Pneumococcal carriage among high-risk adults in a country with nonmandatory pneumococcal vaccination during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Streptococcus pneumoniae carriage is a prerequisite for clinical infections and is used to make public health decisions on vaccine licensure. Pneumococcal carriage data among high-risk Thai adults are needed before national vaccine program introduction. The association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pneumococcal carriage were also investigated. METHODS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a multi-center cross-sectional study was conducted among high-risk Thai adults from September 2021 to November 2022. Pneumococcal carriage and serotypes were investigated using both conventional and molecular methods. Demographics and co-morbidities were determined for carriage while accounting for case clustering from various study sites. RESULTS: A total of 370 individuals were enrolled. The prevalence of pneumococcal carriage, as determined by the molecular method, was 30.8 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): 26.1-35.8), while after excluding non-typeable pneumococci from the oropharyngeal sample, the carriage prevalence was 20.8 % (95 % CI: 16.79-25.31). The serotype coverage rates by pneumococcal vaccine were 12.3 %, 13.1 %, and 16.4 % for PCV13, PCV15 or PCV20, and PPSV23, respectively, while the non-vaccine type was the majority (45.1 %). The most common serotype was 19B/C (35.5 %), followed by 6 A/B/C/D (10.7 %). The age group under 65 years was associated with a higher pneumococcal carriage rate than the age group 85 and older (odds ratio (OR): 5.01, 95 % CI: 1.75-14.36). There was no significant difference between SARS-CoV-2 and carriage status. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of pneumococcal carriage in Thais was high. The majority of serotypes were not covered by the vaccine. Further studies on the link between carriage serotypes and disease are required. The magnitude and serotype distribution of carriage were comparable in the SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative groups.

Efficacy and Safety of Immunomodulators in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Many immunomodulators have been studied in clinical trials for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, data identifying the most effective and safest treatment are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank immunomodulators in the treatment of COVID-19 according to their efficacy and safety. METHODS: Published and peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of immunomodulators in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were searched up to June 30, 2021. Direct and network meta-analyses were applied to assess the outcomes. The probability of efficacy and safety was estimated, and the drugs were awarded a numerical ranking. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were eligible. Compared with standard of care, dexamethasone and tocilizumab had significantly lower mortality rates with pooled risk ratios (RRs) of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.99) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.96), respectively. Meanwhile, the most effective corticosteroid, interleukin-6 antagonist, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor were hydrocortisone, sarilumab, and ruxolitinib, respectively. However, when superimposed infection was considered, ruxolitinib was the best treatment followed by baricitinib. Moreover, methylprednisolone had the worst combined efficacy and safety among the examined treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, immunomodulators were more effective than standard of care. Important differences exist among immunomodulators regarding both efficacy and safety in favor of ruxolitinib and baricitinib. Further well-conducted randomized controlled trials should focus on JAK inhibitors. Methylprednisolone use should be discouraged because of its poor efficacy and high risk of superimposed infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration identifier CRD 42021257421.