Search

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) with usual care in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of neutralizing mAb treatment in patients with COVID-19 were identified using electronic database searches through March 10, 2023. This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Overall, 13 trials (23 articles) involving 25,646 patients were included in this systematic review. Compared with usual care, neutralizing mAbs were associated with significantly reduced all-cause mortality in outpatients with COVID-19 (pooled risk ratios [RR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20–0.83; 12 studies), but not in inpatients. In the subgroup analysis, only outpatients infected prior to the emergence of Delta variant or those with mAb–VOC match had significantly reduced mortality, while no significant benefit was observed in patients infected with Delta and post–Delta variants or mAb–VOC mismatch. Moreover, the rate of hospitalization and number of hospital visits had significantly reduced only in outpatients infected prior to the emergence of the Delta variant and those with mAb–VOC match. Our systematic review used majority of the high-certainty evidence. Our study found neutralizing mAbs were beneficial for outpatients infected prior to Delta variant or mAb–VOC match. In the face of the continuous emergence of new COVID-19 variants, additional clinical data are needed to determine whether neutralizing mAb treatment will be effective for the newly emerging variants.

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists with standard care treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The randomized controlled trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases through February 10, 2022. In total, 17 trials comprising 8,614 patients were included. Compared with exclusive standard care or placebo, IL-6 receptor antagonists with standard of care treatment were associated with a significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (pooled risk ratios [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–0.95; 17 studies) and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71–0.88; nine studies). Particularly, the subgroup of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 showed a significant mortality benefit (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81–0.96; four studies) and a reduced risk for mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70–0.91; three studies) with tocilizumab treatment. The frequency of serious adverse events was lower in the tocilizumab treatment group than in the standard of care treatment group (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71–0.97; 11 studies), with no significant difference in the sarilumab treatment group (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89–1.40; four studies). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that tocilizumab treatment showed promising results in reducing 28-day mortality and progression to mechanical ventilation in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, without the burden of serious adverse events.Trial registration: PROSPERO: registration number CRD42021294120.

Purpose: A prostate-specific antigen (PSA) cutoff of 4 ng/mL has been widely used for prostate cancer screening in population-based settings. However, the accuracy of PSA below 4 ng/mL as a cutoff for diagnosing prostate cancer in a hospital setting is inconclusive. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of PSA below 4 ng/mL cutoff in a hospital setting. Materials and Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature by searching major databases until March 2020, and a meta-analysis and quality assessment were performed. Results: A total of 11 studies were included at the completion of the screening process. The meta-analysis showed a sensitivity of 0.92 and a specificity of 0.16 for a PSA cutoff below 4 ng/mL. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.87, the positive likelihood ratio was 1.23, the negative likelihood ratio was 0.46, and the diagnostic odds ratio was 2.64. PSA sensitivities and specificities varied according to the cutoff range: 0.94 and 0.17 for 2 to 2.99 ng/mL, and 0.92 and 0.16 for 3 to 3.99 ng/mL, respectively. No significant differences in the sensitivity and specificity of PSA cutoffs in the range of 2 to 2.99 ng/mL and 3 to 3.99 ng/mL were found. Conclusions: Although a PSA cutoff

Interferon (IFN) has been highlighted in several randomized controlled trials as an attractive therapeutic candidate based plausible mode of action, suppressed response in severe COVID-19, and inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of IFN in patients with COVID-19 according to clinical severity. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of IFN (systemic or inhaled IFN-α, -β, and -λ) treatment in adult patients with COVID-19 were identified by systematically searching electronic databases until January 2023. Risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, meta-analysis, and certainty of evidence grading were followed for the systematic review. We included 11 trials comprising 6,124 patients. Compared with exclusive standard care or placebo, IFN therapy did not provide significant clinical benefits for mortality at day 28 (pooled risk ratio [RR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-1.18, 9 studies, low-certainty evidence) and progression to mechanical ventilation (pooled RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.81-1.43, 6 studies, low-certainty evidence) in patients with COVID-19. IFN therapy resulted in significantly increased hospital discharge on day 14 relative to the control arm (pooled RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.04-1.59). These results were inconsistent compared to other comparable outcomes such as recovery at day 14 and time to clinical improvement. The IFN-treated arm was as safe as the control arm, regardless of clinical severity (pooled RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.64-1.19, 9 studies, low-certainty evidence). In conclusion, IFN therapy was safe but did not demonstrate favorable outcomes for major clinical indices in patients with COVID-19, particularly those with higher than moderate severity. IFN therapy was not associated with worsening outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. Future clinical trials should evaluate the clinical efficacy of IFN therapy in patients with mild COVID-19 or at an earlier stage. Trial registration: The protocol for this review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42022301413.

