scholarly journals Effectiveness of varicella vaccine as post-exposure prophylaxis: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Daoyong Chen ◽  
Yue Li ◽  
Qiangsong Wu
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Varicella Vaccine ◽  
Post Exposure Prophylaxis ◽  
Post Exposure ◽  
Exposure Prophylaxis

scholarly journals Post-exposure prophylaxis vaccination rate and risk factors of human rabies in mainland China: a meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 147 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. L. Wang ◽  
X. F. Zhang ◽  
H. Jin ◽  
X. Q. Cheng ◽  
C. X. Duan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Human Rabies ◽  
Post Exposure Prophylaxis ◽  
Eastern Region ◽  
Post Exposure ◽  
Exposure Prophylaxis

AbstractRabies is one of the major public health problems in China, and the mortality rate of rabies remains the highest among all notifiable infectious diseases. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) vaccination rate and risk factors for human rabies in mainland China. The PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical and Wanfang databases were searched for articles on rabies vaccination status (published between 2007 and 2017). In total, 10 174 human rabies cases from 136 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Approximately 97.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 95.1–98.7%) of rabies cases occurred in rural areas and 72.6% (95% CI 70.0–75.1%) occurred in farmers. Overall, the vaccination rate in the reported human rabies cases was 15.4% (95% CI 13.7–17.4%). However, among vaccinated individuals, 85.5% (95% CI 79.8%–83.4%) did not complete the vaccination regimen. In a subgroup analysis, the PEP vaccination rate in the eastern region (18.8%, 95% CI 15.9–22.1%) was higher than that in the western region (13.3%, 95% CI 11.1–15.8%) and this rate decreased after 2007. Approximately 68.9% (95% CI 63.6–73.8%) of rabies cases experienced category-III exposures, but their PEP vaccination rate was 27.0% (95% CI 14.4–44.9%) and only 6.1% (95% CI 4.4–8.4%) received rabies immunoglobulin. Together, these results suggested that the PEP vaccination rate among human rabies cases was low in mainland China. Therefore, standardised treatment and vaccination programs of dog bites need to be further strengthened, particularly in rural areas.

scholarly journals Network meta‐analysis of post‐exposure prophylaxis randomized clinical trials

HIV Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
I Fernández ◽  
E. Lazzari ◽  
A. Inciarte ◽  
V. Diaz‐Brito ◽  
A. Milinkovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Post Exposure Prophylaxis ◽  
Post Exposure ◽  
Exposure Prophylaxis

scholarly journals Effectiveness of varicella vaccine as post-exposure prophylaxis during a varicella outbreak in Shanghai, China

2018 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 51-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiang-Song Wu ◽  
Jing-Yi Liu ◽  
Xian Wang ◽  
Yuan-Fang Chen ◽  
Qi Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Varicella Vaccine ◽  
Post Exposure Prophylaxis ◽  
Post Exposure ◽  
Exposure Prophylaxis

scholarly journals Characteristics of within-household varicella transmission events associated with school outbreaks in Shanghai, China, 2009–2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuan-Fang Chen ◽  
Qi Zhou ◽  
Jing-Yi Liu ◽  
Rui-Jie Gong ◽  
Shu-Qian Mao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Varicella Vaccine ◽  
Post Exposure Prophylaxis ◽  
Effective Measure ◽  
Post Exposure ◽  
Household Transmission ◽  
Additional Layer ◽  
Exposure Prophylaxis

Abstract Transmission of varicella occurs frequently in schools and households. We investigated the characteristics of varicella cases derived from within-household transmission and the modes of varicella transmission between school and household settings in Shanghai, China, from 2009 to 2018. Within-household transmission occurred in 278 households, of which 134 transmission events were between children. Sixty-one household varicella transmission events may be attributed to isolation procedures for infected students during school outbreaks, and 7.6% of school outbreaks were caused by schoolchildren cases derived from within-household transmission. The frequency of ‘school-household-school’ transmission adds an additional layer of complexity to the control of school varicella outbreaks. Administration of varicella vaccine as post-exposure prophylaxis after exposure is considered to be an effective measure to control varicella spread within households and schools.

