Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Frontiers in health services ; 2, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2254174

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need for a rapid tool supporting decision-makers in prioritizing patients in the immediate and overwhelming context of pandemics, where shortages in different healthcare resources are faced. We have proposed Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to create a system of criteria and weights to prioritize uses of COVID-19 vaccines in groups of people at significantly higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease or death, when vaccines are in short supply, for use in Tunisia. The prioritization criteria and the levels within each criterion were identified based on available COVID-19 evidence with a focus on the criteria selected by Tunisian scientific committees. To determine the weights for the criteria and levels, reflecting their relative importance, a panel of frontline physicians treating COVID-19 were invited to participate in an online survey using 1,000 minds MCDA software (www.1000minds.com) which implements the PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives) method. Ten criteria and twenty-three levels have been selected for prioritizing the uses of COVID-19 vaccines in groups of people at significantly higher risk of severe disease or death. Among the invited physicians, sixty have completed the survey. The obtained scores were, in decreasing order of importance (mean weights in parentheses, summing to 100%). Obesity (16.2%), Age (12.7%), Chronic pulmonary diseases (10.8%), Chronic cardiovascular conditions (10.3%), Bone marrow or organ transplantation (10.1%), Immunodeficiency or Immunosuppression (9.6%), Diabetes (9%), Renal failure (8.4%), evolutive cancer (6.9%), and high blood pressure (6%). MCDA-based prioritization scoring system comprising explicit criteria and weights provides an adaptable and multicriteria approach that can assist policy-makers to prioritize uses of COVID-19 vaccines.

2.
Front Health Serv ; 2: 760626, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2254175

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need for a rapid tool supporting decision-makers in prioritizing patients in the immediate and overwhelming context of pandemics, where shortages in different healthcare resources are faced. We have proposed Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to create a system of criteria and weights to prioritize uses of COVID-19 vaccines in groups of people at significantly higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease or death, when vaccines are in short supply, for use in Tunisia. The prioritization criteria and the levels within each criterion were identified based on available COVID-19 evidence with a focus on the criteria selected by Tunisian scientific committees. To determine the weights for the criteria and levels, reflecting their relative importance, a panel of frontline physicians treating COVID-19 were invited to participate in an online survey using 1,000 minds MCDA software (www.1000minds.com) which implements the PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives) method. Ten criteria and twenty-three levels have been selected for prioritizing the uses of COVID-19 vaccines in groups of people at significantly higher risk of severe disease or death. Among the invited physicians, sixty have completed the survey. The obtained scores were, in decreasing order of importance (mean weights in parentheses, summing to 100%). Obesity (16.2%), Age (12.7%), Chronic pulmonary diseases (10.8%), Chronic cardiovascular conditions (10.3%), Bone marrow or organ transplantation (10.1%), Immunodeficiency or Immunosuppression (9.6%), Diabetes (9%), Renal failure (8.4%), evolutive cancer (6.9%), and high blood pressure (6%). MCDA-based prioritization scoring system comprising explicit criteria and weights provides an adaptable and multicriteria approach that can assist policy-makers to prioritize uses of COVID-19 vaccines.

3.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(8)2022 Jul 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1957479

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The mass vaccination campaign against SARS-CoV-2 was started in Tunisia on 13 March 2021 by using progressively seven different vaccines approved for emergency use. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the humoral and cellular immunity in subjects aged 40 years and over who received one of the following two-dose regimen vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, namely mRNA-1273 or Spikevax (Moderna), BNT162B2 or Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech), Gam-COVID-Vac or Sputnik V (Gamaleya Research Institute), ChAdOx1-S or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca), BIBP (Sinopharm), and Coronavac (Sinovac). MATERIAL AND METHODS: For each type of vaccine, a sample of subjects aged 40 and over was randomly selected from the national platform for monitoring COVID-19 vaccination and contacted to participate to this study. All consenting participants were sampled for peripheral blood at 3-7 weeks after the second vaccine dose to perform anti-S and anti-N serology by the Elecsys® (Lenexa, KS, USA) anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays (Roche® Basel, Switzerland). The CD4 and CD8 T cell responses were evaluated by the QuantiFERON® SARS-CoV-2 (Qiagen® Basel, Switzerland) for a randomly selected sub-group. RESULTS: A total of 501 people consented to the study and, of them, 133 were included for the cellular response investigations. Both humoral and cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 antigens differed significantly between all tested groups. RNA vaccines induced the highest levels of humoral and cellular anti-S responses followed by adenovirus vaccines and then by inactivated vaccines. Vaccines from the same platform induced similar levels of specific anti-S immune responses except in the case of the Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccine, which exhibited contrasting effects on humoral and cellular responses. When analyses were performed in subjects with negative anti-N antibodies, results were similar to those obtained within the total cohort, except for the Moderna vaccine, which gave a better cellular immune response than the Pfizer vaccine and RNA vaccines, which induced similar cellular immune responses to those of adenovirus vaccines. CONCLUSION: Collectively, our data confirmed the superiority of the RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, in particular that of Moderna, for both humoral and cellular immunogenicity. Our results comparing between different vaccine platforms in a similar population are of great importance since they may help decision makers to adopt the best strategy for further national vaccination programs.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL