Safety of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of COVID-19 vaccines safety during pregnancy is urgently needed. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components and technological platforms used in other vaccines during pregnancy and animal studies to complement direct evidence. We searched literature databases from its inception to September 2021 without language restriction, COVID-19 vaccine websites, and reference lists of other systematic reviews and the included studies. Pairs of reviewers independently selected, data extracted, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. (PROSPERO CRD42021234185). RESULTS: We retrieved 8,837 records from the literature search; 71 studies were included, involving 17,719,495 pregnant persons and 389 pregnant animals. Most studies (94%) were conducted in high-income countries, were cohort studies (51%), and 15% were classified as high risk of bias. We identified nine COVID-19 vaccine studies, seven involving 309,164 pregnant persons, mostly exposed to mRNA vaccines. Among non-COVID-19 vaccines, the most frequent exposures were AS03 and aluminum-based adjuvants. A meta-analysis of studies that adjusted for potential confounders showed no association with adverse outcomes, regardless of the vaccine or the trimester of vaccination. Neither the reported rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes nor reactogenicity exceeded expected background rates, which was the case for ASO3- or aluminum-adjuvanted non-COVID-19 vaccines in the proportion meta-analyses of uncontrolled studies/arms. The only exception was postpartum hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccination (10.40%; 95% CI: 6.49-15.10%), reported by two studies; however, the comparison with non-exposed pregnant persons, available for one study, found non-statistically significant differences (adjusted OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.56-2.12). Animal studies showed consistent results with studies in pregnant persons. CONCLUSION: We found no safety concerns for currently administered COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Additional experimental and real-world evidence could enhance vaccination coverage. Robust safety data for non-mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are still needed.

Safety, immunogenicity, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous vaccines have been evaluated and approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since pregnant persons have been excluded from most clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, sufficient data regarding the safety of these vaccines for the pregnant person and their fetus have rarely been available at the time of product licensure. However, as COVID-19 vaccines have been deployed, data on the safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and neonates are becoming increasingly available. A living systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and newborns could provide the information necessary to help guide vaccine policy decisions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis based on biweekly searches of medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries to systematically identify relevant studies of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons. Pairs of reviewers will independently select, extract data, and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, and case reports. Primary outcomes will be the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons, including neonatal outcomes. Secondary outcomes will be immunogenicity and reactogenicity. We will conduct paired meta-analyses, including prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We will use the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

Remote non‐pharmacologic interventions for sleep problems in healthcare workers during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of remote non‐pharmacologic interventions, compared with other specific intervention, non‐intervention or alternative intervention for sleep problems in in healthcare workers during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS: The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. REVIEW PROTOCOL: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).

Remote non‐pharmacologic interventions for sleep problems in adults during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of remote non‐pharmacologic interventions, compared with other specific intervention, non‐intervention or alternative intervention for sleep problems in adults during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak.

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.

Effect of Calcium Fortified Foods on Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Calcium supplementation and fortification are strategies widely used to prevent adverse outcome in population with low-calcium intake which is highly frequent in low-income settings. We aimed to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of calcium fortified foods on calcium intake and related health, or economic outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis involving participants of any age or gender, drawn from the general population. We searched PubMed, Agricola, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, EconLit, the FAO website and Google until June 2019, without language restrictions. Pair of reviewers independently selected, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies using Covidence software. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We performed meta-analyses using RevMan 5.4 and subgroup analyses by study design, age group, and fortification levels. We included 20 studies of which 15 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three were non-randomised studies and two were economic evaluations. Most RCTs had high risk of bias on randomization or blinding. Most represented groups were women and children from 1 to 72 months, most common intervention vehicles were milk and bakery products with a fortification levels between 96 and 1200 mg per 100 g of food. Calcium intake increased in the intervention groups between 460 mg (children) and 1200 mg (postmenopausal women). Most marked effects were seen in children. Compared to controls, height increased 0.83 cm (95% CI 0.00; 1.65), plasma parathyroid hormone decreased -1.51 pmol/L, (-2.37; -0.65), urine:calcium creatinine ratio decreased -0.05, (-0.07; -0.03), femoral neck and hip bone mineral density increased 0.02 g/cm2 (0.01; 0.04) and 0.03 g/cm2 (0.00; 0.06), respectively. The largest cost savings (43%) reported from calcium fortification programs came from prevented hip fractures in older women from Germany. Our study highlights that calcium fortification leads to a higher calcium intake, small benefits in children's height and bone health and also important evidence gaps for other outcomes and populations that could be solved with high quality experimental or quasi-experimental studies in relevant groups, especially as some evidence of calcium supplementation show controversial results on the bone health benefit on older adults.

