Search

Preventing, detecting, and responding to substandard and falsified vaccines is of critical importance for ensuring the safety, efficacy, and public trust in vaccines. This is of heightened importance in context of public health crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, in which extreme world-wide shortages of vaccines provided a fertile ground for exploitation by falsifiers. Here, a proof-of-concept study explored the feasibility of using a handheld Spatially Offset Raman Spectroscopy (SORS) device to authenticate COVID-19 vaccines through rapid analysis of unopened vaccine vials. The results show that SORS can verify the chemical identity of dominant excipients non-invasively through vaccine vial walls. The ability of SORS to identify potentially falsified COVID-19 vaccines was demonstrated by measurement of surrogates for falsified vaccines contained in vaccine vials. In all cases studied, the SORS technique was able to differentiate between surrogate samples from the genuine COVISHIELD™ vaccine. The genuine vaccines tested included samples from six batches across two manufacturing sites to account for any potential variations between batches or manufacturing sites. Batch and manufacturing site variations were insignificant. In conjunction with existing security features, for example on labels and packaging, SORS provided an intrinsic molecular fingerprint of the dominant excipients of the vaccines. The technique could be extended to other COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 vaccines, as well as other liquid medicines. As handheld and portable SORS devices are commercially available and widely used for other purposes, such as airport security, they are rapidly deployable non-invasive screening tools for vaccine authentication., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Pavel Matousek reports financial support was provided by Agilent Technologies. Pavel Matousek has patent #US20100053606 licensed to Agilent Technologies. Pavel Matousek also declares consultancy for Agilent Technologies, of which Robert Stokes is an employee., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to assess the vaccination status and factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in the largest province of Pakistan. A multicentric, prospective, survey-based study using an interviewer-administered tool was conducted among pregnant women attending antenatal clinics between 1 December 2021 through 30 January 2022 across seven hospitals in Pakistan. The healthcare professionals providing care at the participating hospitals administered the survey. Four hundred and five pregnant women fully consented and completed the study. The majority of the study participants (70.6%, n = 286) were aged between 25 and 34 and had a previous successful pregnancy history. More than half of the study participants (56.0%, n = 227) did not receive COVID-19 vaccination at the time of data collection despite their family members (93.9%, n = 372) had already received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Among those who received COVID-19 vaccination (n = 173), vaccine efficacy, protection for the foetus, and risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalisation were the main driving factors for vaccine hesitancy. The majority of the unvaccinated women (77.8%, n = 182) had no intention of receiving the vaccine. However, more than two-thirds (85.7%, n = 342) consulted the doctor about COVID-19 vaccines, and most were recommended to receive COVID-19 vaccines by the doctors (80.7%, n = 280). Women were significantly more likely to be vaccinated if they had employment (odds ratio [OR] 4.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.31-8.64) compared with their counterparts who were homemakers, consulted their doctors (OR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04-0.35), and if they did not have pregnancy-related issues (OR 6.02, 95% CI: 2.36-15.33). In this study, vaccine hesitancy was prevalent, and vaccine uptake was low among pregnant women. Education and employment did impact COVID vaccination uptake, emphasising the need for more targeted efforts to enhance the trust in vaccines.

