-
JAMA Oncology Mar 2022The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and...
Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.
IMPORTANCE
The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).
FINDINGS
In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.
Topics: Disability-Adjusted Life Years; Global Burden of Disease; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Neoplasms; Prevalence; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34967848
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6987 -
The Lancet. HIV Sep 2021Robust age-specific estimates of anal human papillomavirus (HPV) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in men can inform anal cancer prevention efforts....
Epidemiology of anal human papillomavirus infection and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in 29 900 men according to HIV status, sexuality, and age: a collaborative pooled analysis of 64 studies.
BACKGROUND
Robust age-specific estimates of anal human papillomavirus (HPV) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) in men can inform anal cancer prevention efforts. We aimed to evaluate the age-specific prevalence of anal HPV, HSIL, and their combination, in men, stratified by HIV status and sexuality.
METHODS
We did a systematic review for studies on anal HPV infection in men and a pooled analysis of individual-level data from eligible studies across four groups: HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM), HIV-negative MSM, HIV-positive men who have sex with women (MSW), and HIV-negative MSW. Studies were required to inform on type-specific HPV infection (at least HPV16), detected by use of a PCR-based test from anal swabs, HIV status, sexuality (MSM, including those who have sex with men only or also with women, or MSW), and age. Authors of eligible studies with a sample size of 200 participants or more were invited to share deidentified individual-level data on the above four variables. Authors of studies including 40 or more HIV-positive MSW or 40 or more men from Africa (irrespective of HIV status and sexuality) were also invited to share these data. Pooled estimates of anal high-risk HPV (HR-HPV, including HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68), and HSIL or worse (HSIL+), were compared by use of adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) from generalised linear models.
FINDINGS
The systematic review identified 93 eligible studies, of which 64 contributed data on 29 900 men to the pooled analysis. Among HIV-negative MSW anal HPV16 prevalence was 1·8% (91 of 5190) and HR-HPV prevalence was 6·9% (345 of 5003); among HIV-positive MSW the prevalences were 8·7% (59 of 682) and 26·9% (179 of 666); among HIV-negative MSM they were 13·7% (1455 of 10 617) and 41·2% (3798 of 9215), and among HIV-positive MSM 28·5% (3819 of 13 411) and 74·3% (8765 of 11 803). In HIV-positive MSM, HPV16 prevalence was 5·6% (two of 36) among those age 15-18 years and 28·8% (141 of 490) among those age 23-24 years (p=0·0091); prevalence was 31·7% (1057 of 3337) among those age 25-34 years and 22·8% (451 of 1979) among those age 55 and older (p<0·0001). HPV16 prevalence in HIV-negative MSM was 6·7% (15 of 223) among those age 15-18 and 13·9% (166 of 1192) among those age 23-24 years (p=0·0076); the prevalence plateaued thereafter (p=0·72). Similar age-specific patterns were observed for HR-HPV. No significant differences for HPV16 or HR-HPV were found by age for either HIV-positive or HIV-negative MSW. HSIL+ detection ranged from 7·5% (12 of 160) to 54·5% (61 of 112) in HIV-positive MSM; after adjustment for heterogeneity, HIV was a significant predictor of HSIL+ (aPR 1·54, 95% CI 1·36-1·73), HPV16-positive HSIL+ (1·66, 1·36-2·03), and HSIL+ in HPV16-positive MSM (1·19, 1·04-1·37). Among HPV16-positive MSM, HSIL+ prevalence increased with age.
INTERPRETATION
High anal HPV prevalence among young HIV-positive and HIV-negative MSM highlights the benefits of gender-neutral HPV vaccination before sexual activity over catch-up vaccination. HIV-positive MSM are a priority for anal cancer screening research and initiatives targeting HPV16-positive HSIL+.
FUNDING
International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Topics: Age Factors; Anal Canal; HIV Infections; Humans; Male; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Sexuality; Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions
PubMed: 34339628
DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3018(21)00108-9 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Apr 2021While the landscape of vaccine and treatment candidates against the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reviewed systematically, prophylactic candidates...
BACKGROUND
While the landscape of vaccine and treatment candidates against the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reviewed systematically, prophylactic candidates remain unexplored.
OBJECTIVES
To map pre- and postexposure prophylactic (PrEP and PEP) candidate for COVID-19.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/Medline, Embase, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform clinical trial registries and medRxiv.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND PARTICIPANTS
All studies in humans or animals and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans reporting primary data on prophylactic candidates against COVID-19, excluding studies focused on key populations.
INTERVENTIONS
PrEP and PEP candidate for COVID-19.
METHODS
Systematic review and qualitative synthesis of COVID-19 PrEP and PEP studies and RCTs complemented by search of medRxiv and PubMed and Embase for studies reporting RCT outcomes since systematic review search completion.
