-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis increasingly used in adults. The recommended first-line pharmacological treatment is central... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis increasingly used in adults. The recommended first-line pharmacological treatment is central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, such as methylphenidate, but uncertainty remains about its benefits and harms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of extended-release formulations of methylphenidate in adults diagnosed with ADHD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and four clinical trial registries up to February 2021. We searched 12 drug regulatory databases for clinical trial data up to 13 May 2020. In addition, we cross-referenced all available trial identifiers, handsearched reference lists, searched pharmaceutical company databases, and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trials comparing extended-release methylphenidate formulations at any dose versus placebo and other ADHD medications in adults diagnosed with ADHD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and rating scales and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risks of bias, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We meta-analysed the data using a random-effects model. We assessed three design characteristics that may impair the trial results' 'generalisability'; exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity; responder selection based on previous experience with CNS stimulants; and risk of withdrawal effects. Our prespecified primary outcomes were functional outcomes, self-rated ADHD symptoms, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes included quality of life, ADHD symptoms rated by investigators and by peers such as family members, cardiovascular variables, severe psychiatric adverse events, and other adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 trials (5066 participants), of which 21 reported outcome data for this review. We also identified one ongoing study. We included documents from six drug regulatory agencies covering eight trials. Twenty-one trials had an outpatient setting and three were conducted in prisons. They were primarily conducted in North America and Europe. The median participant age was 36 years. Twelve trials (76% of participants) were industry-sponsored, four (14% of participants) were publicly funded with industry involvement, seven (10% of participants) were publicly funded, and one had unclear funding. The median trial duration was eight weeks. One trial was rated at overall unclear risk of bias and 20 trials were rated at overall high risk of bias, primarily due to unclear blinding of participants and investigators, attrition bias, and selective outcome reporting. All trials were impaired in at least one of the three design characteristics related to 'generalisability'; for example, they excluded participants with psychiatric comorbidity such as depression or anxiety, or included participants only with a previous positive response to methylphenidate, or similar drugs. This may limit the trials' usefulness for clinical practice, as they may overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms. Extended-release methylphenidate versus placebo (up to 26 weeks) For the primary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' at 13-week follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.15 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.11 to 1.81; 1 trial, 409 participants) or serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.43, CI 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 14 trials, 4078 participants), whereas methylphenidate improved self-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.30; 16 trials, 3799 participants). For secondary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate improved self-rated quality of life (small effect; SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05; 6 trials, 1888 participants), investigator-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.36; 18 trials, 4183 participants), ADHD symptoms rated by peers such as family members (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; 3 trials, 1005 participants), and increased the risk of experiencing any adverse event (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.37; 14 trials, 4214 participants). We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, primarily due to high risk of bias and 'indirectness of the evidence'. One trial (419 participants) had follow-up at 52 weeks and two trials (314 participants) included active comparators, hence long-term and comparative evidence is limited.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found very low-certainty evidence that extended-release methylphenidate compared to placebo improved ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effects) measured on rating scales reported by participants, investigators, and peers such as family members. Methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' or serious adverse events, the effect on quality of life was small, and it increased the risk of several adverse effects. We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, due to high risk of bias, short trial durations, and limitations to the generalisability of the results. The benefits and harms of extended-release methylphenidate therefore remain uncertain.
Topics: Adult; Anxiety Disorders; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Humans; Methylphenidate; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35201607
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012857.pub2 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022Inactivated vaccine is one of the primary technology types of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, which has wide application in many countries, including...
BACKGROUND
Inactivated vaccine is one of the primary technology types of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, which has wide application in many countries, including mainland China. However, systematic evaluation of the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 inactivated vaccines remains limited. And trust in the vaccine is the key to solving vaccine hesitancy.
METHODS
Various academic databases were searched comprehensively for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to COVID-19 inactivated vaccines. The deadline for retrieval was December 2021. Study screening and data extraction were according to inclusive and exclusive criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan software 5.3 version and STATA software 16.0 version.
