Effectiveness of COVID-19 Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) mRNA vaccination in adolescents aged 12-17 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The rapid emergence of COVID-19 variants of concern (VOCs) has hindered vaccine uptake. To inform policy, we investigated the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccination among adolescents against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 diseases using mostly real-world data (15 studies). We searched international databases until May 2022 and used Cochrane's risk of bias tools for critical appraisal. Random effects models were used to examine overall vaccine effectiveness (VE) across studies (general inverse-variance) and the effect of circulating VOCs on VE (log relative ratio and VE). Meta-regression assessed the effect of age and time on VE (restricted-maximum likelihood). BNT162b2 VE against PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 82.7% (95%CI: 78.37-87.31%). VE was higher for severe (88%) than non-severe (35%) outcomes and declining over time improved following booster dose in omicron era [73%(95%CI:65-81%)]. Fully vaccinated adolescents are protected from COVID-19 circulating VOCs by BNT162b2 especially for the need of critical care or life support.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents following COVID-19 BNT162b2 vaccination.

Myocarditis and pericarditis are frequent complications of COVID-19, but have also been reported following vaccination against COVID-19 in adolescents. To build vaccine confidence and inform policy, we characterized the incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis in adolescents following BNT162b2 vaccination and explored the association with dose and sex. We searched national and international databases for studies reporting the incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis following BNT162b2 vaccination as the primary endpoint. The intra-study risk of bias was appraised, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled incidence by dose stratified by sex. The pooled incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis was 4.5 (95%CI: 3.14-6.11) per 100,000 vaccinations across all doses. Compared to dose 1, the risk was significantly higher after dose 2 (RR: 8.62, 95%CI: 5.71-13.03). However, adolescents experienced a low risk after a booster dose than after dose 2 (RR: 0.06; 95%CI: 0.04-0.09). Males were approximately seven times (RR: 6.66, 95%CI: 4.77-4.29) more likely than females to present myocarditis/pericarditis. In conclusion, we found a low frequency of myocarditis/pericarditis after BNT162b2, which occurred predominantly after the second dose in male adolescents. The prognosis appears to be favorable, with full recovery in both males and females. National programs are recommended to adopt the causality framework to reduce overreporting, which undercuts the value of the COVID-19 vaccine on adolescent life, as well as to extend the inter-dose interval policy, which has been linked to a lower frequency of myocarditis/pericarditis.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of COVID-19 Pfizer-BioNTech (Bnt162b2) mRNA vaccination in immunocompromised adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine in immunocompromised adolescents and young adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study conducted a meta-analysis of post-marketing studies examining BNT162b2 vaccination efficacy and safety among immunocompromised adolescents and young adults worldwide. The review included nine studies and 513 individuals aged between 12 and 24.3 years. The study used a random effect model to estimate pooled proportions, log relative risk, and mean difference, and assessed heterogeneity using the I2 test. The study also examined publication bias using Egger's regression and Begg's rank correlation and assessed bias risk using ROBINS-I. RESULTS: The pooled proportions of combined local and systemic reactions after the first and second doses were 30% and 32%, respectively. Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) were most frequent in rheumatic diseases (40%) and least frequent in cystic fibrosis (27%), although hospitalizations for AEFIs were rare. The pooled estimations did not show a statistically significant difference between immunocompromised individuals and healthy controls for neutralizing antibodies, measured IgG, or vaccine effectiveness after the primary dose. However, the evidence quality is low to moderate due to a high risk of bias, and no study could rule out the risk of selection bias, ascertainment bias, or selective outcome reporting. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence that the BNT162b2 vaccine is safe and effective in immunocompromised adolescents and young adults, but with low to moderate evidence quality due to bias risk. The study calls for improved methodological quality in studies involving specific populations.

Safety of COVID-19 Pfizer-BioNtech (BNT162b2) mRNA vaccination in adolescents aged 12-17 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected adolescents. Safe and effective vaccines are pivotal tools in controlling this pandemic. We reviewed the safety profile of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents using mostly real-world data to assist decision-making. We used random-effects model meta-analysis to derive pooled rates of single or grouped adverse events following immunization (AEFI) after each primary and booster dose, as well as after combining all doses. Reporting on over one million participants with safety data were included. The most-reported local and systemic AEFIs were pain/swelling/erythema/redness and fatigue/headache/myalgia, respectively. AESIs were rarely reported but were more frequent after the second dose than they were after the first and the booster doses. Health impact was less common among adolescents after receiving BNT162b2 vaccine. Rare life-threatening AEFIs were reported across all doses in real-world studies. Our findings highlight the significance of enhancing national and regional vaccination programs to ensure public confidence.

