首页 > 最新文献

世界荟萃分析杂志(英文版)最新文献

英文 中文
Real-world effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly during the Delta and Omicron variants: Systematic review. Delta和Omicron变异期间的老年人mRNA COVID-19疫苗的实际有效性:系统评价
Pub Date : 2023-06-18 DOI: 10.13105/wjma.v11.i5.167
Harvey Palalay, Riddhi Vyas, Barbara Tafuto

Background: As of 31 December 2022, there were over 6.6 million coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths and over 651 million cases across 200 countries worldwide. Despite the increase in vaccinations and booster shots, COVID-19 cases and deaths continue to remain high. While the effectiveness of these vaccines has already been established by different manufacturers, the fact remains that these vaccines were created quickly for global emergency use, tested under controlled clinical conditions from voluntary subjects and age groups whose general characteristics may differ from the actual general population.

Aim: To conduct a systematic review to determine the real-world effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly during the predominance of Delta and Omicron variants in preventing COVID-19 related infection, hospital, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation, and death.

Methods: A combination of Medical Subject Headings and non-Medical Subject Headings was carried out to identify all relevant research articles that meets the inclusion and exclusion criteria from PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases, as well as qualified research studies from pre-print servers using medRxiv and Research Square, published from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2022.

Results: As per the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were evaluated from an estimated total study population of 26,535,692 using infection, hospital, ICU admission and intubation, and death as outcome measures from studies published between 2021 and 2022, conducted in New York, Finland, Canada, Costa Rica, Qatar, Greece, and Brazil. The risk of bias was evaluated using risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. While clinical trial data on Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines demonstrated 94% vaccine effectiveness in the elderly, the results in this study showed that vaccine effectiveness in real-world settings is marginally lower against infection (40%-89%), hospitalization (92%), ICU admission and intubation (98%-85%), and death (77%-87%) with an indication of diminished effectiveness of vaccine over time. Furthermore, 2 doses of mRNA vaccines are inadequate and only provides interim protection.

Conclusion: Because of the natural diminishing effectiveness of the vaccine, the need for booster dose to restore its efficacy is vital. From a research perspective, the use of highly heterogeneous outcome measures inhibits the comparison, contrast, and integration of the results which makes data pooling across different studies problematic. While pharmaceutical intervention like vaccination is important to fight an epidemic, utilizing common outcome measurements or carrying out studi