Dexamethasone versus betamethasone for preterm birth: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and safety of dexamethasone vs betamethasone for preterm birth. DATA SOURCES: The sources searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform without language restrictions until October 2019 in addition to the reference lists of included studies. Field experts were also contacted. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing any corticosteroids against each other or against placebo at any dose for preterm birth were included in the study. METHODS: Three researchers independently selected and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies by using Early Review Organizing Software and Covidence software. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed. The primary outcomes were chorioamnionitis, endometritis or puerperal sepsis, neonatal death, respiratory distress syndrome, and neurodevelopmental disability. RESULTS: A total of 45 trials (11,227 women and 11,878 infants) were included in the study. No clinical or statistical difference was found between dexamethasone and betamethasone in neonatal death (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.84; moderate-certainty evidence), neurodevelopmental disability (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.33; moderate-certainty evidence), intraventricular hemorrhage (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.78); low-certainty evidence), or birthweight (+5.29 g; 95% confidence interval, -49.79 to 58.97; high-certainty evidence). There was no statistically significant difference, but a potentially clinically important effect was found between dexamethasone and betamethasone in chorioamnionitis (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.06; moderate-certainty evidence), fetal death (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-2.41; low-certainty evidence), puerperal sepsis (odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-6.06; low-certainty evidence), and respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses did not reveal important changes regarding the main analysis. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids have proven effective for most neonatal and child-relevant outcomes compared with placebo or no treatment for women at risk of preterm birth. No important difference was found on neonatal death, neurodevelopmental disability, intraventricular hemorrhage, and birthweight between corticosteroids, and there was no statistically significant difference, but a potentially important difference was found in chorioamnionitis, fetal death, endometritis or puerperal sepsis, and respiratory distress syndrome. Further research is warranted to improve the certainty of evidence and inform health policies.

Safety of components and platforms of COVID-19 vaccines considered for use in pregnancy: A rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Rapid assessment of COVID-19 vaccine safety during pregnancy is urgently needed. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review, to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines selected by the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access-Maternal Immunization Working Group in August 2020, including their components and their technological platforms used in other vaccines for pregnant persons. We searched literature databases, COVID-19 vaccine pregnancy registries, and explored reference lists from the inception date to February 2021 without language restriction. Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies through COVIDENCE, and performed the data extraction and the risk of bias assessment. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021234185). RESULTS: We retrieved 6757 records and 12 COVID-19 pregnancy registries from the search strategy; 38 clinical and non-clinical studies (involving 2,398,855 pregnant persons and 56 pregnant animals) were included. Most studies (89%) were conducted in high-income countries and were cohort studies (57%). Most studies (76%) compared vaccine exposures with no exposure during the three trimesters of pregnancy. The most frequent exposure was to AS03 adjuvant, in the context of A/H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccines, (n = 24) and aluminum-based adjuvants (n = 11). Only one study reported exposure to messenger RNA in lipid nanoparticles COVID-19 vaccines. Except for one preliminary report about A/H1N1 influenza vaccination (adjuvant AS03), corrected by the authors in a more thorough analysis, all studies concluded that there were no safety concerns. CONCLUSION: This rapid review found no evidence of pregnancy-associated safety concerns of COVID-19 vaccines or of their components or platforms when used in other vaccines. However, the need for further data on several vaccine platforms and components is warranted, given their novelty. Our findings support current WHO guidelines recommending that pregnant persons may consider receiving COVID-19 vaccines, particularly if they are at high risk of exposure or have comorbidities that enhance the risk of severe disease.