Low-carbohydrate versus balanced-carbohydrate diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: Debates on effective and safe diets for managing obesity in adults are ongoing. Low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets (also known as 'low-carb diets') continue to be widely promoted, marketed and commercialised as being more effective for weight loss, and healthier, than 'balanced'-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets to weight-reducing diets with balanced ranges of carbohydrates, in relation to changes in weight and cardiovascular risk, in overweight and obese adults without and with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics), ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 25 June 2021, and screened reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews. Language or publication restrictions were not applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults (18 years+) who were overweight or living with obesity, without or with T2DM, and without or with cardiovascular conditions or risk factors. Trials had to compare low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets to balanced-carbohydrate (45% to 65% of total energy (TE)) weight-reducing diets, have a weight-reducing phase of 2 weeks or longer and be explicitly implemented for the primary purpose of reducing weight, with or without advice to restrict energy intake.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and full-text articles to determine eligibility; and independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias using RoB 2 and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We stratified analyses by participants without and with T2DM, and by diets with weight-reducing phases only and those with weight-reducing phases followed by weight-maintenance phases. Primary outcomes were change in body weight (kg) and the number of participants per group with weight loss of at least 5%, assessed at short- (three months to < 12 months) and long-term (≥ 12 months) follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included 61 parallel-arm RCTs that randomised 6925 participants to either low-carbohydrate or balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets. All trials were conducted in high-income countries except for one in China. Most participants (n = 5118 randomised) did not have T2DM. Mean baseline weight across trials was 95 kg (range 66 to 132 kg). Participants with T2DM were older (mean 57 years, range 50 to 65) than those without T2DM (mean 45 years, range 22 to 62). Most trials included men and women (42/61; 3/19 men only; 16/19 women only), and people without baseline cardiovascular conditions, risk factors or events (36/61). Mean baseline diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol across trials were within normal ranges. The longest weight-reducing phase of diets was two years in participants without and with T2DM. Evidence from studies with weight-reducing phases followed by weight-maintenance phases was limited. Most trials investigated low-carbohydrate diets (> 50 g to 150 g per day or < 45% of TE; n = 42), followed by very low (≤ 50 g per day or < 10% of TE; n = 14), and then incremental increases from very low to low (n = 5). The most common diets compared were low-carbohydrate, balanced-fat (20 to 35% of TE) and high-protein (> 20% of TE) treatment diets versus control diets balanced for the three macronutrients (24/61). In most trials (45/61) the energy prescription or approach used to restrict energy intake was similar in both groups. We assessed the overall risk of bias of outcomes across trials as predominantly high, mostly from bias due to missing outcome data. Using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of evidence as moderate to very low across outcomes.  Participants without and with T2DM lost weight when following weight-reducing phases of both diets at the short (range: 12.2 to 0.33 kg) and long term (range: 13.1 to 1.7 kg).  In overweight and obese participants without T2DM: low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets compared to balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets (weight-reducing phases only) probably result in little to no difference in change in body weight over three to 8.5 months (mean difference (MD) -1.07 kg, (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.55 to -0.59, I2 = 51%, 3286 participants, 37 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) and over one to two years (MD -0.93 kg, 95% CI -1.81 to -0.04, I2 = 40%, 1805 participants, 14 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence); as well as change in DBP and LDL cholesterol over one to two years. The evidence is very uncertain about whether there is a difference in the number of participants per group with weight loss of at least 5% at one year (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.31, I2 = 17%, 137 participants, 2 RCTs, very low-certainty evidence).  In overweight and obese participants with T2DM: low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets compared to balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets (weight-reducing phases only) probably result in little to no difference in change in body weight over three to six months (MD -1.26 kg, 95% CI -2.44 to -0.09, I2 = 47%, 1114 participants, 14 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) and over one to two years (MD -0.33 kg, 95% CI -2.13 to 1.46, I2 = 10%, 813 participants, 7 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence); as well in change in DBP, HbA1c and LDL cholesterol over 1 to 2 years. The evidence is very uncertain about whether there is a difference in the number of participants per group with weight loss of at least 5% at one to two years (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20, I2 = 0%, 106 participants, 2 RCTs, very low-certainty evidence).  Evidence on participant-reported adverse effects was limited, and we could not draw any conclusions about these.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is probably little to no difference in weight reduction and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years' follow-up, when overweight and obese participants without and with T2DM are randomised to either low-carbohydrate or balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets.