背景:截至2022年12月31日,全球200个国家的2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)死亡人数超过660万,病例超过6.51亿。尽管疫苗接种和加强注射有所增加,但COVID-19病例和死亡人数仍然很高。虽然不同的制造商已经确定了这些疫苗的有效性,但事实仍然是,这些疫苗是为全球紧急使用而快速生产的,在受控的临床条件下从自愿受试者和一般特征可能与实际一般人群不同的年龄组进行测试。目的:通过一项系统评价,确定在Delta和Omicron变异占主导地位的老年人中,mRNA - COVID-19疫苗在预防COVID-19相关感染、住院、重症监护病房(ICU)入院和插管以及死亡方面的实际有效性。方法:结合医学主题词和非医学主题词,从PubMed、Cochrane、CINAHL、Scopus、ProQuest、Embase、Web of Science和Google Scholar数据库中确定符合纳入和排除标准的所有相关研究文章,以及使用medRxiv和research Square的预印服务器中发表的2021年1月1日至2022年12月31日发表的合格研究文章。结果:根据纳入和排除标准,在纽约、芬兰、加拿大、哥斯达黎加、卡塔尔、希腊和巴西进行的2021年至2022年发表的研究中,以感染、住院、ICU住院和插管以及死亡为结局指标,从估计的总研究人群26,535,692人中评估了辉瑞- biontech和Moderna疫苗的有效性。使用队列、病例对照和横断面研究的非随机干预研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)工具评估偏倚风险。虽然辉瑞- biontech和Moderna疫苗的临床试验数据显示,疫苗在老年人中的有效性为94%,但本研究的结果显示,在现实环境中,疫苗对感染(40%-89%)、住院(92%)、ICU入院和插管(98%-85%)以及死亡(77%-87%)的有效性略低,并表明疫苗的有效性随着时间的推移而降低。此外,2剂mRNA疫苗是不够的,只能提供临时保护。结论:由于疫苗的效力自然递减,需要加强剂量以恢复其效力是至关重要的。从研究的角度来看,使用高度异质的结果测量抑制了结果的比较、对比和整合,这使得跨不同研究的数据池存在问题。虽然疫苗接种等药物干预措施对于抗击流行病很重要,但利用共同的结果测量或开展结果测量中异质性最小的研究,对于更好地了解和应对国际卫生危机同样至关重要。
{"title":"Real-world effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly during the Delta and Omicron variants: Systematic review.","authors":"Harvey Palalay,&nbsp;Riddhi Vyas,&nbsp;Barbara Tafuto","doi":"10.13105/wjma.v11.i5.167","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v11.i5.167","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As of 31 December 2022, there were over 6.6 million coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths and over 651 million cases across 200 countries worldwide. Despite the increase in vaccinations and booster shots, COVID-19 cases and deaths continue to remain high. While the effectiveness of these vaccines has already been established by different manufacturers, the fact remains that these vaccines were created quickly for global emergency use, tested under controlled clinical conditions from voluntary subjects and age groups whose general characteristics may differ from the actual general population.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To conduct a systematic review to determine the real-world effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly during the predominance of Delta and Omicron variants in preventing COVID-19 related infection, hospital, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation, and death.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A combination of Medical Subject Headings and non-Medical Subject Headings was carried out to identify all relevant research articles that meets the inclusion and exclusion criteria from PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases, as well as qualified research studies from pre-print servers using medRxiv and Research Square, published from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As per the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were evaluated from an estimated total study population of 26,535,692 using infection, hospital, ICU admission and intubation, and death as outcome measures from studies published between 2021 and 2022, conducted in New York, Finland, Canada, Costa Rica, Qatar, Greece, and Brazil. The risk of bias was evaluated using risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. While clinical trial data on Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines demonstrated 94% vaccine effectiveness in the elderly, the results in this study showed that vaccine effectiveness in real-world settings is marginally lower against infection (40%-89%), hospitalization (92%), ICU admission and intubation (98%-85%), and death (77%-87%) with an indication of diminished effectiveness of vaccine over time. Furthermore, 2 doses of mRNA vaccines are inadequate and only provides interim protection.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Because of the natural diminishing effectiveness of the vaccine, the need for booster dose to restore its efficacy is vital. From a research perspective, the use of highly heterogeneous outcome measures inhibits the comparison, contrast, and integration of the results which makes data pooling across different studies problematic. While pharmaceutical intervention like vaccination is important to fight an epidemic, utilizing common outcome measurements or carrying out studi","PeriodicalId":65781,"journal":{"name":"世界荟萃分析杂志(英文版)","volume":"11 5","pages":"167-180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/95/19/nihms-1915737.PMC10421623.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10008222","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Prophylactic tracheal intubation for upper GI bleeding: A meta-analysis. 预防性气管插管治疗上消化道出血:荟萃分析。
Pub Date : 2015-02-26 DOI: 10.13105/wjma.v3.i1.4
Ashraf A Almashhrawi, Rubayat Rahman, Samuel T Jersak, Akwi W Asombang, Alisha M Hinds, Hazem T Hammad, Douglas L Nguyen, Matthew L Bechtold

Aim: To evaluate usefulness of prophylactically intubating upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) patients.

Methods: UGIB results in a significant number of hospital admissions annually with endoscopy being the key intervention. In these patients, risks are associated with the bleeding and the procedure, including pulmonary aspiration. However, very little literature is available assessing the use of prophylactic endotracheal intubation on aspiration in these patients. A comprehensive search was performed in May 2014 in Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, PubMed/Medline, Embase, and published abstracts from national gastroenterology meetings in the United States (2004-2014). Included studies examined UGIB patients and compared prophylactic intubation to no intubation before endoscopy. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.2 by Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian and Laird models with results presented as odds ratio for aspiration, pneumonia (within 48 h), and mortality. Funnel plots were utilized for publication bias and I2 measure of inconsistency for heterogeneity assessments.

Results: Initial search identified 571 articles. Of these articles, 10 relevant peer-reviewed articles in English and two relevant abstracts were selected to review by two independent authors (Almashhrawi AA and Bechtold ML). Of these studies, eight were excluded: Five did not have a control arm, one was a letter the editor, one was a survey study, and one was focused on prevention of UGIB. Therefore, four studies (N = 367) were included. Of the UGIB patients prophylactically intubated before endoscopy, pneumonia (within 48 h) was identified in 20 of 134 (14.9%) patients as compared to 5 of 95 (5.3%) patients that were not intubated prophylactically (P = 0.02). Despite observed trends, no significant differences were found for mortality (P = 0.18) or aspiration (P = 0.11).

