Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 breakthrough infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To provide a comparative meta-analysis and systematic review of the risk and clinical outcomes of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Eighteen studies of COVID-19 infections in fully vaccinated ("breakthrough infections") and unvaccinated individuals were reviewed from Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The meta-analysis examined the summary effects and between-study heterogeneity regarding differences in the risk of infection, hospitalization, treatments, and mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. he overall risk of infection was lower for the fully vaccinated compared to that of the unvaccinated (relative risk [RR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-0.21), especially for variants other than Delta (Delta: RR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.13-0.65; other variants: RR 0.06, 95% CI: 0.04-0.08). The risk of asymptomatic infection was not statistically significantly different between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated (RR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.27-1.19). There were neither statistically significant differences in risk of hospitalization (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.38-2.93), invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 1.65, 95% CI: 0.90-3.06), or mortality (RR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.79-1.78). Conversely, the risk of supplemental oxygen during hospitalization was significantly higher for the unvaccinated (RR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08-1.82). Unvaccinated people were more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection than fully vaccinated for all variants. Once infected, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation, or mortality. Still, unvaccinated showed an increased need for oxygen supplementation. Further prospective analysis, including patients' risk factors, COVID-19 variants, and the utilized treatment strategies, would be warranted.

Comparative safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to influenza vaccines: A pharmacovigilance analysis using WHO international database.

Two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are being rolled out. Despite the high volume of emerging evidence regarding adverse events (AEs) associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, previous studies have thus far been largely based on the comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated control, possibly highlighting the AE risks with COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Comparing the safety profile of mRNA vaccinated individuals with otherwise vaccinated individuals would enable a more relevant assessment for the safety of mRNA vaccination. We designed a comparative safety study between 18 755 and 27 895 individuals who reported to VigiBase for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with mRNA COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, respectively, from January 1, 2020, to January 17, 2021. We employed disproportionality analysis to rapidly detect relevant safety signals and compared comparative risks of a diverse span of AEFIs for the vaccines. The safety profile of novel mRNA vaccines was divergent from that of influenza vaccines. The overall pattern suggested that systematic reactions like chill, myalgia, fatigue were more noticeable with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, while injection site reactogenicity events were more prevalent with the influenza vaccine. Compared to the influenza vaccine, mRNA COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated a significantly higher risk for a few manageable cardiovascular complications, such as hypertensive crisis (adjusted reporting odds ratio [ROR], 12.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.47-65.54), and supraventricular tachycardia (adjusted ROR, 7.94; 95% CI, 2.62-24.00), but lower risk of neurological complications such as syncope, neuralgia, loss of consciousness, Guillain-Barre syndrome, gait disturbance, visual impairment, and dyskinesia. This study has not identified significant safety concerns regarding mRNA vaccination in real-world settings. The overall safety profile patterned a lower risk of serious AEFI following mRNA vaccines compared to influenza vaccines.

Comparative effectiveness of N95, surgical or medical, and non-medical facemasks in protection against respiratory virus infection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of N95, surgical/medical and non-medical facemasks as personal protective equipment against respiratory virus infection. The study incorporated 35 published and unpublished randomized controlled trials and observational studies investigating specific mask effectiveness against influenza virus, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and medRxiv databases for studies published up to 5 February 2021 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020214729). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of respiratory viral infection. The quality of evidence was estimated using the GRADE approach. High compliance to mask-wearing conferred a significantly better protection (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.82) than low compliance. N95 or equivalent masks were the most effective in providing protection against coronavirus infections (OR, 0.30; CI, 0.20-0.44) consistently across subgroup analyses of causative viruses and clinical settings. Evidence supporting the use of medical or surgical masks against influenza or coronavirus infections (SARS, MERS and COVID-19) was weak. Our study confirmed that the use of facemasks provides protection against respiratory viral infections in general; however, the effectiveness may vary according to the type of facemask used. Our findings encourage the use of N95 respirators or their equivalents (e.g., P2) for best personal protection in healthcare settings until more evidence on surgical and medical masks is accrued. This study highlights a substantial lack of evidence on the comparative effectiveness of mask types in community settings.

