the central cause of invasive cervical cancer (ICC) and its precursor lesions. HIV is associated with a higher prevalence and persistence of a broader range of high-risk HPV genotypes, which in turn results in a higher risk of cervical disease. Recent WHO HPV vaccination schedule recommendations, along with the roll out of HAART at an earlier CD4 count within the female HIV-infected population, may have programmatic implications for sub Saharan Africa. This communication identifies research areas, which will need to be addressed for determining a HPV vaccine schedule for this population in sub Saharan Africa. A review of WHO latest recommendations and the evidence concerning one-dose HPV vaccine schedules was undertaken. CONCLUSION: For females ≥15 years at the time of first dose and immunocompromised and/or HIV-infected, a 3-dose schedule (0, 1-2, 6 months) is recommended for all three vaccines. There is some evidence that there is similar protection against HPV 16 and 18 infection from a single vaccination than from two or three doses, however there is no cross protection conferred to other genotypes. There is a need for periodic prevalence studies to determine the vaccination coverage of bivalent, quadrivalent and nonavalent vaccine targeted oncogenic HPV genotypes in women with CIN 3 or ICC at national level. In light of the increasing number of sub Saharan HIV-infected girls initiating HAART at a CD4 count above 350 mm3, there are a number of clinical, virological and public health research gaps to address before a tailored vaccine schedule can be established for this population.
Assuntos
Infecções por HIV/complicações , Programas de Imunização/normas , Infecções por Papillomavirus/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra Papillomavirus/administração & dosagem , Vacinação/normas , Adolescente , África Subsaariana/epidemiologia , Alphapapillomavirus/imunologia , Terapia Antirretroviral de Alta Atividade , Criança , Proteção Cruzada , Esquema de Medicação , Monitoramento Epidemiológico , Feminino , Guias como Assunto , Infecções por HIV/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Programas de Imunização/economia , Infecções por Papillomavirus/epidemiologia , Vacinação/economia , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Women living with HIV are at increased risk to be co-infected with HPV, persistent high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and increased HR HPV viral load, which make them more at risk for cervical cancer. Despite their inherent vulnerability, there is a scarcity of data on potential high risk (pHR) and HR HPV genotypes in HIV- infected women with cervical dysplasia and HPV-type specific viral load in this population in Sub Saharan Africa. The aim of this analysis of HIV-infected women was to explore the virological correlates of high-grade cervical dysplasia (CIN 2+) in HIV-infected women, thereby profiling HPV genotypes. METHOD: This analysis assesses baseline data obtained from a cohort study of 74 HIV-infected women with abnormal cytology attending a Comprehensive Care Centre for patients with HIV infection in Mombasa, Kenya. Quantitative real-time PCR was used for HPV typing and viral load. RESULTS: CIN 2 was observed in 16% (12/74) of women, CIN 3 in 23% (17/74), and, invasive cervical carcinoma (ICC) in 1% (1/74) of women. In women with CIN 3+, HPV 16 (44%), HPV 56 (33%), HPV 33 and 53 (HPV 53 (28%) were the most prevalent genotypes. HPV 53 was observed as a stand-alone HPV in one woman with ICC. A multivariate logistic regression adjusting for age, CD4 count and HPV co-infections suggested the presence of HPV 31 as a predictor of CIN 2+ (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]:4.9; p = 0.05; 95% (Confidence Interval) [CI]:1.03-22.5). Women with CIN2+ had a significantly higher viral log mean of HPV 16, (11.2 copies/ 10,000 cells; 95% CI: 9.0-13.4) than with CIN 1. CONCLUSION: The high prevalence of HPV 53 in CIN 3 and as a stand-alone genotype in the patient with invasive cervical cancer warrants that its clinical significance be further revisited among HIV-infected women. HPV 31, along with elevated means of HPV 16 viral load were predictors of CIN 2 + .