RESULTS
Eight studies with 79,334 subjects were included of which 48,123 had received two doses of COVID-19 inactivated vaccines, and 31,211 had received two doses of placebo. The results of the meta-analysis showed that: in terms of effectiveness evaluation, two doses of COVID-19 inactivated vaccines decreased the symptomatic infection [relative risk (RR) = 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.18,0.30), < 0.00001], asymptomatic infection [RR = 0.48, 95%CI (0.32, 0.74), = 0.0008], total infection [RR = 0.32, 95%CI (0.24, 0.41), < 0.00001] and hospitalization [RR = 0.06, 95%CI (0.01, 0.27), = 0.0002] for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) significantly. In terms of safety assessment, two doses of COVID-19 inactivated vaccines also caused more adverse events. After two inoculations, total adverse events and systemic adverse events increased significantly [total adverse events RR = 1.14, 95%CI (1.08, 1.21), < 0.00001; systemic adverse events RR = 1.22, 95%CI (1.09, 1.35), = 0.0002]. The most common adverse event was pain at the injection site. Almost all local adverse reactions consisted of these events. The incidence of pain at the injection site was related to adjuvants. Using aluminum hydroxide as an adjuvant increased local pain significantly [RR = 1.97, 95%CI (1.52, 2.55), < 0.00001]. Two doses COVID-19 inactivated vaccines did not increase serious adverse events [RR = 0.71, 95%CI (0.57, 0.90), = 0.004].
CONCLUSION
Two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines in people over 18 years of age effectively prevented SARS-CoV-2 infection and its associated hospitalizations. Short-term, mild to moderate adverse reactions had occurred, but serious adverse events were rare. No placebo or vaccine-related deaths had been reported.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: 42021291250.
PubMed: 36419789
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1015184 -
Archives of Rheumatology Jun 2022Biological medications have been used with an increasing frequency to treat rheumatological diseases. Autoimmune events can be induced by these drugs, such as... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Biological medications have been used with an increasing frequency to treat rheumatological diseases. Autoimmune events can be induced by these drugs, such as psoriasiform lesions, alopecia, lupus and, vasculitis, which more often affects the skin (small-sized vessels) and eventually other organs. In this review, we describe the clinical profile of patients with vasculitis induced by the main biological agents used in rheumatology.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. The PubMed database was used for searching eligible articles. We included case reports, case series, and letter to the editor of patients on anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF-a) molecules, as well as tocilizumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, rituximab, and abatacept, who had vasculitis induced by these agents.
RESULTS
Eighty-one articles were included for final analysis (n=89). Twenty-seven patients were using infliximab, 20 adalimumab, 18 etanercept, seven secukinumab, four certolizumab, four rituximab, three golimumab, three ustekinumab, two abatacept, and one tocilizumab. Unspecific leukocytoclastic vasculitis (LCV) was the most common type of vasculitis (n=37), followed by anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)- associated vasculitis (n=16). The medication was replaced with another biological molecule in 23 cases, with only four relapses. In six cases, the biological was maintained, but vasculitis worsened/persisted in one case, being necessary drug removal.
CONCLUSION
Infections, infusion reaction, cancer, and autoimmune events are well-known side effects of biological therapy. This review demonstrates that vasculitis is another adverse effect of this type of therapy, particularly the anti-TNF-a molecules, and LCV the most reported type of vasculitis.
PubMed: 36017201
DOI: 10.46497/ArchRheumatol.2022.9049 -
Oncotarget Oct 2020Alpelisib is a first-in-class α-specific phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Alpelisib is a first-in-class α-specific phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. High absolute risk (AR) of relevant toxicities has been observed with this treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to improve the precision of the estimated AR of selected adverse events (AEs) associated with this new agent.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search was conducted in August 2019 to identify trials analyzing the anti-tumor efficacy and toxicity profile of alpelisib. Heterogeneity was assessed by using statistics. Data were analyzed using random effect meta-analyses for AR. Eleven trials and 511 patients were included.