Purpose: The advent of clinically adapted machine learning algorithms can solve numerous problems ranging from disease diagnosis and prognosis to therapy recommendations. This systematic review examines the performance of machine learning (ML) algorithms and evaluates the progress made to date towards their implementation in clinical practice., Methods: Systematic searching of databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and WHO Covid-19 database) to identify original articles published between January 2011 and October 2021. Studies reporting ML techniques in clinical practice involving humans and ML algorithms with a performance metric were considered., Results: Of 873 unique articles identified, 36 studies were eligible for inclusion. The XGBoost (extreme gradient boosting) algorithm showed the highest potential for clinical applications (n = 7 studies); this was followed jointly by random forest algorithm, logistic regression, and the support vector machine, respectively (n = 5 studies). Prediction of outcomes (n = 33), in particular Inflammatory diseases (n = 7) received the most attention followed by cancer and neuropsychiatric disorders (n = 5 for each) and Covid-19 (n = 4). Thirty-three out of the thirty-six included studies passed more than 50% of the selected quality assessment criteria in the TRIPOD checklist. In contrast, none of the studies could achieve an ideal overall bias rating of 'low' based on the PROBAST checklist. In contrast, only three studies showed evidence of the deployment of ML algorithm(s) in clinical practice., Conclusions: ML is potentially a reliable tool for clinical decision support. Although advocated widely in clinical practice, work is still in progress to validate clinically adapted ML algorithms. Improving quality standards, transparency, and interpretability of ML models will further lower the barriers to acceptability., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lactoferrin (Lf) is one of the key immunomodulatory substances found naturally in various body fluids, such as saliva, tears, and breast milk, and forms a vital part of the innate defense against invading pathogens. Various studies have demonstrated antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral properties of Lf and its protective role against respiratory tract infections (RTIs). The present meta-analysis aims to elucidate the association of Lf administration in reducing the risk of RTIs by systematically reviewing the data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs)., Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline & CINAHL, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), ProQuest Theses & Dissertations Databases, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception till March 15, 2021. The primary outcome measure was a reduction in respiratory illness; decrease in frequency, symptoms, and duration. Random-effects model was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We used Cochrane's RoB-2 to appraise the risk of bias of included RCTs., Results: A total of nine RCTs were eligible for this review, of which six were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, two studies demonstrated a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed a significantly reduced odds of developing respiratory infections with the use of Lf relative to the control (pooled odds ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.74, n = 1,194), with sufficient evidence against the hypothesis of 'no significant difference' at the current sample size., Conclusions: The administration of Lf shows promising efficacy in reducing the risk of RTIs. Current evidence also favours Lf fortification of infant formula. Lf may also have a beneficial role in managing symptoms and recovery of patients suffering from RTIs and may have potential for use as an adjunct in COVID-19, however this warrants further evidence from a large well-designed RCT., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest HAM is on a scientific advisory board for a lactoferrin supplement product but does not have any financial or other affiliation with the company and has neither received any funding or financial reimbursements. HAM is committed to promote the science behind Lf and its immunomodulatory role in the prevention and management of infections., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The effect of ivermectin on mortality in patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been investigated in many studies. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to investigate the overall effect of ivermectin on the risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19., Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and preprint repository databases (up to February 28, 2021). Random-effects and inverse variance heterogeneity meta-analysis were used to pool the odds ratio of individual trials. The risk of bias was appraised using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials., Results: Six randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis with a total of 658 patients who were randomized to receive ivermectin and 597 patients randomized in the control group who did not receive ivermectin. Of six trials, four had an overall high risk of bias. The estimated effect of ivermectin indicated mortality benefits (pooled odds ratio = 0.21; 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.42, n = 1255), with some evidence against the hypothesis of 'no significant difference' at the current sample size., Conclusion: We observed a preliminary beneficial effect on mortality associated with ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 that warrants further clinical evidence in appropriately designed large-scale randomized controlled trials., (© 2021. Maj Institute of Pharmacology Polish Academy of Sciences.)

Introduction : The first confirmed COVID-19 case in UK dates to 11 January 2020, exhibiting its first peak during April 2020. The country has since been hit by another wave in the winter 2020, almost at the first anniversary of the pandemic. Areas covered: An in-depth analysis of the COVID-19 positive cases in the UK throughout the year, hospitalizations, patients in critical care, and COVID-19 associated deaths. Expert opinion : The COVID-19 associated hospital admission accounts to 15% of total COVID-19 positive cases in November 2020. The percentage of total COVID-19 positive patients in the country died from the disease was under 4% in November 2020. Total deaths in England (all-cause) from June to October 2020 were similar to the historic averages. Age was the single most determinator of COVID-19 associated mortality, 50 years or older accounted for 98% of total COVID deaths. Age distribution of COVID-19 associated deaths in 2020 was similar to all-cause mortality age distribution in 2019. There was no significant improvement in the survival rate of COVID-19 patients receiving critical care. This prompts an urgent need to invest in novel antiviral therapeutics to save the most vulnerable in the society.