Assuntos
Infecções por HIV/complicações , Papillomaviridae/fisiologia , Displasia do Colo do Útero/patologia , Displasia do Colo do Útero/virologia , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/complicações , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/virologia , Adulto , Contagem de Linfócito CD4 , Estudos de Coortes , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Genótipo , Humanos , Quênia/epidemiologia , Papillomaviridae/genética , Prevalência , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase em Tempo Real , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/epidemiologia , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/patologia , Displasia do Colo do Útero/complicações , Displasia do Colo do Útero/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: On a global scale, nearly two billion persons are infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. From this vast reservoir of latent tuberculosis (TB) infection, a substantial number will develop active TB during their lifetime, with some being able to transmit TB or Multi-drug- resistant (MDR) TB to others. There is clinical evidence pointing to a higher prevalence of infectious diseases including TB among individuals with Diabetes Mellitus (DM). Furthermore, ageing and diabetes mellitus may further aggravate protein-energy malnutrition (PEM), which in turn impairs T-lymphocyte mediated immunologic defenses, thereby increasing the risk of developing active TB and compromising TB treatment. This article aims to a) highlight synergistic mechanisms associated with immunosenescence, DM and PEM in relation to the development of active TB and b) identify nutritional, clinical and epidemiological research gaps. METHODS: To explore the synergistic relationship between ageing, DM, tuberculosis and PEM, a comprehensive review was undertaken. The MEDLINE and the Google Scholar databases were searched for articles published from 1990 to March 2015, using different MESH keywords in various combinations. RESULTS: Ageing and DM act synergistically to reduce levels of interferon gamma (IFN- γ), thereby increasing susceptibility to TB, for which cell mediated immunity (CMI) plays an instrumental role. These processes can set in motion a vicious nutritional cycle which can predispose to PEM, further impairing the CMI and consequently limiting host defenses. This ultimately transforms the latent TB infection into active disease. A clinical diagnostic algorithm and clinical guidelines need to be established for this population. CONCLUSION: Given the increase in ageing population with DM and PEM, especially in resource-poor settings, these synergistic tripartite interactions must be examined if a burgeoning TB epidemic is to be averted. Implementation of a comprehensive, all-encompassing approach to curb transmission is clearly indicated. To this end, clinical, nutritional and epidemiological research gaps must be addressed without a delay.
Assuntos
Complicações do Diabetes/epidemiologia , Epidemias , Desnutrição Proteico-Calórica/epidemiologia , Tuberculose/epidemiologia , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Complicações do Diabetes/imunologia , Complicações do Diabetes/microbiologia , Complicações do Diabetes/fisiopatologia , Saúde Global , Humanos , Imunidade Celular , Desnutrição Proteico-Calórica/complicações , Desnutrição Proteico-Calórica/imunologia , Desnutrição Proteico-Calórica/fisiopatologia , Tuberculose/complicações , Tuberculose/imunologia , Tuberculose/fisiopatologiaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Estimating the burden of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) increasingly relies on administrative databases using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, but no standard methodology exists. We defined best practices for ICD-based algorithms that estimate LRTI incidence in adults. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of validation studies assessing the use of ICD code-based algorithms to identify hospitalized LRTIs in adults, published in Medline, EMBASE, and LILACS between January 1996 and January 2022, according to PRISMA guidelines. We assessed sensitivity, specificity, and other accuracy measures of different algorithms. RESULTS: We included 26 publications that used a variety of ICD code-based algorithms and gold standard criteria, and 18 reported sensitivity and/or specificity. Sensitivity was below 80% in 72% (38/53) of algorithms and specificity exceeded 90% in 77% (37/48). Algorithms for all-cause LRTI (n = 18) that included only pneumonia codes in primary position (n = 3) had specificity greater than 90% but low sensitivity (55-72%). Sensitivity increased by 5-15%, with minimal loss in specificity, with the addition of primary codes for severe pneumonia (e.g. sepsis) while pneumonia codes were in secondary position, and by 13% with codes from LRTI-related infections (e.g. viral) or other respiratory diseases (e.g. empyema). Sensitivity increased by 8% when pneumonia codes were in any position, but specificity was not reported. In hospital-acquired pneumonia and pneumococcal-specific pneumonia, algorithms containing only nosocomial- or pathogen-specific ICD codes had poor sensitivity, which improved when broader pneumonia codes were added, in particular codes for unspecified organisms. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review highlights that most ICD code-based algorithms are relatively specific, but miss a substantial number of hospitalized LRTI adult cases. Best practices to estimate LRTI incidence in this population include the use of all pneumonia ICD codes for any LRTI outcome and, to a lesser extent, those for other LRTI-related infections or respiratory diseases.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause severe respiratory infections in adults; however, information on associated sequelae is limited. This systematic literature review aimed to identify sequelae in adults within 1 year following RSV-related hospitalization or resolution of acute infection. METHODS: Studies were identified from Embase, MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, and grey literature. Random-effects meta-analyses using restricted maximum likelihood were used to calculate the proportions and relative risks of sequelae in patients with RSV compared with controls (patients with RSV-negative influenza-like illness, influenza, and parainfluenza) per follow-up period, population, and treatment setting, where possible. RESULTS: Twenty-one relevant studies covering the period from 1990 to 2019 were included. Among the general population, the most frequent clinical sequela was sustained function loss (33.5% [95% CI 27.6-39.9]). Decline in lung function and cardiovascular event or congestive heart failure were also identified. Utilization sequelae were readmission (highest at > 6 months after discharge) and placement in a skilled nursing facility. The only subpopulation with data regarding sequelae was transplant patients. Among lung transplant patients, the most frequently reported clinical sequelae were decline in lung function, followed by graft dysfunction and bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. Pooled relative risks were calculated for the following sequela with controls (primarily influenza-positive patients): cardiovascular event (general population) and pulmonary impairment (hematogenic-transplant patients) both 1.4 (95% CI 1.0-2.0) and for readmission (general population) 1.2 (95% CI 1.1-1.3). CONCLUSIONS: Although less data are available for RSV than for influenza or other lower respiratory tract infections, RSV infection among adults is associated with medically important sequelae, with a prevalence similar to other respiratory pathogens. RSV sequelae should be included in disease burden estimates.