RESULTS
There was no evidence of heterogeneity between studies regarding the AR of most AEs except for all-grade weight loss and grade 3-4 stomatitis. The number of serious AEs was clearly reported in only one study, of which the most common was hyperglycemia; the most common all-grade AEs were hyperglycemia (59%), diarrhea (56%), nausea (44%), and rash (38%). Grade 3/4 hyperglycemia and rash occurred in 28% and 10% of patients, respectively. No treatment-associated deaths were observed, and 18% of patients had to stop treatment due to toxicities.
CONCLUSIONS
Alpelisib is associated with clinically relevant AEs that can lead to treatment discontinuation. The most common AE was hyperglycemia. No treatment-related deaths were observed.
PubMed: 33144920
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.27770 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2023Antithrombotic therapy is the cornerstone of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) management. However, the best treatment option that optimally balances bleeding risk and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUD
Antithrombotic therapy is the cornerstone of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) management. However, the best treatment option that optimally balances bleeding risk and efficacy remains undefined. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic options and identify the optimal treatment option for patients with CCS.
METHODS
We used the MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Embase databases to search for randomized controlled trials with follow-up periods longer than 12 months that compared aspirin (ASA) monotherapy with other antithrombotic therapies in patients with CCS. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used. Extracted data [hazard ratios (HR)] were pooled using Bayesian fixed-effect models, allowing the estimation of credible intervals (CrI) and posterior probabilities of benefit, harm, and practical equivalence. Confidence in the results was assessed with the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) tool. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and primary bleeding, respectively. Secondary outcomes were acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, all-cause, and cardiovascular-specific mortality.
RESULTS
Five trials with a total of 80,605 patients were included. Mean patient age ranged from 61 to 69 years, while 20.3% to 31.4% were women. The reference treatment was ASA monotherapy. ASA + prasugrel 10 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg monotherapy presented the greatest benefit for MACE [HR 0.52 (95% CrI, 0.39-0.71); and 0.68 (95% CrI, 0.54-0.88)]. There was a probability of 98.8% that ASA + ticagrelor was practically equivalent to ASA monotherapy. Regarding the primary bleeding outcome, clopidogrel 75 mg monotherapy performed best [HR 0.64 (0.42, 0.99)]. There was a probability of 97.4% that ASA + Prasugrel 10 mg increases bleeding (HR > 1.0). Secondary outcome results followed a similar treatment ranking pattern as in primary outcomes. Overall, CINeMA confidence ratings were judged as either low or very low.
CONCLUSIONS
These results revealed that clopidogrel monotherapy might provide the best risk-benefit balance in treating CCS. However, low CINeMA confidence ratings may preclude more forceful conclusions. Our analysis suggests that current guidelines recommending ASA as first-line therapy for CCS management need to be revised to include additional pharmacological options.
PubMed: 37089879
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1040936 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Dec 2022In clinical practice, the evidence of acupuncture used as a treatment for migraine without aura is employed interchangeably to guide treatment for menstrual migraine....
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
In clinical practice, the evidence of acupuncture used as a treatment for migraine without aura is employed interchangeably to guide treatment for menstrual migraine. However, its effect and safety are not substantiated. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of acupuncture on the frequency and pain intensity of menstrual migraine.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and other two Chinese databases from their inception to 1 May 2019. This study included randomised controlled trials of women with menstrual migraine receiving acupuncture or a valid control. Two reviewers independently completed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We combined data with a fixed-effect model in RevMan. Clinical outcomes included migraine frequency and duration, headache intensity, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies with 826 subjects were included, 9 of which had data suitable for meta-analyses. Current evidence showed that acupuncture was not superior to sham acupuncture in reducing monthly migraine frequency and duration, average headache intensity, and analgesic use at completion of treatment or follow-up. Pooled data demonstrated a significant improvement in mean headache intensity in the acupuncture group compared with drugs. However, all studies were underpowered and associated with moderate to high risk of bias. No serious adverse event was related to acupuncture treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no convincing evidence to support the use of acupuncture in treating menstrual migraine. Acupuncture cannot yet be recommended to patients with menstrual migraine until more solid evidence is produced.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019119337.
