Search

Due to the deleterious global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, tremendous effort has been invested in the development of vaccines against the virus. Vaccine candidates are first tested in adult populations, a number of which have been approved for EUL by the WHO, and are in use across the USA and MENA region. The question remains whether these (or other) vaccines should be recommended to a neonatal, pediatric, and/or adolescent cohort. Incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection are low in pediatric, neonatal, and adolescent patients. Since both overall incidence and severity are lower in children than in adults, safety is an important consideration in vaccine approval for these age groups, in addition to efficacy and a decreased risk of transmission. The following review discusses vaccine immunology in children aged 0-18 years, with emphasis on the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of children, considerations for pediatric vaccine approval, and available vaccines for pediatric cohorts along with a breakdown of the efficacy, advantages, and disadvantages for each. This review also contains current and future perspectives, as well as a section on the cardiovascular implications and related dynamics of pediatric COVID-19 vaccination., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Ghena Lababidi et al.)

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Recent evidence suggests Arab Americans, individuals with ancestry from Arabic-speaking countries, have an elevated risk for CVD compared to other ethnicities in the US. However, research focusing specifically on CVD in this population is limited. This literature review synthesizes studies investigating CVD prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes in Arab Americans. Multiple studies found higher rates of coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and hypertension compared to non-Hispanic White participants. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes, a major CVD risk factor, was also markedly higher, ranging from 16 % to 41 % in Arab Americans based on objective measures. Possible explanations include high rates of vitamin D deficiency, genetic factors, and poor diabetes control. Other metabolic factors like dyslipidemia and obesity did not consistently differ from general population estimates. Psychosocial factors may further increase CVD risk, including acculturative stress, discrimination, low health literacy, and barriers to healthcare access. Smoking, especially waterpipe use, was more prevalent in Arab American men. Though heterogenous, Arab Americans overall appear to have elevated CVD risk, warranting tailored screening and management. Culturally appropriate educational initiatives on CVD prevention are greatly needed. Future directions include better characterizing CVD prevalence across Arab American subgroups, delineating genetic and environmental factors underlying increased diabetes susceptibility, and testing culturally tailored interventions to mitigate CVD risks. In summary, this review highlights concerning CVD disparities in Arab Americans and underscores the need for group-specific research and preventive strategies., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background and Objectives: To assess changes in the reporting of funding and conflicts of interest (COI) in biomedical research between preprint server publications and their corresponding versions in peer-reviewed journals., Methods: We selected preprint servers publishing exclusively biomedical research. From these, we screened articles by order of publication date and identified 200 preprints first published in 2020 with subsequent versions in peer-reviewed journals. We judged eligibility and extracted data about authorship, funding, and COI in duplicate and independently. We performed descriptive statistics., Results: A quarter of the studies added at least one author to the peer-reviewed version. Most studies reported funding in both versions (87%), and a quarter of these added at least one funder to the peer-reviewed version. Eighteen studies (9%) reported funding only in the peer-reviewed version. A majority of studies reported COI in both versions (69%) and 5% of these had authors reporting more COI in the peer-reviewed version. A minority of studies (23%) reported COI only in the peer-reviewed version. None of the studies justified any changes in authorship, funding, or COI., Conclusion: Reporting of funding and COI improved in peer-reviewed versions. However, substantive percentages of studies added authors, funders, and COI disclosures in their peer-reviewed versions., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess the policies of biomedical preprint servers on the reporting of funding, conflict of interest (COI), author contributions, and research integrity., Study Design and Setting: We generated a list of potentially eligible preprint servers then judged their eligibility in duplicate and independently. Between July and September 2021, we extracted information from the websites of these servers in duplicate and independently and through a simulated submission., Results: We included 37 preprint servers. A variable percentage of these servers had policies for reporting of funding (43%), disclosure of COI (78%), specification of authors' contributions (54%), and research integrity (76%). While 97% of the COI policies required authors to disclose their own interests, only 7% addressed interests related to family members. About a third of authors' contribution policies (30%) did not specify the types of contributions to report. While a majority of research integrity polices described screening checks for plagiarism (71%), a minority described screening checks for fabrication (39%), falsification (36%), and image manipulation (32%)., Conclusion: Less than half of biomedical preprint servers have policies on reporting on funding. Policies related to COI disclosure, reporting of author contributions, and research integrity lack important details., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)