Clinical significance of hepatosplenic thrombosis in vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare, serious complication after adenoviral COVID-19 vaccine administration that can involve various organ systems. We aimed to investigate the clinical significance of hepatosplenic thrombosis in patients with VITT. METHODS: We searched PubMed ePubs, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies published until April 28, 2021, involving patients with VITT after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including laboratory measurements, were collected and compared. RESULTS: Four case series and three case reports involving 48 cases of VITT were included. Hepatosplenic thrombosis was present in 8 cases (17%). Patients with hepatosplenic thrombosis had lower platelet counts (13,000 vs. 29,500/µL, p=0.016) and higher D-dimer levels (140.0 vs. 57.3 times upper limit of normal range, p=0.028). Multiple-site thrombosis was also associated with hepatosplenic thrombosis (88% vs. 15%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study comparing clinical profiles of patients with VITT according to the presence of hepatosplenic thrombosis. Patients with hepatosplenic thrombosis had more severe presentations with lower platelet counts, higher D-dimer levels, and a higher rate of multiple-site thrombosis. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required to establish definitive evidence regarding the significance of hepatosplenic thrombosis in VITT.

Cardiovascular events and safety outcomes associated with remdesivir using a World Health Organization international pharmacovigilance database.

On October 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved remdesivir as the first drug for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), increasing remdesivir prescriptions worldwide. However, potential cardiovascular (CV) toxicities associated with remdesivir remain unknown. We aimed to characterize the CV adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with remdesivir using VigiBase, an individual case safety report database of the World Health Organization (WHO). Disproportionality analyses of CV-ADRs associated with remdesivir were performed using reported odds ratios and information components. We conducted in vitro experiments using cardiomyocytes derived from human pluripotent stem cell cardiomyocytes (hPSC-CMs) to confirm cardiotoxicity of remdesivir. To distinguish drug-induced CV-ADRs from COVID-19 effects, we restricted analyses to patients with COVID-19 and found that, after adjusting for multiple confounders, cardiac arrest (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-3.29), bradycardia (aOR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.24-3.53), and hypotension (aOR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.03-2.73) were associated with remdesivir. In vitro data demonstrated that remdesivir reduced the cell viability of hPSC-CMs in time- and dose-dependent manners. Physicians should be aware of potential CV consequences following remdesivir use and implement adequate CV monitoring to maintain a tolerable safety margin.

Hepatobiliary Adverse Drug Reactions Associated With Remdesivir: The WHO International Pharmacovigilance Study.

Remdesivir has demonstrated clinical benefits in randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)1-4 and was first approved for COVID-19 patients.5 However, whether remdesivir causes gastrointestinal adverse drug reaction (GI-ADRs) including hepatotoxicity is less clear.1-4,6 Therefore, we aimed to detect a diverse spectrum of GI-ADRs associated with remdesivir using VigiBase, the World Health Organization's international pharmacovigilance database of individual case safety reports.

Comparison of vaccine-induced thrombotic events between ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV.2.S vaccines.

Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) events have been reported after vaccination with adenoviral COVID-19 vector vaccines. This study aimed to compare the clinical presentations and courses of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) between the two adenoviral vector vaccines, Ad26.COV.2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Astra-Zeneca). We found that CVT after Ad26.COV.2.S vaccination presents later with similar symptoms compared to CVT after administration of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, albeit with more thrombosis and intracerebral hemorrhage, lower D-dimer and aPTT levels but similar mortality. These findings could help guide clinical assessment and management of CVT after COVID-19 vaccination.

Update of the current knowledge on genetics, evolution, immunopathogenesis, and transmission for coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19).

In December 2019, an acute respiratory disease caused by novel species of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), emerged in China and has spread throughout the world. On 11th March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) a pandemic, severe coronavirus-mediated human disease. Based on genomic and phylogenetic studies, SARS-CoV-2 might originate from bat coronaviruses and infects humans directly or through intermediate zoonotic hosts. However, the exact origin or the host intermediate remains unknown. Genetically, SARS-CoV-2 is similar to several existing coronaviruses, particularly SARS-CoV, but differs by silent and non-silent mutations. The virus uses different transmission routes and targets cells and tissues with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) protein, which makes it contagious. COVID-19 shares both the main clinical features and excessive/dysregulated cell responses with the two previous Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS) epidemics. In this review, we provide an update of the current knowledge on the COVID-19 pandemic. Gaining a deeper understanding of SARS-CoV-2 structure, transmission routes, and molecular responses, will assist in the prevention and control of COVID-19 outbreaks in the future.

Efficacy of Corticosteroids in Patients with SARS, MERS and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

(1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631-2.101 in the random effects model, p = 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221-0.646 in the random effects model, p < 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670-5.877, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19.