Abstract Background Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are moving towards universal health coverage. The process of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) can support decisions relating to benefit package design and service coverage. HTA involves institutional cooperation with agreed methods and procedural standards. We systematically reviewed the literature on policies and capacity building to support HTA institutionalisation in SSA. Methods We systematically reviewed the literature by searching major databases (PubMed, Embase, etc.) until June 2019 using terms considering three aspects: HTA; health policy, decision making; and SSA. We quantitatively extracted and descriptively analysed content and conducted a narrative synthesis eliciting themes from the selected literature, which varied in study type and apporach. Results Half of the 49 papers identified were primary research studies and mostly qualitative. Five countries were represented in six of ten studies; South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Cameroon, and Ethiopia. Half of first authors were from SSA. Most informants were policy makers. Five themes emerged: (1) use of HTA; (2) decision-making in HTA; (3) values and criteria for setting priority areas in HTA; (4) involving stakeholders in HTA; and (5) specific examples of progress in HTA in SSA. The first one was the main theme where there was little use of evidence and research in making policy. The awareness of HTA and economic evaluation was low, with inadequate expertise and a lack of local data and tools. Conclusions Despite growing interest in HTA in SSA countries, awareness remains low and HTA-related activities are uncoordinated and often disconnected from policy. Further training and skills development are needed, firmly linked to a strategy focusing on strengthening within-country partnerships, particularly among researchers and policy makers. The international community has an important role here by supporting policy- relevant technical assistance, highlighting that sustainable financing demands evidence-based processes for effective resource allocation, and catalysing knowledge-sharing opportunities among countries facing similar challenges.

Abstract Background Patients with peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are more likely to receive long-term therapy with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). This study aimed to investigate the risk of osteoporotic fractures in PPI users compared to histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) users and the association between fractures and the duration and regular use of PPI. Methods A population-based, nationwide nested case-control study from January 2006 to December 2015 was performed using Korean National Health Insurance Service claims data. We included patients ≥50 years of age, without previous fractures, newly prescribed with PPI or H2RA, and diagnosed with PUD or GERD from 2006 to 2015. Patients with osteoporotic fracture (n = 59,240) were matched with the non-fracture control group (n = 296,200) at a 1:5 ratio based on sex, age, cohort entry date, follow-up duration, and bisphosphonate use. The osteoporotic fractures were defined using the diagnostic codes of claims data (M80, M81, M82, M484, M485, S220, S221, S320, S327, S422, S423, S525, S526, S72). Results The higher the cumulative use of PPIs, the higher the osteoporotic fracture risk (P for trend

This article provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in adolescents. The review found that vaccination in adolescents was effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, although the effectiveness was lower in observational studies compared to randomized controlled trials. The analysis also showed that there was a higher incidence of myocarditis and/or pericarditis after vaccination, particularly in males and after the second dose. The study concluded that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were effective and safe in adolescents, but monitoring of adverse events should continue. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a major global disease burden and the main cause of cervical cancer. Certain HPV genotypes, with are the most common etiologic pathogens and cause a significant disease burden, are being targeted for vaccine development. However, few studies have focused on the comparative effectiveness of the bivalent HPV (2v-HPV), quadrivalent HPV (4v-HPV), and nonavalent HPV (9v-HPV) vaccines against HPV strain-specific infection. This study investigated the comparative effects of these vaccines against genotype-specific infection. Materials and Methods: We conducted a pairwise and network meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials of HPV vaccines according to sex and HPV infection status for nine HPV genotypes (HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58). Results: Overall, 10 randomized controlled trials (12 articles) were included in this study. In the network metaanalysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in the prevention of carcinogenic HPV strains (16/18/31/33/45/52/58) between the 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in female HPV infection–naïve populations. owever, the 9v-HPV vaccine showed a significantly superior effect compared with 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in preventing HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections. Although 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines provided some cross-protection against HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections, the effect was significant only on HPV 31 infection. For HPV 16 and 18, neither statistically significant nor small differences were found in the prevention of HPV infection among the 2v-HPV, 4v-HPV, and 9v-HPV vaccines. Conclusion: Our study complements previous understanding of how the effect of HPV vaccines differs according to the HPV genotype. This is important because HPV genotype prevalence varies among countries. We advocate for continued efforts in vaccinating against HPV, while public health agencies should consider the difference in the vaccine effect and HPV genotype prevalence when implementing HPV vaccination in public vaccination programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neutralizing antibodies targeted at the receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein have been developed and now under evaluation in clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration currently issued emergency use authorizations for neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalization. In terms of this situation, there is an urgent need to investigate the clinical aspects and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice. Here we provide guidance for the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 based on the latest evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a 320 × 240 CMOS image sensor (CIS) using the proposed hybrid-correlated multiple sampling (HMS) technique with an adaptive dual-gain analog-to-digital converter (ADC). The proposed HMS improves the noise characteristics under low illumination by adjusting the ADC gain according to the incident light on the pixels. Depending on whether it is less than or greater than 1/4 of the full output voltage range from pixels, either correlated multiple sampling or conventional-correlated double sampling (CDS) is used with different slopes of the ramping signals. The proposed CIS achieves 11-bit resolution of the ADC using an up-down counter that controls the LSB depending on the ramping signals used. The sensor was fabricated using a 0.11 μm CIS process, and the total chip area was 2.55 mm × 4.3 mm. Compared to the conventional CDS, the measurement results showed that the maximum dark random noise was reduced by 26.7% with the proposed HMS, and the maximum figure of merit was improved by 49.1%. The total power consumption was 5.1 mW at 19 frames per second with analog, pixel, and digital supply voltages of 3.3 V, 3.3 V, and 1.5 V, respectively.

