ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Different COVID-19 vaccines are being utilized as boosters. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines given as booster doses, according to vaccine type, dose, timing, participant characteristics and primary immunization regimen received. METHODS: Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials between 1 January 2020 and 1 January 2023 according to predetermined criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies describing 19 vaccines of four different types (viral vector, inactivated, mRNA and protein sub-unit) were identified. BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) was selected as the control as it was most often compared with other vaccines. Fever, fatigue, headache, injection-site pain, redness, and swelling were the most frequently reported solicited events. mRNA vaccines were the most reactogenic, followed by viral vector vaccines and protein sub-unit vaccines, while inactivated vaccines were the least reactogenic. Full-dose vaccines were more reactogenic than half-dose vaccines. Heterologous BNT162b2 boosters were more reactogenic than boosters with the same vaccine used for primary immunization. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine booster schedules have distinct reactogenicity profiles, dependent on dose and vaccine type, which may allow targeted recommendations and provide choice for specific populations. Greater standardization of adverse event reporting will aid future studies.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Immunization, Secondary , Humans , BNT162 Vaccine/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Immunization, Secondary/adverse effectsABSTRACT
The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien−Dindo complications I−II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) tools can help implement guideline recommendations for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) considering stroke prevention strategies. We sought to characterize all available SDM tools for this purpose and examine their quality and clinical impact. METHODS: We searched through multiple bibliographic databases, social media, and an SDM tool repository from inception to May 2020 and contacted authors of identified SDM tools. Eligible tools had to offer information about warfarin and ≥1 direct oral anticoagulant. We extracted tool characteristics, assessed their adherence to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, and obtained information about their efficacy in promoting SDM. RESULTS: We found 14 SDM tools. Most tools provided up-to-date information about the options, but very few included practical considerations (e.g., out-of-pocket cost). Five of these SDM tools, all used by patients prior to the encounter, were tested in trials at high risk of bias and were found to produce small improvements in patient knowledge and reductions in decisional conflict. CONCLUSION: Several SDM tools for stroke prevention in AF are available, but whether they promote high-quality SDM is yet to be known. The implementation of guidelines for SDM in this context requires user-centered development and evaluation of SDM tools that can effectively promote high-quality SDM and improve stroke prevention in patients with AF.
