ABSTRACT
@#Introduction. In the attempt to control the spread of the disease and the pandemic, numerous COVID-19 vaccines are in development. A review of the evidence on their efficacy and safety are critical. Methods. A search for trials was done using the COVID-19 Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform. We also searched for relevant authorization documents and trial reports for COVID-19 vaccines of the US-Food and Drug Authority (US-FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the United Kingdom Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and the WHO website. We included studies that fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: population – humans; intervention – COVID-19 vaccines; comparison – control or placebo; outcomes – efficacy and adverse events; methods – phase 3 randomized trials. Two reviewers independently screened the reports, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data on the trial characteristics and results on vaccine efficacy and safety. The date of last search was March 11, 2021. Results. Interim results of trials investigating five vaccines were identified and included in the review. All five vaccines demonstrated satisfactory vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic COVID-19 infection among adults in the short term with moderate certainty of evidence: BNT162b2, VE 95% (95% CI 90.3, 97.6); mRNA-1273, VE 93.6% (95% CI 88.6, 96.5); ChAdOx1, VE 66.7% (95% CI 57.4, 74.0), Gam-COVID-Vac, VE 91.1% (95% CI 83.6, 95.1); and Ad26.CoV2.S, VE 67.2% (95% CI 59.3, 73.7). Data on the efficacy against severe COVID-19 infection and asymptomatic COVID-19 infection are still inconclusive, except for Ad26.CoV2.S, which demonstrated good efficacy in preventing moderate and/or severe COVID-19 infection and acceptable protection against asymptomatic COVID-19 infection 28 days after vaccination (moderate certainty of evidence). Efficacy data on preventing death from COVID-19 infection are still inconclusive. Very limited phase 3 trial data is available to inform vaccine efficacy against the different variants of SARS-CoV-2. Vaccination with these five vaccines was associated with higher adverse reactions compared to control. These adverse events, due to reactions to the vaccines, were mild to moderate and of short duration. Available evidence on vaccine efficacy and safety is limited, mainly due to the short follow up and the small sample size of specific populations. Conclusion. BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1, Gam-COVID-Vac and Ad26.CoV.S vaccines demonstrated satisfactory vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 infection among adults in the short term with moderate certainty of evidence. Data on the efficacy against severe COVID-19 infection, asymptomatic COVID-19 infection, and death from COVID-19 infection are still inconclusive. Long-term efficacy and safety data, and data on the efficacy against variant strains of SARS-CoV-2 are still lacking.
Subject(s)
Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background@#Pooled testing has been implemented on a limited scale, mainly for screening and surveillance in populations with a low prevalence of COVID-19 to save on limited resources. @*Objective@#To determine the diagnostic accuracy of pooled compared with individual RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 in individuals suspected of COVID-19.@*Methods@#We searched websites of living CPGs on COVID-19 (Australian COVID-19, COVID NMA, CEBM Oxford), Philippine DOH HTA, databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, medRXIV/bioRXIV), and Clinicaltrials.gov for studies that used pooled testing on individuals suspected of COVID-19. When appropriate, we pooled data for sensitivity and specificity and obtained the range and median of other data, such as positive predictive value and resource savings. We did a priori subgroup analysis for pool size, presence or absence of symptoms and use case, type of specimen, cutoff for positivity, type of kit, and post hoc subgroup analysis for method of pooling and timing of processing. @*Results@#We included 21 studies: 6 diagnostic accuracy studies, and 15 clinical validation studies. Studies had varying populations, index test kit and performance characteristics, positivity rate (0.02 to 15%), and pool size (5 to 16). There was moderate pooled sensitivity, 81% (95% CI 72, 88; I2=73.6%; 6 studies, 776 pools) and high pooled specificity, 99% (95% CI, 98 to 100; I2=1.84%; 5 studies, 666 pools). Positive predictive value based on 21 studies ranged from 67% to 100%. Resource savings in the number of test kits used ranged from 49 to 89%. Identified harms of pooled testing were delayed turnaround time for positive samples and laboratory errors.@*Conclusion@#There is moderate sensitivity and high specificity with pooled testing for the screening of individuals with suspected COVID-19. We recommend further studies to validate the utility based on community prevalence and other test variables.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , CoronavirusABSTRACT
Key Findings@#• Very low-quality evidence from a single retrospective study suggests that continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) may reduce mortality among COVID-19 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation. Guidelines recommend CRRT for critically ill patients to minimize the risk of possible transmission, if this option is available. • Although uncommon, acute kidney injury (AKI) can occur in association with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is associated with increased in-hospital mortality. • There are currently no published or ongoing clinical trials directly comparing dialysis modalities for acute kidney injury in COVID-19 patients. • In reducing the risk of transmission during dialysis: currently, there are no studies comparing one dialysis modality to another. The method of dialysis is still primarily determined by the clinical picture of the patient, the expertise of the center, and the resources available. The American Society of Nephrology (ASN) recommends CRRT over intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) for critically ill patients with COVID-19 to minimize patient contact when it is available, and resources allow. Otherwise, intermittent hemodialysis may be done provided that, infection control measures are strictly followed. • Several international and local guidelines recommend strict adherence to infection prevention and control measures (e.g. hand hygiene, physical distancing, proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and cohorting of patients) who are undergoing dialysis.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Objective@#The study aimed to determine if Blumea balsamifera inhibits calcium oxalate stone formation in the kidneys through determination of the number of calcium oxalate stones in the renal cortex and the percent mass of calcium oxalate.@*Methods@#Post-test only control group design was used using five treatment groups with placebo as the negative control, potassium citrate as the positive control, and 50%, 100%, and 200% sambong treatment. Urolithiasis was induced through ethylene glycol and ammonium chloride. Each treatment group was administered its corresponding treatment solution once daily for twenty-one days. Histopathologic examination and kidney homogenate analysis were done to determine the degree of deposition of calcium oxalate stones in renal tissues and the oxalate content, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Gabriel's Pairwise Comparisons Test.@*Results@#The 100% sambong treatment group showed the least mean number of stones while the positive control and 50% sambong treatment group exhibited the highest anti-urolithiatic activity in terms of oxalate content of the kidney homogenate.@*Conclusion@#It can be concluded from the study that Blumea balsamifera inhibits calcium oxalate stone formation in the kidneys with the 100% and 50% sambong treatment most effective in decreasing number of stones and oxalate content of the kidney homogenate, respectively.