COVID-19 and pregnancy: An umbrella review of clinical presentation, vertical transmission, and maternal and perinatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) summarizing the best evidence regarding the effect of COVID-19 on maternal and child health following Cochrane methods and PRISMA statement for reporting (PROSPERO-CRD42020208783). METHODS: We searched literature databases and COVID-19 research websites from January to October 2020. We selected relevant SRs reporting adequate search strategy, data synthesis, risk of bias assessment, and/or individual description of included studies describing COVID-19 and pregnancy outcomes. Pair of reviewers independently selected studies through COVIDENCE web-software, performed the data extraction, and assessed its quality through the AMSTAR-2 tool. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Each SR's results were synthesized and for the most recent, relevant, comprehensive, and with the highest quality, by predefined criteria, we presented GRADE evidence tables. RESULTS: We included 66 SRs of observational studies out of 608 references retrieved and most (61/66) had "critically low" overall quality. We found a relatively low degree of primary study overlap across SRs. The most frequent COVID-19 clinical findings during pregnancy were fever (28-100%), mild respiratory symptoms (20-79%), raised C-reactive protein (28-96%), lymphopenia (34-80%), and pneumonia signs in diagnostic imaging (7-99%). The most frequent maternal outcomes were C-section (23-96%) and preterm delivery (14-64%). Most of their babies were asymptomatic (16-93%) or presented fever (0-50%), low birth weight (5-43%) or preterm delivery (2-69%). The odds ratio (OR) of receiving invasive ventilation for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 pregnant women was 1.88 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.36-2.60) and the OR that their babies were admitted to neonatal intensive care unit was 3.13 (95%CI 2.05-4.78). The risk of congenital transmission or via breast milk was estimated to be low, but close contacts may carry risks. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive overview supports that pregnant women with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes and low risk of congenital transmission.

Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: a scoping review of current guidance.

BACKGROUND: Testing used in screening, diagnosis and follow-up of COVID-19 has been a subject of debate. Several organisations have developed formal advice about testing for COVID-19 to assist in the control of the disease. We collated, delineated and appraised current worldwide recommendations about the role and applications of tests to control SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. METHODS: We searched for documents providing recommendations for COVID-19 testing in PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database and relevant websites such as TRIP database, ECRI Guidelines Trust, the GIN database, from inception to 21 September 2020. Two reviewers applied the eligibility criteria to potentially relevant citations without language or geographical restrictions. We extracted data in duplicate, including assessment of methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II tool. RESULTS: We included 47 relevant documents and 327 recommendations about testing. Regarding the quality of the documents, we found that the domains with the lowest scores were 'Editorial independence' (Median=4%) and 'Applicability' (Median=6%). Only six documents obtained at least 50% score for the 'Rigour of development' domain. An important number of recommendations focused on the diagnosis of suspected cases (48%) and deisolation measures (11%). The most frequently recommended test was the reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay (87 recommendations) and the chest CT (38 recommendations). There were 22 areas of agreement among guidance developers, including the use of RT-PCR for SARS-Cov-2 confirmation, the limited role of bronchoscopy, the use chest CT and chest X-rays for grading severity and the co-assessment for other respiratory pathogens. CONCLUSION: This first scoping review of recommendations for COVID-19 testing showed many limitations in the methodological quality of included guidance documents that could affect the confidence of clinicians in their implementation. Future guidance documents should incorporate a minimum set of key methodological characteristics to enhance their applicability for decision making.

False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020. RESULTS: We included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence). SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.

El escándalo de la cloroquina

El autor aborda el caso de la cloroquina y la hidroxicloroquina en el contexto de la actual pandemia de COVID-19, a través de dos ejes centrales. Por un lado, el escándalo a nivel editorial y de comunicación de la evidencia, y por otro, el de la toma de decisiones en salud pública. Describe flagrantes debilidades en la cadena de generación, difusión y aplicación del nuevo conocimiento. Adicionalmente, explora iniciativas y propuestas que podrían contribuir a solucionar estos problemas. (AU) The author addresses the case of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, through two central axes. On the one hand, the scandal at the editorial and communication level of the evidence, and on the other, that of decision-making in public health. He describes flagrant weaknesses in the chain of generation, diffusion,and application of new knowledge. Additionally, it explores initiatives and proposals that could contribute to solving these problems. (AU)