Topics: Humans; Female; Migraine Disorders; Acupuncture Therapy; Headache; Analgesics; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32122964
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-002024 -
Medical Acupuncture Aug 2020Laser acupuncture has become increasingly attractive in clinical practice, especially for patients with needle phobias well as elderly people and children. However,... (Review)
Review
Laser acupuncture has become increasingly attractive in clinical practice, especially for patients with needle phobias well as elderly people and children. However, literature concerning the safety of laser acupuncture has been limited. This systematic review synthesizes the current available literature on the safety of laser acupuncture. Ovid MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations Daily, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on laser acupuncture. Safety data were extracted from the included studies. Adverse events (AEs) data were extracted and assessed in terms of severity and causality. Of 737 articles, 21 RCTs were included. The majority of these RCTs reported that laser acupuncture was safe, without AEs; 6 trials reported AEs (including tingling, pain flare-ups, and transient fatigue). All AEs were mild and resolved spontaneously within 24 hours. The causal relationship between AEs and laser acupuncture was felt to be "certain" in 4 studies, "probable" in 1 study, and "possible" in 1 study. AEs were collected and monitored by evaluation methods in 7 trials: 5 with AE questionnaires, 1 with a checklist, and 1 with oral reports. Laser acupuncture appears to be a safe therapy associated with few mild and transient AEs. However, given the heterogeneity of current studies, large, well-designed placebo-controlled RCTs with rigorous evaluation methods are needed to assess the safety of laser acupuncture more completely.
PubMed: 32874405
DOI: 10.1089/acu.2020.1419 -
Eye (London, England) Oct 2020To systematically review studies of managing meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) with azithromycin and pool clinical outcomes to show its effectiveness. Eligible studies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To systematically review studies of managing meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) with azithromycin and pool clinical outcomes to show its effectiveness. Eligible studies were retrieved from five main electronic databases. Symptom score was the primary outcome, while clinical signs and objective measurements were secondary outcomes. Pooled rates for adverse events were also calculated. Improvements in each outcome after administering either oral azithromycin (OA) or topical azithromycin (TA) were pooled and measured by standard mean difference (SMD) to show the overall effectiveness. Then the effectiveness was sub-grouped by TA and OA. In addition, pooled outcomes after administering TA and oral doxycycline (OD) were compared with assess their effectiveness. Finally, 18 eligible studies were included. The overall pooled symptom scores were significantly reduced after administering both TA and OA [P < 0.0001; SMD = 1.54 (95% CI: 1.15-1.92)]. Similarly, the overall combined eyelid signs, plugging of the meibomian gland, meibum quality, and tear secretion were also distinctly improved. However, significant improvements for tear break-up time (TBUT) and corneal staining (CS) were achieved by TA (TBUT: P = 0.02; CS: P = 0.02) but not by OA (TBUT: P = 0.08; CS: P = 0.14). The pooled adverse event rates for TA and OA were 25% and 7%, respectively. Moreover, TA was comparable to OD to treat MGD regarding symptom score, TBUT and tear secretion. This study showed that MGD could be treated effectively with oral or topical azithromycin by improving symptoms, clinical signs, and stabilization of tear film. Topical azithromycin seemed to be superior over oral azithromycin or doxycycline in improving the quality of tear film in the short term.
Topics: Azithromycin; Eyelid Diseases; Humans; Meibomian Gland Dysfunction; Meibomian Glands; Tears
PubMed: 32346111
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-020-0876-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Fluoxetine is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor indicated for major depression. It is also thought to affect weight control: this seems to happen through appetite changes... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fluoxetine is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor indicated for major depression. It is also thought to affect weight control: this seems to happen through appetite changes resulting in decreased food intake and normalisation of unusual eating behaviours. However, the benefit-risk ratio of this off-label medication is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of fluoxetine for overweight or obese adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP Search Portal. The last date of the search was December 2018 for all databases, to which we applied no language restrictions .