Abstract We aimed to summarize the cancer risk among patients with indication of group I pharmaceuticals as stated in monographs presented by the International Agency for Research on Cancer working groups. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed database. Pharmaceuticals with few studies on cancer risk were identified in systematic reviews; those with two or more studies were subjected to meta-analysis. For the meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to calculate the summary relative risks (SRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity across studies was presented using the Higgins I square value from Cochran’s Q test. Among the 12 group I pharmaceuticals selected, three involved a single study [etoposide, thiotepa, and mustargen + oncovin + procarbazine + prednisone (MOPP)], seven had two or more studies [busulfan, cyclosporine, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methoxsalen + ultraviolet (UV) radiation therapy, melphalan, and chlorambucil], and two did not have any studies [etoposide + bleomycin + cisplatin and treosulfan]. Cyclosporine and azathioprine reported increased skin cancer risk (SRR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.07–1.62; SRR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.25–1.93) compared to non-use. Cyclophosphamide increased bladder and hematologic cancer risk (SRR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.32–6.23; SRR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.65–3.58). Busulfan increased hematologic cancer risk (SRR = 6.71, 95% CI 2.49–18.08); melphalan was associated with hematologic cancer (SRR = 4.43, 95% CI 1.30–15.15). In the systematic review, methoxsalen + UV and MOPP were associated with an increased risk of skin and lung cancer, respectively. Our results can enhance persistent surveillance of group I pharmaceutical use, establish novel clinical strategies for patients with indications, and provide evidence for re-categorizing current group I pharmaceuticals into other groups.

Background/Aims The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other data resources to find RCTs published prior to April 10, 2023. The selection of studies, assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need to initiate MV. Results A total of 5,068 articles were screened, from eight RCTs comprising 11,945 patients. The meta-analysis found that, compared to standard care or placebo, remdesivir treatment provided no significant all-cause mortality benefit (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–1.02; 8 studies; high certainty evidence), while subgroup analyses revealed a trend towards reduced mortality among patients requiring oxygen but not MV (pooled RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77–1.00; 6 studies; I2 = 4%). The need to initiate MV (pooled RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59–0.94; 7 studies; moderate certainty evidence) in remdesivir-treated patients was also reduced compared to controls. Remdesivir significantly increased clinical improvement and discharge and significantly reduced serious adverse events. Conclusions In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, it was found that remdesivir treatment did not show a substantial decrease in the risk of mortality. However, it was linked to a reduction in the necessity for additional ventilatory support, suggesting remdesivir could be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, particularly those who are not on MV.

This study presents a framework for determining the prioritization of vaccine introduction in the National Immunization Program (NIP) of the Republic of Korea, with a focus on case examples assessed in 2021 and 2023. We describe the predefined criteria for evaluating the prioritization of vaccines in the NIP and the established process in the Republic of Korea. These criteria included disease characteristics, vaccine characteristics, rationality and efficiency of resource allocation, and the acceptance of immunization. The process of prioritizing NIP introduction involved several sequential steps: a demand survey, evidence collection, preliminary evaluation, priority evaluation, and decision making. In 2021 and 2023, 14 and 25 committee members participated in evaluating the prioritization of vaccines in the NIP, respectively. Overall, 13 and 19 NIP vaccine candidates were included in the 2021 and 2023 evaluations, respectively. Through the Delphi survey and consensus processes, the priority order was determined: vaccination against Rotavirus infection was the top priority in 2021, while Influenza 4v (for chronic disease patients) took precedence in 2023. This study demonstrates an evidence-based decision-making process within the healthcare field. The outlined approach may provide valuable guidance for policymakers in other countries seeking to prioritize the inclusion of new vaccines in their NIP.

Inhaled corticosteroids are known to be relatively safe for long-term use in inflammatory respiratory diseases and it has been repurposed as one of the potential therapies for outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, inhaled corticosteroids have not been accepted for COVID-19 as a standard therapy because of its lack of proven benefits. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid treatment in patients with COVID-19 were identified through literature electronic database searches up to March 10, 2023. Meta-analyses were conducted for predefined outcomes, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation approach. Overall, seven trials (eight articles) were included in this systematic review. Compared with usual care, inhaled corticosteroids was associated with significantly improved clinical recovery at 7 and 14 days in patients with COVID-19. In subgroup analysis, only budesonide showed significant efficacy in clinical recovery, whereas no significant benefit was observed for ciclesonide. Moreover, inhaled corticosteroids use was not significantly associated with all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, admission to intensive care unit, or the use of mechanical ventilation. Our systematic review used evidence with very low to moderate certainty. Although based on limited evidence, our results suggest that inhaled corticosteroids treatment, especially budesonide, improves the clinical recovery of patients with COVID-19. More trials and meta-analyses are needed to assess the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids for COVID-19 treatment.