Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
J Infect Dis ; 227(10): 1117-1118, 2023 05 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2325370
2.
Pediatr Infect Dis J ; 42(4): 276-280, 2023 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2280000

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Beginning in early 2022, clusters of severe pediatric hepatitis were reported in Europe and the United States. To date, no cause has been identified although human adenovirus 41 has been proposed in a proportion of cases. We examined population data >11 years for hepatitis clusters in Victoria, Australia, and whether any were spatiotemporally associated with community transmission of common respiratory viruses. METHODS: We used SaTScan to analyze for clusters of pediatric hepatitis and respiratory adenoviruses in Victoria. Negative binomial regression analysis was performed to determine any associations between hepatitis and respiratory viruses across Victoria between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2022. RESULTS: A number of positive associations were observed in Victoria between pediatric hepatitis clusters and respiratory viruses in our spatiotemporal analysis. A positive association was not found with respiratory adenoviruses or SARS-CoV-2. Increased hepatitis clusters were observed in 2021 and 2022 as noted internationally. CONCLUSION: The current hepatitis outbreak is novel and, although respiratory viruses are broadly associated with hepatitis, SARS-CoV-2 and respiratory adenoviruses are unlikely to be related.


Subject(s)
Adenoviridae Infections , COVID-19 , Hepatitis A , Hepatitis , Child , Humans , United States , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Victoria/epidemiology
3.
Vaccine ; 40(52): 7579-7585, 2022 Dec 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2211585

ABSTRACT

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an adverse event of special interest (AESI) for surveillance systems monitoring adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) with COVID-19 vaccines. Emerging data support a temporal association between GBS and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines. We present a case series of GBS reports submitted between February and November 2021 to our enhanced spontaneous surveillance system (SAEFVIC) in Victoria, Australia, following vaccination with either the adenovirus-vector vaccine Vaxzevria ChadOx1-S (AstraZeneca) or an mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or Spikevax mRNA-1273 [Moderna]). For each report, Brighton Collaboration case definitions were used to describe diagnostic certainty. Severity was graded using the GBS Disability Score. The observed incidence of GBS following immunisation against COVID-19 was compared to expected background ICD10-AM G61.0 coded hospitalisations. There were 41 total cases of GBS reported to SAEFVIC following Vaxzevria (n = 38), Comirnaty (n = 3), or Spikevax (n = 0) vaccines. The observed GBS incidence rate exceeded the expected background rate for Vaxzevria only, with 1.85 reports per 100,000 doses following dose 1, higher than the expected rate of 0.39 hospital admissions per 100,000 adults within 42 days of vaccination. Of 38 GBS reports following Vaxzevria, the median age at vaccination was 66 years and median onset of symptoms was 14 days following immunisation. There was one death. Four cases initially categorised as GBS were later reclassified as acute-onset chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Fatigue was the predominant persisting symptom reported at follow up. Additional global studies are required to characterise risk factors, clinical variability, and to provide precision and generalizability regarding AEFI risks such as GBS associated with different vaccine platforms, which will help inform communication of the potential benefits and risks of COVID19 vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Guillain-Barre Syndrome , Influenza Vaccines , Adult , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Victoria/epidemiology , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Guillain-Barre Syndrome/chemically induced , Guillain-Barre Syndrome/epidemiology , Vaccination/adverse effects
5.
ERJ Open Res ; 7(1)2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1156057

ABSTRACT

Social distancing measures instituted due to #SARSCoV2 have dramatically reduced paediatric thoracic empyema cases in Australia https://bit.ly/3akG98M.

6.
J Med Ethics ; 46(12): 815-826, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-796750

ABSTRACT

Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) research involves the infection of otherwise healthy participants with disease often for the sake of vaccine development. The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasised the urgency of enhancing CHIM research capability and the importance of having clear ethical guidance for their conduct. The payment of CHIM participants is a controversial issue involving stakeholders across ethics, medicine and policymaking with allegations circulating suggesting exploitation, coercion and other violations of ethical principles. There are multiple approaches to payment: reimbursement, wage payment and unlimited payment. We introduce a new Payment for Risk Model, which involves paying for time, pain and inconvenience and for risk associated with participation. We give philosophical arguments based on utility, fairness and avoidance of exploitation to support this. We also examine a cross-section of the UK public and CHIM experts. We found that CHIM participants are currently paid variable amounts. A representative sample of the UK public believes CHIM participants should be paid approximately triple the UK minimum wage and should be paid for the risk they endure throughout participation. CHIM experts believe CHIM participants should be paid more than double the UK minimum wage but are divided on the payment for risk. The Payment for Risk Model allows risk and pain to be accounted for in payment and could be used to determine ethically justifiable payment for CHIM participants.Although many research guidelines warn against paying large amounts or paying for risk, our empirical findings provide empirical support to the growing number of ethical arguments challenging this status quo. We close by suggesting two ways (value of statistical life or consistency with risk in other employment) by which payment for risk could be calculated.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/organization & administration , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Healthy Volunteers/psychology , Attitude , Biomedical Research/ethics , Biomedical Research/standards , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Public Opinion , Remuneration , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL