Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Expert Rev Vaccines ; 21(9): 1301-1318, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1915424

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: A number of vaccines have now been developed against COVID-19. Differences in reactogenicity and safety profiles according to the vaccine technologies employed are becoming apparent from clinical trials. METHODS: Five databases (Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine COVID-19 vaccine tracker) were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials between 1 January 2020 and 12 January 2022 according to predetermined criteria with no language limitations. RESULTS: Forty-two datasets were identified, with 20 vaccines using four different technologies (viral vector, inactivated, mRNA and protein sub-unit). Adults and adolescents over 12 years were included. Control groups used saline placebos, adjuvants, and comparator vaccines. The most consistently reported solicited adverse events were fever, fatigue, headache, pain at injection site, redness, and swelling. Both doses of mRNA vaccines, the second dose of protein subunit and the first dose of adenovirus vectored vaccines were the most reactogenic, while the inactivated vaccines were the least reactogenic. CONCLUSIONS: The different COVID-19 vaccines currently available appear to have distinct reactogenicity profiles, dependent on the vaccine technology employed. Awareness of these differences may allow targeted recommendations for specific populations. Greater standardization of methods for adverse event reporting will aid future research in this field.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adjuvants, Immunologic , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Vaccines, Inactivated
2.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 11(4)2022 Mar 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1822410

ABSTRACT

The containment measures following COVID-19 pandemic drastically reduced airway infections, but they also limited the access of patients to healthcare services. We aimed to assess the antibiotic prescription patterns in the Italian paediatric primary care setting before and after the containment measures implementation. For this retrospective analysis, we used a population database, Pedianet, collecting data of patients aged 0-14 years enrolled with family paediatricians (FP) from March 2019 to March 2021. Antibiotic prescriptions were classified according to WHO AWaRe classification. An interrupted time series evaluating the impact of the containment measures implementation on the monthly antibiotic index, on the access to watch index, and on the amoxicillin to co-amoxiclav index stratified by diagnosis was performed. Overall, 121,304 antibiotic prescriptions were retrieved from 134 FP, for a total of 162,260 children. From March 2020, the antibiotic index dropped by more than 80% for respiratory infections. The Access to Watch trend did not change after the containment measures, reflecting the propensity to prescribe more broad-spectrum antibiotics for respiratory infections even during the pandemic. Similarly, co-amoxiclav was prescribed more often than amoxicillin alone for all the diagnoses, with a significant variation in the trend slope for upper respiratory tract infections prescriptions.

3.
Prescriber ; 32(4):15-20, 2021.
Article in English | Wiley | ID: covidwho-1201077

ABSTRACT

This article provides an overview of the antimicrobial stewardship measures and prescribing trends in primary care in Northern Ireland (NI) over recent years. It discusses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antibacterial prescribing in primary care (including by dentists), and the measures being taken to improve antimicrobial stewardship and reduce antimicrobial resistance in the future.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL