Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Vaccine ; 40(42): 6023-6034, 2022 10 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36137903

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite literature's evidence about COVID-19 vaccines' safety, concerns have arisen regarding adverse events, including the possible impact on fertility, accentuated by misinformation and anti-vaccine campaigns. The present study aims to answer the question: Is there any impact of COVID-19 vaccines on the fertility of men and women of reproductive age? METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for eligible studies until June 8th, 2022. The search was restricted to articles regarding humans, published in any languages, without additional restrictions. Studies' quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa and the Before and After Quality Assessment scales for cohort and pre-post studies, respectively. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed for parameters considered in ≥ 2 studies, calculating means, p-values and 95 % Confidence Intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Out of 1406 studies screened, 29 were included in the systematic review. These studies, conducted in Israel (34.5 %), USA (24.1 %), Russia (20.7 %) China (10.3 %), Italy (3.5 %), North America (3.5%) and Turkey (3.5 %) were of poor (34.5 %), moderate (58.6 %) and good (6.9 %) quality. Meta-analyses were performed for pre- and post-vaccination sperm progressive motility (44 %, 95 % CI 42 %-62 % vs 43 %, 95 % CI 31 %-59 % p = 0.07) and concentration (50.6 mln/ml, 95 % CI 35.1-72.8 vs 55.4 mln/ml, 95 % CI 37.4-82.2p = 0.12). Biochemical (0.51, 95 % CI 0.40-0.66 vs 0.60, 95 % CI 0.53-0.68p = 0.45) and clinical (0.45, 95 % CI 0.37-0.54 vs 0.47, 95 % CI 0.40-0.55 p = 0.31) pregnancy rate did not differ among vaccinated and not vaccinated groups. Subgroup meta-analyses based on the type of vaccine showed no significant difference: between vaccinated with mRNA vaccines and non-vaccinated regarding biochemical pregnancy rates; pre- and post-vaccination with Gam-COVID-Vac regarding testosterone, FSH and LH levels; pre- and post-vaccination with BNT162b2 vaccines regarding sperm volumes. CONCLUSION: Based on the studies published so far, there is no scientific proof of any association between COVID-19 vaccines and fertility impairment in men or women.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Female , Fertility , Follicle Stimulating Hormone , Humans , Male , Pregnancy , Semen , Testosterone
2.
J Psychiatr Res ; 136: 319-333, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33636688

ABSTRACT

Considering the importance of evidence on interventions to tackle mental health problems in healthcare workers (HCWs) during pandemics, we conducted a systematic review, aiming to identify and summarize the implemented interventions to deal with mental health issues of HCWs during infectious disease outbreaks and report their effectiveness. Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycInfo electronic databases were searched until October 2nd, 2020. Primary-data articles, describing any implemented interventions and their effectiveness were considered pertinent. Studies were screened according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria and subsequently data extraction was performed. Twenty-four articles, referring to SARS, Ebola, Influenza AH1N1 and COVID-19 were included. Interventions addressing mental health issues in HCWs during pandemics/epidemics were grouped into four categories: 1) informational support (training, guidelines, prevention programs), 2) instrumental support (personal protective equipment, protection protocols); 3) organizational support (manpower allocation, working hours, re-organization of facilities/structures, provision of rest areas); 4) emotional and psychological support (psychoeducation and training, mental health support team, peer-support and counselling, therapy, digital platforms and tele-support). These results might be helpful for researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers to develop evidence-based sustainable interventions and guidelines, aiming to prevent or reduce the immediate and long-term effect of pandemics on mental health status of HCWs.


Subject(s)
Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Infections/epidemiology , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/epidemiology , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology
3.
Clin Ter ; 169(2): e71-e76, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29595869

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive genetic disease. Two models for screening CF are normally used: newborn screening and population-based CF carrier screening. In turn, there are three main models of population-based CF carrier screening: prenatal carrier screening, preconception carrier screening, and carrier screening outside clinical settings. AIM: To evaluate, in the light of the personalist view, the use of carrier screenings for CF outside the clinic, i.e. in non-clinical settings, such as school and workplaces. METHODS: Analysis has been carried out according to the "Personalist approach" (also called "Triangular model"), an ethical method for performing ethical analysis within HTA process. It includes factual, anthropological and ethical data in a ''triangular'' normative reflection process. FINDINGS: Implementing carrier screening for cystic fibrosis outside the clinical settings allows acquisition of knowledge for informing reproductive choices, that can be considered as valuable; benefit-risk ratio seems to be not much favorable; autonomous and responsible decisions can be taken only under certain conditions; economic advantage is difficult to determine; therefore, from a personalist view, implementing carrier screenings outside the clinic seems not to be ethically justified. CONCLUSIONS: In accordance with the personalist perspective, public health programs providing carrier screenings outside the clinic should not be implemented.


Subject(s)
Bioethics , Cystic Fibrosis/diagnosis , Cystic Fibrosis/genetics , Genetic Carrier Screening/ethics , Genetic Testing/ethics , Mass Screening/ethics , Neonatal Screening/ethics , Adult , Ethical Analysis , Female , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Morals
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...