scholarly journals Awareness and Use of Post-exposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junyan Jin ◽  
Runsong Sun ◽  
Tingting Mu ◽  
Taiyi Jiang ◽  
Lili Dai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hiv Prevention ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Post Exposure Prophylaxis ◽  
Structural Barriers ◽  
Post Exposure ◽  
At Risk Populations ◽  
Sex With Men ◽  
Exposure Prophylaxis ◽  
Over Time

Background: The use of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is effective in reducing HIV risk, but it is underused by men who have sex with men (MSM) due to certain psychological and sociostructural factors. This article assessed the awareness and use of PEP among MSM in an effort to increase the visibility and uptake of PEP among at-risk populations.Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of the PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar electronic databases. Studies were screened for inclusion, and relevant data were abstracted, assessed for bias, and synthesized. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random effects meta-analysis, meta-regression and subgroup analysis, and a qualitative review and risk of bias assessment were performed (PROSPERO, CRD42019123815).Results: Twenty eligible studies involving 12,579 MSM were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled estimate of the proportions of MSM who were aware of PEP was modest at 59.9% (95% CI: 50.5~68.7) and that of MSM who previously used PEP was very low at 4.9% (95% CI: 2.4~9.8). PEP awareness showed no clear change over time, while PEP use significantly changed over time. Multiple factors affected awareness, including educational attainment, race/ethnicity, levels of HIV stigma, access to condoms, and so on. Many factors could potentially impede or facilitate the use of PEP, such as income, lack of PEP information, and partnership.Conclusion: We observed that PEP is an underused HIV prevention strategy among MSM and that once MSM become aware of PEP, the majority are willing to use it if they are supported appropriately in terms of a range of individual, social, and structural barriers.Systematic Review Registration: http://www.cdr.york.ac.uk/prospero, PROSPERO [CRD42019123815].

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19. Systematic review and meta-analysis of blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulo Ricardo Martins-Filho ◽  
Lis Campos Ferreira ◽  
Luana Heimfarth ◽  
Adriano Antunes de Souza Araujo ◽  
Lucindo Jose Quintans-Junior
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Post Exposure Prophylaxis ◽  
Potential Candidate ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Post Exposure ◽  
Exposure Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an anti-malarial and immunomodulatory drug considered a potential candidate for drug repurposing in COVID-19 due to their in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Despite the potential antiviral effects and anti-inflammatory profile, the results based on clinical studies are contradictory and the quality of the decision-making process from meta-analyses summarizing the available evidence selecting studies with different designs and unblinded trials is limited. The aim of this study was to synthesize the best evidence on the efficacy and safety of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS Searches for studies were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Lilacs, the website ClinicalTrials.gov and the preprint server medRxiv from January 1, 2020 to May 17, 2021. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) Population, individuals at high-risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (pre-exposure), individuals who had close contact with a positive or probable case of COVID-19 (post-exposure), non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hospitalized patients with COVID-19; (2) Intervention, HCQ; (3) Comparison, placebo; (4) Outcomes: incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, need for hospitalization, length of hospital stay, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (MV), death, and adverse events; and (5) Study type, blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Risk of bias was judged according to the Cochrane guidelines for RCTs. Treatment effects were reported as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used either a fixed or random-effects model to pool the results of individual studies depending on the presence of heterogeneity. The GRADE system was used to evaluate the strength of evidence between use of HCQ and the outcomes of interest. RESULTS Fourteen blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Four trials used HCQ as a prophylactic medication pre-exposure to COVID-19, two as a prophylactic medication post-exposure to COVID-19, three as treatment for non-hospitalized patients, and five as treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We found no decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals receiving HCQ as pre-exposure (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.77) or post-exposure (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29) prophylaxis to prevent COVID-19. There is no decreased risk of hospitalization for outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23) and no decreased risk of MV (RR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.34) and death (RR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.78) among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving HCQ. The certainty of the results on the lack of clinical benefit for HCQ was rated as moderate. Moreover, our results demonstrated an increased risk for any adverse events and gastrointestinal symptoms among those using HCQ. CONCLUSION Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document