Search

The aim of this systematic review and network meta‐analysis is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of N95, surgical/medical and non‐medical facemasks as personal protective equipment against respiratory virus infection. The study incorporated 35 published and unpublished randomized controlled trials and observational studies investigating specific mask effectiveness against influenza virus, SARS‐CoV, MERS‐CoV and SARS‐CoV‐2. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and medRxiv databases for studies published up to 5 February 2021 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020214729). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of respiratory viral infection. The quality of evidence was estimated using the GRADE approach. High compliance to mask‐wearing conferred a significantly better protection (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23–0.82) than low compliance. N95 or equivalent masks were the most effective in providing protection against coronavirus infections (OR, 0.30; CI, 0.20–0.44) consistently across subgroup analyses of causative viruses and clinical settings. Evidence supporting the use of medical or surgical masks against influenza or coronavirus infections (SARS, MERS and COVID‐19) was weak. Our study confirmed that the use of facemasks provides protection against respiratory viral infections in general; however, the effectiveness may vary according to the type of facemask used. Our findings encourage the use of N95 respirators or their equivalents (e.g., P2) for best personal protection in healthcare settings until more evidence on surgical and medical masks is accrued. This study highlights a substantial lack of evidence on the comparative effectiveness of mask types in community settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study is to provide a more accurate representation of COVID‐19's case fatality rate (CFR) by performing meta‐analyses by continents and income, and by comparing the result with pooled estimates. We used multiple worldwide data sources on COVID‐19 for every country reporting COVID‐19 cases. On the basis of data, we performed random and fixed meta‐analyses for CFR of COVID‐19 by continents and income according to each individual calendar date. CFR was estimated based on the different geographical regions and levels of income using three models: pooled estimates, fixed‐ and random‐model. In Asia, all three types of CFR initially remained approximately between 2.0% and 3.0%. In the case of pooled estimates and the fixed model results, CFR increased to 4.0%, by then gradually decreasing, while in the case of random‐model, CFR remained under 2.0%. Similarly, in Europe, initially, the two types of CFR peaked at 9.0% and 10.0%, respectively. The random‐model results showed an increase near 5.0%. In high‐income countries, pooled estimates and fixed‐model showed gradually increasing trends with a final pooled estimates and random‐model reached about 8.0% and 4.0%, respectively. In middle‐income, the pooled estimates and fixed‐model have gradually increased reaching up to 4.5%. in low‐income countries, CFRs remained similar between 1.5% and 3.0%. Our study emphasizes that COVID‐19 CFR is not a fixed or static value. Rather, it is a dynamic estimate that changes with time, population, socioeconomic factors, and the mitigatory efforts of individual countries. Highlights: Europe showed the highest COVID‐19 case fatality rate (CFR) until mid‐October 2020, and North America and South America follows.Asia showed the highest CFR since the first confirmed case of COVID‐19 emerged, however, it had shown a declining tendency since March 2020.CFRs in high‐income countries showed an explosive increase compared with those in low‐income countries, which can be interpreted as due to the under‐reporting of mortality cases from COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines developed by Pfizer‐BioNTech and Moderna are being rolled out. Despite the high volume of emerging evidence regarding adverse events (AEs) associated with the COVID‐19 mRNA vaccines, previous studies have thus far been largely based on the comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated control, possibly highlighting the AE risks with COVID‐19 mRNA vaccination. Comparing the safety profile of mRNA vaccinated individuals with otherwise vaccinated individuals would enable a more relevant assessment for the safety of mRNA vaccination. We designed a comparative safety study between 18 755 and 27 895 individuals who reported to VigiBase for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with mRNA COVID‐19 and influenza vaccines, respectively, from January 1, 2020, to January 17, 2021. We employed disproportionality analysis to rapidly detect relevant safety signals and compared comparative risks of a diverse span of AEFIs for the vaccines. The safety profile of novel mRNA vaccines was divergent from that of influenza vaccines. The overall pattern suggested that systematic reactions like chill, myalgia, fatigue were more noticeable with the mRNA COVID‐19 vaccine, while injection site reactogenicity events were more prevalent with the influenza vaccine. Compared to the influenza vaccine, mRNA COVID‐19 vaccines demonstrated a significantly higher risk for a few manageable cardiovascular complications, such as hypertensive crisis (adjusted reporting odds ratio [ROR], 12.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.47–65.54), and supraventricular tachycardia (adjusted ROR, 7.94; 95% CI, 2.62–24.00), but lower risk of neurological complications such as syncope, neuralgia, loss of consciousness, Guillain‐Barre syndrome, gait disturbance, visual impairment, and dyskinesia. This study has not identified significant safety concerns regarding mRNA vaccination in real‐world settings. The overall safety profile patterned a lower risk of serious AEFI following mRNA vaccines compared to influenza vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On October 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved remdesivir as the first drug for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), increasing remdesivir prescriptions worldwide. However, potential cardiovascular (CV) toxicities associated with remdesivir remain unknown. We aimed to characterize the CV adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with remdesivir using VigiBase, an individual case safety report database of the World Health Organization (WHO). Disproportionality analyses of CV‐ADRs associated with remdesivir were performed using reported odds ratios and information components. We conducted in vitro experiments using cardiomyocytes derived from human pluripotent stem cell cardiomyocytes (hPSC‐CMs) to confirm cardiotoxicity of remdesivir. To distinguish drug‐induced CV‐ADRs from COVID‐19 effects, we restricted analyses to patients with COVID‐19 and found that, after adjusting for multiple confounders, cardiac arrest (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08–3.29), bradycardia (aOR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.24–3.53), and hypotension (aOR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.03–2.73) were associated with remdesivir. In vitro data demonstrated that remdesivir reduced the cell viability of hPSC‐CMs in time‐ and dose‐dependent manners. Physicians should be aware of potential CV consequences following remdesivir use and implement adequate CV monitoring to maintain a tolerable safety margin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]