RESULTS
We identified 13 studies (from 2119 database records) and 117 RCTs (from 5565 RCTs listed in the registries) that met the inclusion criteria. Non-RCT studies reported on cross-sectional studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in humans (n = 2) or reported on animal studies (n = 7), most of which used antibodies. All five completed RCTs focused on the use of HCQ as either PrEP or PEP, and these and the cross-sectional studies reported no prophylactic effect. The majority of ongoing RCTs evaluated HCQ or other existing candidates including non-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, anti(retro)virals or use of vitamins and supplements.
CONCLUSIONS
The key message from completed studies and RCTs seems to be that HCQ does not work. There is little evidence regarding other compounds, with all RCTs using candidates other than HCQ still ongoing. It remains to be seen if the portfolio of existing molecules being evaluated in RCTs will identify successful prophylaxis against COVID-19 or if there is a need for the development of new candidates.
Topics: Animals; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Neutralizing; Antibodies, Viral; Antimalarials; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Post-Exposure Prophylaxis; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Vaccines
PubMed: 33476807
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.01.013 -
Vaccine Jun 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of vaccination decision aids compared with usual care on vaccine uptake, vaccine attitudes,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of vaccination decision aids compared with usual care on vaccine uptake, vaccine attitudes, decisional conflict, intent to vaccinate and timeliness.
METHODS
Searches were conducted in OVID Medline, OVID Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library and SCOPUS. Randomised controlled trials were included if they evaluated the impact of decision aids as defined by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration. Where possible, meta-analysis was undertaken. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we conducted a narrative synthesis. Risk of bias in included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Data were analysed using STATA.
RESULTS
Five RCTs were identified that evaluated the effectiveness of decision aids in the context of vaccination decision making. Meta-analysis of four studies showed that decision aids may have slightly increased vaccination uptake, but this was reduced to no effect once studies with higher risk of bias were excluded. Meta-analysis of three studies showed that decision aids moderately increased intention to vaccinate. Narrative synthesis of two studies suggested that decision aids reduced decisional conflict. One study reported that decision aids decreased perceived risk of vaccination. Content, format and delivery method of the decision aids varied across the studies. It was not clear from the information reported whether these variations affected the effectiveness of the decision aids.
CONCLUSION
Decision aids can assist in vaccine decision making. Future studies of decision aids could provide greater detail of the decision aids themselves, which would enable comparison of the effectiveness of different elements and formats. Standardising decision aids would also allow for easier comparison between decision aids.
Topics: Decision Making; Decision Support Techniques; Humans; Reference Standards; Vaccination
PubMed: 34052064
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.05.021 -
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine 2022Knowledge of the safety of vaccines is crucial, both to prevent and cure them and to decrease the public hesitation in receiving vaccines. Therefore, this study aimed to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge of the safety of vaccines is crucial, both to prevent and cure them and to decrease the public hesitation in receiving vaccines. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review the adverse events reported for inactivated vaccines and Novavax.
METHODS
In this systematic review, the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched on September 15, 2021. Then we identified the eligible studies using a two-step title/abstract and full-text screening process. Data on the subjects, studies, and types of adverse events were extracted and entered in a word table, including serious, mild, local, and systemic adverse events as well as the timing of side effects' appearance.
RESULTS
Adverse effects of inactivated coronavirus vaccines side effects were reported from phases 1, 2, and 3 of the vaccine trials. The most common local side effects included injection site pain and swelling, redness, and pruritus. Meanwhile, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, fever, and gastrointestinal symptoms including abdominal pain and diarrhea were among the most common systemic adverse effects.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review indicates that inactivated COVID-19 vaccines, including Sinovac, Sinopharm, and Bharat Biotech, as well as the protein subunit vaccines (Novavax) can be considered as safe choices due to having milder side effects and fewer severe life-threatening adverse events.
PubMed: 36033990
DOI: 10.22037/aaem.v10i1.1585 -
Infectious Disorders Drug Targets 2022Many potential vaccines for COVID-19 are being studied and developed. Several studies have reported on the safety and efficacy of these vaccines. This systematic review...
INTRODUCTION
Many potential vaccines for COVID-19 are being studied and developed. Several studies have reported on the safety and efficacy of these vaccines. This systematic review aimed to report on the current evidence concerning the feasibility and effectiveness of vaccines for COVID-19.
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out utilizing the keywords in the online databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. We included both human and non-human studies because of the vaccine novelty, limiting our ability to include sufficient human studies.
RESULTS
This review showed several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to be currently under development using different platforms, including eight vaccines that are adenovirus-based vectors, six vaccines that are RNA-based formulations, one vaccine being DNA-based formulation, and other vaccines using other platforms, including lipid nanoparticles. Although the safety and efficacy profiles of these vaccines are still under debate, some countries have allowed for emergency use of some vaccines in at-risk populations, such as healthcare workers and the elderly.
