Search

Background: Although multiple studies revealed high vaccine effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines within 3 months after the completion of vaccines, long-term vaccine effectiveness has not been well established, especially after the δ (delta) variant became prominent. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of long-term vaccine effectiveness., Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to November 15, 2021, for studies evaluating the long-term vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19 hospitalization among individuals who received 2 doses of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccines, or 1 dose of the Janssen vaccine. Long-term was defined as >5 months after the last dose. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence interval for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 - DOR)., Results: In total, 16 studies including 17,939,172 individuals evaluated long-term vaccine effectiveness and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for COVID-19 was 0.158 (95% CI: 0.157-0.160) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 84.2% (95% CI, 84.0- 84.3%). Estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization was 88.7% (95% CI, 55.8%-97.1%). Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 during the δ variant period was 61.2% (95% CI, 59.0%-63.3%)., Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19 and COVID-19 hospitalization across a long-term period for the circulating variants during the study period. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the vaccine effectiveness of mixing COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough infection, and vaccine effectiveness against newly emerging variants., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

We evaluated barriers and facilitators to patient adherence with a bundled intervention including chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing and decolonizing Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriers in a real-world setting. Survey data identified 85.5% adherence with home use of CHG as directed and 52.9% adherence with home use of mupirocin as directed., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background: Ceftazidime/avibactam (C/A), ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T), imipenem/relebactam (I/R), and meropenem/vaborbactam (M/V) combine either a cephalosporin (C/T and C/A) or a carbapenem antibiotic (M/V and I/R) with a β-lactamase inhibitor. They are used to treat carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) and/or multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MDRPA)., Objective: We compared the pooled clinical success of these medications to older therapies., Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched from January 1, 2012, through September 2, 2020, for C/A, C/T, I/R, and M/V studies. The main outcome was clinical success, which was assessed using random-effects models. Stratified analyses were conducted for study drug, sample size, quality, infection source, study design, and multidrug-resistant gram-negative organism (MDRGNO) population. Microbiological success and 28- and 30-day mortality were assessed as secondary outcomes. Heterogeneity was determined using I 2 values., Results: Overall, 25 articles met the inclusion criteria; 8 observational studies and 17 randomized control trials. We detected no difference in clinical success comparing new combination antibiotics with standard therapies for all included organisms (pooled OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.96-1.51). We detected a moderate level of heterogeneity among the included studies I 2 = 56%. Studies that focused on patients with CRE or MDRPA infections demonstrated a strong association between treatment with new combination antibiotics and clinical success (pooled OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.60-3.57)., Conclusions: C/T, C/A, I/R, and M/V are not inferior to standard therapies for treating various complicated infections, but they may have greater clinical success for treating MDRPA and CRE infections. More studies that evaluate the use of these antibiotics for drug-resistant infections are needed to determine their effectiveness., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Objective: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of COVID-19 due to high levels of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Thus, effective vaccines are needed. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on COVID-19 short-term vaccine effectiveness among HCWs., Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to June 11, 2021, for studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs. To meta-analyze the extracted data, we calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 - DOR). We also performed a stratified analysis for vaccine effectiveness by vaccination status: 1 dose and 2 doses of the vaccine., Results: We included 13 studies, including 173,742 HCWs evaluated for vaccine effectiveness in the meta-analysis. The vast majority (99.9%) of HCWs were vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 among vaccinated HCWs was 0.072 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.028-0.184) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 92.8% (95% CI, 81.6%-97.2%). In stratified analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs who had received 1 dose of vaccine was 82.1% (95% CI, 46.1%-94.1%) and the vaccine effectiveness among HCWs who had received 2 doses was 93.5% (95% CI, 82.5%-97.6%)., Conclusions: The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly effective against symptomatic COVID-19, even with 1 dose. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of other COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough after vaccination, and vaccine efficacy against new variants., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Objective: To evaluate the frequency of antibiotic prescribing for common infections via telemedicine compared to face-to-face visits., Design: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis., Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase (Elsevier platform) and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify studies comparing frequency of antibiotic prescribing via telemedicine and face-to-face visits without restrictions by publish dates or language used. We conducted meta-analyses of 5 infections: sinusitis, pharyngitis, otitis media, upper respiratory infection (URI) and urinary tract infection (UTI). Random-effect models were used to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs). Heterogeneity was evaluated with I 2 estimation and the Cochran Q statistic test., Results: Among 3,106 studies screened, 23 studies (1 randomized control study, 22 observational studies) were included in the systematic literature review. Most of the studies (21 of 23) were conducted in the United States. Studies were substantially heterogenous, but stratified analyses revealed that providers prescribed antibiotics more frequently via telemedicine for otitis media (pooled odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.52; I 2 = 31%) and pharyngitis (pooled OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33; I 2 = 0%). We detected no significant difference in the frequencies of antibiotic prescribing for sinusitis (pooled OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.06; I 2 = 91%), URI (pooled OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.59-2.39; I 2 = 100%), or UTI (pooled OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 0.88-7.46; I 2 = 91%)., Conclusions: Telemedicine visits for otitis media and pharyngitis were associated with higher rates of antibiotic prescribing. The interpretation of these findings requires caution due to substantial heterogeneity among available studies. Large-scale, well-designed studies with comprehensive assessment of antibiotic prescribing for common outpatient infections comparing telemedicine and face-to-face visits are needed to validate our findings., Competing Interests: All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article., (© The Author(s) 2021.)