Psychosocial interventions for improving engagement in care and health and behavioural outcomes for adolescents and young people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents and young people comprise a growing proportion of new HIV infections globally, yet current approaches do not effectively engage this group, and adolescent HIV-related outcomes are the poorest among all age groups. Providing psychosocial interventions incorporating psychological, social, and/or behavioural approaches offer a potential pathway to improve engagement in care and health and behavioural outcomes among adolescents and young people living with HIV (AYPLHIV). METHODS: A systematic search of all peer-reviewed papers published between January 2000 and July 2020 was conducted through four electronic databases (Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus). We included randomized controlled trials evaluating psychosocial interventions aimed at improving engagement in care and health and behavioural outcomes of AYPLHIV aged 10 to 24 years. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Thirty relevant studies were identified. Studies took place in the United States (n = 18, 60%), sub-Saharan Africa (Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe) and Southeast Asia (Thailand). Outcomes of interest included adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART), ART knowledge, viral load data, sexual risk behaviours, sexual risk knowledge, retention in care and linkage to care. Overall, psychosocial interventions for AYPLHIV showed important, small-to-moderate effects on adherence to ART (SMD = 0.3907, 95% CI: 0.1059 to 0.6754, 21 studies, n = 2647) and viral load (SMD = -0.2607, 95% CI -04518 to -0.0696, 12 studies, n = 1566). The psychosocial interventions reviewed did not demonstrate significant impacts on retention in care (n = 8), sexual risk behaviours and knowledge (n = 13), viral suppression (n = 4), undetectable viral load (n = 5) or linkage to care (n = 1) among AYPLHIV. No studies measured transition to adult services. Effective interventions employed various approaches, including digital and lay health worker delivery, which hold promise for scaling interventions in the context of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the potential of psychosocial interventions in improving health outcomes in AYPLHIV. However, more research needs to be conducted on interventions that can effectively reduce sexual risk behaviours of AYPLHIV, as well as those that can strengthen engagement in care. Further investment is needed to ensure that these interventions are cost-effective, sustainable and resilient in the face of resource constraints and global challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Acute and chronic exposure to air pollution in relation with incidence, prevalence, severity and mortality of COVID-19: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Air pollution is one of the world's leading mortality risk factors contributing to seven million deaths annually. COVID-19 pandemic has claimed about one million deaths in less than a year. However, it is unclear whether exposure to acute and chronic air pollution influences the COVID-19 epidemiologic curve. METHODS: We searched for relevant studies listed in six electronic databases between December 2019 and September 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits. Studies presented as original articles, studies that assessed risk, incidence, prevalence, or lethality of COVID-19 in relation with exposure to either short-term or long-term exposure to ambient air pollution were included. All patients regardless of age, sex and location diagnosed as having COVID-19 of any severity were taken into consideration. We synthesised results using harvest plots based on effect direction. RESULTS: Included studies were cross-sectional (n = 10), retrospective cohorts (n = 9), ecological (n = 6 of which two were time-series) and hypothesis (n = 1). Of these studies, 52 and 48% assessed the effect of short-term and long-term pollutant exposure, respectively and one evaluated both. Pollutants mostly studied were PM2.5 (64%), NO2 (50%), PM10 (43%) and O3 (29%) for acute effects and PM2.5 (85%), NO2 (39%) and O3 (23%) then PM10 (15%) for chronic effects. Most assessed COVID-19 outcomes were incidence and mortality rate. Acutely, pollutants independently associated with COVID-19 incidence and mortality were first PM2.5 then PM10, NO2 and O3 (only for incident cases). Chronically, similar relationships were found for PM2.5 and NO2. High overall risk of bias judgments (86 and 39% in short-term and long-term exposure studies, respectively) was predominantly due to a failure to adjust aggregated data for important confounders, and to a lesser extent because of a lack of comparative analysis. CONCLUSION: The body of evidence indicates that both acute and chronic exposure to air pollution can affect COVID-19 epidemiology. The evidence is unclear for acute exposure due to a higher level of bias in existing studies as compared to moderate evidence with chronic exposure. Public health interventions that help minimize anthropogenic pollutant source and socio-economic injustice/disparities may reduce the planetary threat posed by both COVID-19 and air pollution pandemics.