Conclusion: Pneumonia within 48 h is more likely in UGIB patients who received prophylactic endotracheal intubation prior to endoscopy.

目的:评价预防性上消化道出血(UGIB)患者插管治疗的有效性。方法:UGIB每年导致大量住院,内镜检查是关键干预措施。在这些患者中,风险与出血和手术有关,包括肺误吸。然而,很少有文献评估在这些患者中预防性气管内插管的使用。2014年5月,我们在Scopus、CINAHL、Cochrane数据库、PubMed/Medline、Embase以及2004-2014年美国国家胃肠病学会议发表的摘要中进行了全面检索。纳入的研究检查了UGIB患者,并比较了内镜检查前预防性插管和不插管。meta分析采用RevMan 5.2,采用Mantel-Haenszel、DerSimonian和Laird模型,结果显示为误吸、肺炎(48 h内)和死亡率的优势比。发表偏倚采用漏斗图,异质性评估采用I2测量不一致性。结果:初步搜索确定了571篇文章。在这些文章中,选择了10篇相关的英文同行评议文章和两篇相关的摘要,由两位独立作者(Almashhrawi AA和Bechtold ML)进行评审。在这些研究中,有8项被排除在外:5项没有对照组,1项是一封给编辑的信,1项是一项调查研究,1项侧重于预防UGIB。因此,纳入了4项研究(N = 367)。在内镜检查前预防性插管的UGIB患者中,134例患者中有20例(14.9%)诊断出肺炎(48小时内),而95例未预防性插管的患者中有5例(5.3%)诊断出肺炎(P = 0.02)。尽管观察到趋势,但在死亡率(P = 0.18)或误吸(P = 0.11)方面没有发现显著差异。结论:内镜检查前接受预防性气管插管的UGIB患者48 h内更易发生肺炎。
{"title":"Prophylactic tracheal intubation for upper GI bleeding: A meta-analysis.","authors":"Ashraf A Almashhrawi,&nbsp;Rubayat Rahman,&nbsp;Samuel T Jersak,&nbsp;Akwi W Asombang,&nbsp;Alisha M Hinds,&nbsp;Hazem T Hammad,&nbsp;Douglas L Nguyen,&nbsp;Matthew L Bechtold","doi":"10.13105/wjma.v3.i1.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v3.i1.4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate usefulness of prophylactically intubating upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>UGIB results in a significant number of hospital admissions annually with endoscopy being the key intervention. In these patients, risks are associated with the bleeding and the procedure, including pulmonary aspiration. However, very little literature is available assessing the use of prophylactic endotracheal intubation on aspiration in these patients. A comprehensive search was performed in May 2014 in Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, PubMed/Medline, Embase, and published abstracts from national gastroenterology meetings in the United States (2004-2014). Included studies examined UGIB patients and compared prophylactic intubation to no intubation before endoscopy. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.2 by Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian and Laird models with results presented as odds ratio for aspiration, pneumonia (within 48 h), and mortality. Funnel plots were utilized for publication bias and <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> measure of inconsistency for heterogeneity assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initial search identified 571 articles. Of these articles, 10 relevant peer-reviewed articles in English and two relevant abstracts were selected to review by two independent authors (Almashhrawi AA and Bechtold ML). Of these studies, eight were excluded: Five did not have a control arm, one was a letter the editor, one was a survey study, and one was focused on prevention of UGIB. Therefore, four studies (<i>N</i> = 367) were included. Of the UGIB patients prophylactically intubated before endoscopy, pneumonia (within 48 h) was identified in 20 of 134 (14.9%) patients as compared to 5 of 95 (5.3%) patients that were not intubated prophylactically (<i>P</i> = 0.02). Despite observed trends, no significant differences were found for mortality (<i>P</i> = 0.18) or aspiration (<i>P</i> = 0.11).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pneumonia within 48 h is more likely in UGIB patients who received prophylactic endotracheal intubation prior to endoscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":65781,"journal":{"name":"世界荟萃分析杂志(英文版)","volume":"3 1","pages":"4-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.13105/wjma.v3.i1.4","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"33103850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18
期刊
世界荟萃分析杂志(英文版)
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1