CONCLUSION
It is crucial to gather as much clinically relevant evidence as possible regarding the immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety profiles of available vaccines and adhere wisely to CDC protocols and guidelines for vaccine production.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Feasibility Studies; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Liposomes; Nanoparticles; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34554905
DOI: 10.2174/1871526521666210923144837 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Sep 2023To estimate the prevalence and risk factors associated with tuberculosis (TB) among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection/acquired... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the prevalence and risk factors associated with tuberculosis (TB) among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in China.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. After the literature was screened based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, STATA version 17.0 software was used for the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity among study data was assessed using I statistics. Subgroup analysis and meta-regressions were performed to further explore the source of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of 5241 studies were retrieved. Of these, 44 studies were found to be eligible. The pooled prevalence of HIV/TB co-infection was 6.0%. The risk factors for HIV/TB co-infection included a low CD4 T cell count, smoking, intravenous drug use and several other sociodemographic and clinical factors. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination history was a protective factor.
CONCLUSION
A high prevalence of TB was observed among people living with HIV/AIDS in China. Low CD4 T cell count, smoking, and intravenous drug use were the primary risk factors for HIV/TB co-infection, whereas BCG vaccination history was a protective factor. Checking for TB should be prioritized in HIV screening and healthcare access.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
Registered on PROSPERO, Identifier: CRD42022297754.
Topics: Humans; Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome; BCG Vaccine; Coinfection; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Tuberculosis; China
PubMed: 37674103
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08575-4 -
Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 2020Vaccines are one of the most powerful technologies supporting public health. The adaptive immune response induced by immunization arises following appropriate activation...
Vaccines are one of the most powerful technologies supporting public health. The adaptive immune response induced by immunization arises following appropriate activation and differentiation of T and B cells in lymph nodes. Among many parameters impacting the resulting immune response, the presence of antigen and inflammatory cues for an appropriate temporal duration within the lymph nodes, and further within appropriate subcompartments of the lymph nodes- the right timing and location- play a critical role in shaping cellular and humoral immunity. Here we review recent advances in our understanding of how vaccine kinetics and biodistribution impact adaptive immunity, and the underlying immunological mechanisms that govern these responses. We discuss emerging approaches to engineer these properties for future vaccines, with a focus on subunit vaccines.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; B-Lymphocytes; Drug Carriers; Humans; Immunity, Humoral; Inflammation Mediators; Liposomes; Lymph Nodes; Nanoparticles; Plasmids; RNA, Messenger; T-Lymphocytes; Tissue Distribution; Vaccines
PubMed: 32598970
DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2020.06.019 -
AIDS and Behavior Jul 2024This study aims to estimate the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among people living with HIV (PLWHA). A search for observational studies was conducted in five... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aims to estimate the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among people living with HIV (PLWHA). A search for observational studies was conducted in five databases and preprinted literature. Summary estimates were pooled using a random effects model and meta-regression. Of 150 identified studies, 31 were eligible (18,550 PLWHA). The weighted prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy overall was 29.07% among PLWHA (95%CI = 24.33-34.32; I² = 98%,) and that of vaccine acceptance was 68.66% (95%CI = 62.25-74.43; I² = 98%). Higher hesitancy prevalence was identified in low/lower-middle income countries (35.05; 95% CI = 19.38-54.78). The heterogeneity was explained by the risk of bias, region, and year of data collection. The findings conclude that the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rate remains high, especially in low-income countries. Evidence-informed interventions aimed at increasing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance at the national and individual levels ought to be designed to increase COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among PLWHA.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Vaccines; HIV Infections; COVID-19; Vaccination Hesitancy; SARS-CoV-2; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Developing Countries; Vaccination
PubMed: 38713281
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-024-04351-w -
BMJ Global Health Apr 2024To assess the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in women before or during pregnancy on SARS-CoV-2 infection-related, pregnancy, offspring and reactogenicity outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in women before or during pregnancy on SARS-CoV-2 infection-related, pregnancy, offspring and reactogenicity outcomes.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Major databases between December 2019 and January 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Nine pairs of reviewers contributed to study selection. We included test-negative designs, comparative cohorts and randomised trials on effects of COVID-19 vaccines on infection-related and pregnancy outcomes. Non-comparative cohort studies reporting reactogenicity outcomes were also included.
QUALITY ASSESSMENT, DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We undertook random-effects meta-analysis and reported findings as HRs, risk ratios (RRs), ORs or rates with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Sixty-seven studies (1 813 947 women) were included. Overall, in test-negative design studies, pregnant women fully vaccinated with any COVID-19 vaccine had 61% reduced odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.75; 4 studies, 23 927 women; I=87.2%) and 94% reduced odds of hospital admission (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.71; 2 studies, 868 women; I=92%). In adjusted cohort studies, the risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy was reduced by 12% (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.92; 2 studies; 115 085 women), while caesarean section was reduced by 9% (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98; 6 studies; 30 192 women). We observed an 8% reduction in the risk of neonatal intensive care unit admission (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 2 studies; 54 569 women) in babies born to vaccinated versus not vaccinated women. In general, vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy or perinatal outcomes. Pain at the injection site was the most common side effect reported (77%, 95% CI 52% to 94%; 11 studies; 27 195 women).
CONCLUSION
COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and related complications in pregnant women.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020178076.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Infant; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; COVID-19 Vaccines; Cesarean Section; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Parturition
PubMed: 38580375
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014247