Objectives : The question remained if mortality benefits with dexamethasone seen in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) also extend to other systemic corticosteroids such as methylprednisolone. This article presents a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to ascertain if methylprednisolone can be recommended for use in patients with COVID-19 to prevent deaths. Methods : Systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and preprint servers until 13 April 2021. The outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. The random-effects model for the meta-analysis was utilized to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) at 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results : Five RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled OR for all-cause mortality was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.29 - 1.43, n = 652) comparing methylprednisolone with the control, indicating no mortality benefits. A similar finding was noted with a sub-group analysis including four trials that used low-dose methylprednisolone. However, the only trial that administered high dose methylprednisolone indicated a statistically significant mortality benefit (OR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.42). Conclusions : In determining equipotent doses for an acute short-course pulse therapy of corticosteroids, the biological half-life of steroids should also be accounted for besides the potency factor. A short duration (3-5 days) pulse therapy of high-dose methylprednisolone can be a promising alternative to the low-dose dexamethasone therapy in severely ill patients with COVID-19 to prevent deaths.

The social restrictions amid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have posed a serious threat to mental health and have implications in the use of medications for mental health including antidepressants (ADs). This study investigated the trends in prescriptions and costs of various ADs in England during COVID-19 pandemic. National prescribing rates and net ingredient costs (NIC) of all ADs prescriptions during 2016 to 2020 were analyed. The total number of ADs prescriptions dispensed during COVID-19 pandemic (January to December 2020) were 78 million, 4 million more than in 2019 that costed NHS England £ 139 million more than in 2019. Sertraline, an SSRI antidepressant drug, alone accounted for an extra £113 million during 2020 than in 2019. The peak dispensing for ADs was observed in March 2020 while the total costs for AD drugs peaked in April 2020. The rising prescription costs for ADs during COVID-19 pandemic is a potential cause of concern, in particular the increasing use in adolescents and younger adults needs attention, who are at a higher risk of life-threatening adverse drug reactions.

Introduction: Diabetes mellitus is one of the most prevalent comorbidities identified in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This article aims to discuss the pharmacotherapeutic considerations for the management of diabetes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19., Areas Covered: We discussed various aspects of pharmacotherapeutic management in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: (i) susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 among individuals with diabetes, (ii) glycemic goals for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes, (iii) pharmacological treatment considerations for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes., Expert Opinion: The glycemic goals in patients with COVID-19 and concurrent type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are to avoid disruption of stable metabolic state, maintain optimal glycemic control, and prevent adverse glycemic events. Patients with T1DM require insulin therapy at all times to prevent ketosis. The management strategies for patients with T2DM include temporary discontinuation of certain oral antidiabetic agents and consideration for insulin therapy. Patients with T2DM who are relatively stable and able to eat regularly may continue with oral antidiabetic agents if glycemic control is satisfactory. Hyperglycemia may develop in patients with systemic corticosteroid treatment and should be managed upon accordingly.

Introduction: The use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), was alleged to cause a more severe course of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Methods: We systematically reviewed the published studies to assess the association of RAS inhibitors with mortality as well as disease severity in COVID-19 patients. A systematic literature search was performed to retrieve relevant original studies investigating mortality and severity (severe/critical disease) in COVID-19 patients with and without exposure to RAS inhibitors., Results: A total of 59 original studies were included for qualitative synthesis. Twenty-four studies that reported adjusted effect sizes (24 studies reported mortality outcomes and 16 studies reported disease severity outcomes), conducted in RAS inhibitor-exposed and unexposed groups, were pooled in random-effects models to estimate overall risk. Quality assessment of studies revealed that most of the studies included were of fair quality. The use of an ACEI/ARB in COVID-19 patients was significantly associated with lower odds (odds ratio [OR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.95; n = 18,749) or hazard (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.95; n = 26,598) of mortality compared with non-use of ACEI/ARB. However, the use of an ACEI/ARB was non-significantly associated with lower odds (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.10; n = 7446) or hazard (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.33-1.66; n = 6325) of developing severe/critical disease compared with non-use of an ACEI/ARB., Discussion: Since there was no increased risk of harm, the use of RAS inhibitors for hypertension and other established clinical indications can be maintained in COVID-19 patients.