RESUMO
The objective of this study was to assess tobacco use (TU) behaviors among newly diagnosed pulmonary TB (PTB) patients and identify associated factors in Benin and Burkina Faso. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 20 randomly selected TB clinics. To ensure a representative study cohort, clinics were stratified during the sampling process. PTB patients were consecutively sampled in 20 of the clinics between 1 December 2021 and 30 September 2022. The study population comprised individuals aged 15 years and above who were newly diagnosed with PTB. Among the 1399 registered PTB patients, 564 (40.3%) reported a history of TU, including 392 (28.0%) current tobacco users and 172 ex-tobacco users. Cigarettes emerged as the predominant form of TU (86.2%), followed by smokeless tobacco (6.4%), and chicha smoking (2.6%). Factors independently associated with tobacco use were male gender (p < 0.001), being in Burkina Faso (p < 0.001), and an age of 25-59 years (p = 0.002). Our multicentric study reveals a substantial prevalence of tobacco use among TB patients, with cigarette smoking emerging as the predominant form. These findings underscore the imperative for implementing targeted cessation interventions within TB control programs. Special emphasis is warranted for male patients aged 25-59 years.
RESUMO
Cutaneous warts are benign skin lesions caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV). Even though they are considered benign, they can have a considerable impact on the quality of life and cause serious illness in certain immunocompromised populations. Studies have shown that the efficacy of wart treatment is dependent on the causative HPV type. Therefore, in this article, we aim to determine the HPV genotype-specific prevalence in cutaneous warts of a Flemish population as part of the Omnivirol-Salycilic acid randomized controlled trial. Swab samples of cutaneous warts (n = 269) were collected during enrollment. The DNA extraction was performed on the automated NucliSENS® easyMAG® system (bioMérieux). The samples were analyzed with two separate in-house PCR assays capable of detecting the most prevalent cutaneous HPV types (i.e. wart-associated HPV qPCR) as well as the most relevant mucosal types (i.e. RIATOL qPCR assay). In total, the type-specific prevalence of 30 distinct HPV genotypes was determined. The beta-globin gene was used as a cellularity control and for viral load quantification. Data concerning wart persistence, previous treatment, wart type, and other relevant wart and patient characteristics was collected through a baseline questionnaire. The study population consisted mostly of persistent warts considering that 98% (n = 263) of the sampled skin lesions were older than six months and 92% (n = 247) had undergone previous treatment. The most prominent wart type was the mosaic verruca plantaris (42%, n = 113). The most prevalent HPV types were cutaneous HPV types 27 (73%, n = 195), 57 (63%, n = 169), and 2 (42%, n = 113). Only 2% (n = 6) of the lesions was HPV negative. The highest median viral loads were observed with HPV27 and 57 (i.e. 6.29E+04 and 7.47E+01 viral copies per cell respectively). The multivariate analysis found significant associations between wart persistence and certain wart types, the number of warts, and HPV genotypes. Based on these findings, persistent warts are more likely to: (1) be verruca vulgaris, verruca plantaris simple or mosaic, (2) to manifest as multiple warts, (3) and to be negative for HPV type 2 or 4. These characteristics can be useful in the clinical setting for future risk stratification when considering treatment triage and management. Trial registration: NCT05862441, 17/05/2023 (retrospectively registered).