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration of fluoxetine versus placebo, other anti-obesity agents, non-pharmacological therapy or no treatment in overweight or obese adults without depression, mental illness or abnormal eating patterns.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened abstracts and titles for relevance. Screening for inclusion, data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed by one author and checked by the second. We assessed trials for the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument. For additional information we contacted trial authors by email. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 1036 records, scrutinized 52 full-text articles and included 19 completed RCTs (one trial is awaiting assessment). A total of 2216 participants entered the trials, 1280 participants were randomly assigned to fluoxetine (60 mg/d, 40 mg/d, 20 mg/d and 10 mg/d) and 936 participants were randomly assigned to various comparison groups (placebo; the anti-obesity agents diethylpropion, fenproporex, mazindol, sibutramine, metformin, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, fluvoxamine, 5-hydroxy-tryptophan; no treatment; and omega-3 gel). Within the 19 RCTs there were 56 trial arms. Fifteen trials were parallel RCTs and four were cross-over RCTs. The participants in the included trials were followed up for periods between three weeks and one year. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low: the majority of trials had a high risk of bias in one or more of the risk of bias domains.For our main comparison group - fluoxetine versus placebo - and across all fluoxetine dosages and durations of treatment, the MD was -2.7 kg (95% CI -4 to -1.4; P < 0.001; 10 trials, 956 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -7.1 kg and 1.7 kg. The MD in body mass index (BMI) reduction across all fluoxetine dosages compared with placebo was -1.1 kg/m² (95% CI -3.7 to 1.4; 3 trials, 97 participants; very low certainty evidence). Only nine placebo-controlled trials reported adverse events. A total of 399 out of 627 participants (63.6%) receiving fluoxetine compared with 352 out of 626 participants (56.2%) receiving placebo experienced an adverse event. Random-effects meta-analysis showed an increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of any type in the fluoxetine groups compared with placebo (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.42; P = 0.07; 9 trials, 1253 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.74 and 1.88. Following fluoxetine treatment the adverse events of dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, insomnia and nausea were observed approximately twice as often compared to placebo. A total of 15 out of 197 participants (7.6%) receiving fluoxetine compared with 12 out of 196 participants (6.1%) receiving placebo experienced depression. The RR across all fluoxetine doses compared with placebo was 1.20 (95% CI 0.57 to 2.52; P = 0.62; 3 trials, 393 participants; very low certainty evidence). All-cause mortality, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects were not reported.The comparisons of fluoxetine with other anti-obesity agents (3 trials, 234 participants), omega-3 gel (1 trial, 48 participants) and no treatment (1 trial, 60 participants) showed inconclusive results (very low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests that off-label fluoxetine may decrease weight compared with placebo. However, low-certainty evidence suggests an increase in the risk for dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, insomnia and nausea following fluoxetine treatment.
PubMed: 31613390
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011688.pub2 -
Journal of Infection and Public Health Nov 2022The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has inflicted immense damage to countries, economies and... (Review)
Review
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has inflicted immense damage to countries, economies and societies worldwide. Authorized COVID-19 vaccines based on different platforms have been widely inoculated in adults, showing up to 100% immunogenicity with significant efficacy in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections and the occurrence of severe COVID-19. It has also greatly slowed the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants, as shown in clinical trials and real-world evidence. However, the total dosage of COVID-19 vaccines for children is much smaller than that for adults due to limitations from parental concern of vaccine safety, presenting a potential obstacle in ending the COVID-19 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 not only increases the risk of severe multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) in children, but also negatively affects children's psychology and academics, indirectly hindering the maintenance and progress of normal social order. Therefore, this article examines the clinical manifestations of children infected with SARS-CoV-2, the status of vaccination against COVID-19 in children, vaccination-related adverse events, and the unique immune mechanisms of children. In particular, the necessity and challenges of vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2 were highlighted from the perspectives of society and family. In summary, parental hesitancy is unnecessary as adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination have been proven to be infrequent, comprise of mild symptoms, and have a good prognosis.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Pandemics
PubMed: 36257126
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2022.10.006