Durability and extent of protection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among patients with COVID-19 in Metro Manila, Philippines

IntroductionInformation on the magnitude and durability of humoral immunity against COVID-19 among specific populations can guide policies on vaccination, return from isolation and physical distancing measures. The study determined the durability of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after an initial infection among Filipinos in Metro Manila, Philippines, and the extent of protection SARS-CoV-2 antibodies confer against reinfection.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study to monitor the antibody levels of patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Receptor-binding domain (RBD)-specific antibodies were measured at Days 21, 90, 180, 270 and 360. Antibody levels were reported as geometric mean titers (GMT) with geometric standard deviation (GSD). Differences in GMT were tested using Friedman test and Kruskal Wallis test, with Bonferroni multiple comparisons procedure. Adjusted hazard ratios on the development of probable reinfection were estimated using Cox proportional models.ResultsThere were 307 study participants included in the study, with 13 dropouts. Study participants received SARS-CoV-2 vaccines at varying times, with 278 participants (90.5%) fully vaccinated by the end of study. The GMT of the study cohort increased over time, from 19.7 U/mL (GSD 11) at Day 21; to 284.5 U/mL (GSD 9.6) at Day 90; 1,061 U/mL (GSD 5.3) at Day 180; 2,003 U/mL (GSD 6.7) at Day 270; and 8,403 U/mL (GSD 3.1) at Day 360. The increase was statistically significant from Day 21 to Day 90 (p<0.0001), Day 90 to Day 180 (p=0.0005), and Day 270 to Day 360 (p<0.0001). Participants with more severe initial infection demonstrated significantly higher antibody levels compared to those with milder infection at Day 21. Sixty-four patients had probable COVID-19 reinfection (incidence of 20.8%, 95% CI 16.4, 25.8%). The GMT of these 64 patients was 411.8 U/mL (GSD 6.9) prior to the occurrence of the probable reinfection. Majority (87.5%) were fully vaccinated. Antibody titers significantly affected the risk of developing reinfection, with adjusted hazard ratio of 0.994, 95% CI 0.992-0.996, p<0.001.ConclusionAntibody levels against SARS-CoV-2 increased over a one-year follow-up. Higher antibody levels were observed among those with more severe initial infection and those vaccinated. Higher antibody levels are associated with a lower risk of probable reinfection

Probiotics for treating acute infectious diarrhoea

Background Probiotics may be effective in reducing the duration of acute infectious diarrhoea. Objectives To assess the effects of probiotics in proven or presumed acute infectious diarrhoea. Search methods We searched the trials register of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 17 December 2019, as well as the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 12, 2019), in the Cochrane Library, and reference lists from studies and reviews. We included additional studies identified during external review. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials comparing a specified probiotic agent with a placebo or no probiotic in people with acute diarrhoea that is proven or presumed to be caused by an infectious agent. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were measures of diarrhoea duration (diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours; duration of diarrhoea). Secondary outcomes were number of people hospitalized in community studies, duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies, diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days, and adverse events. Main results We included 82 studies with a total of 12,127 participants. These studies included 11,526 children (age < 18 years) and 412 adults (three studies recruited 189 adults and children but did not specify numbers in each age group). No cluster‐randomized trials were included. Studies varied in the definitions used for "acute diarrhoea" and "end of the diarrhoeal illness" and in the probiotic(s) tested. A total of 53 trials were undertaken in countries where both child and adult mortality was low or very low, and 26 where either child or adult mortality was high. Risk of bias was high or unclear in many studies, and there was marked statistical heterogeneity when findings for the primary outcomes were pooled in meta‐analysis. Effect size was similar in the sensitivity analysis and marked heterogeneity persisted. Publication bias was demonstrated from funnel plots for the main outcomes. In our main analysis of the primary outcomes in studies at low risk for all indices of risk of bias, no difference was detected between probiotic and control groups for the risk of diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.09; 2 trials, 1770 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence); or for duration of diarrhoea (mean difference (MD) 8.64 hours shorter, 95% CI 29.4 hours shorter to 12.1 hours longer; 6 trials, 3058 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Effect size was similar and marked heterogeneity persisted in pre‐specified subgroup analyses of the primary outcomes that included all studies. These included analyses limited to the probiotics Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Saccharomyces boulardii. In six trials (433 participants) of Lactobacillus reuteri, there was consistency amongst findings (I² = 0%), but risk of bias was present in all included studies. Heterogeneity also was not explained by types of participants (age, nutritional/socioeconomic status captured by mortality stratum, region of the world where studies were undertaken), diarrhoea in children caused by rotavirus, exposure to antibiotics, and the few studies of children who were also treated with zinc. In addition, there were no clear differences in effect size for the primary outcomes in post hoc analyses according to decade of publication of studies and whether or not trials had been registered. For other outcomes, the duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies on average was shorter in probiotic groups than in control groups but there was marked heterogeneity between studies (I² = 96%; MD ‐18.03 hours, 95% CI ‐27.28 to ‐8.78, random‐effects model: 24 trials, 4056 participants). No differences were detected between probiotic and control groups in the number of people with diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.53; 9 studies, 2928 participants) or in risk of hospitalization in community studies (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.89; 6 studies, 2283 participants). No serious adverse events were attributed to probiotics. Authors' conclusions Probiotics probably make little or no difference to the number of people who have diarrhoea lasting 48 hours or longer, and we are uncertain whether probiotics reduce the duration of diarrhoea. This analysis is based on large trials with low risk of bias

Protocol: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Background There is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence-based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health- and healthcare-related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent systematic reviews to summarise the evidence on: (1) existing guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (2) barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (3) managing conflicts of interest in stakeholder engagement in guideline development and (4) measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement in guideline development. This protocol addresses the second systematic review in the series. Objectives The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. We will address this objective through two research questions: (1) What are the barriers to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the facilitators to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? Search Methods A comprehensive search strategy will be developed and peer-reviewed in consultation with a medical librarian. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts. To identify grey literature, we will search the websites of agencies who actively engage stakeholder groups such as the AHRQ, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), INVOLVE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the PCORI. We will also search the websites of guideline-producing agencies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Australia's National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the WHO. We will invite members of the team to suggest grey literature sources and we plan to broaden the search by soliciting suggestions via social media, such as Twitter. Selection Criteria We will include empirical qualitative and mixed-method primary research studies which qualitatively report on the barriers or facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. The population of interest is stakeholders in health guideline development. Building on previous work, we have identified 13 types of stakeholders whose input can enhance the relevance and uptake of guidelines: Patients, caregivers and patient advocates; Public; Providers of health care; Payers of health services; Payers of research; Policy makers; Program managers; Product makers; Purchasers; Principal investigators and their research teams; and Peer-review editors/publishers. Eligible studies must describe stakeholder engagement at any of the following steps of the GIN-McMaster Checklist for Guideline Development. Data Collection and Analysis All identified citations from electronic databases will be imported into Covidence software for screening and selection. Documents identified through our grey literature search will be managed and screened using an Excel spreadsheet. A two-part study selection process will be used for all identified citations: (1) a title and abstract review and (2) full-text review. At each stage, teams of two review authors will independently assess all potential studies in duplicate using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted by two review authors independently and in duplicate according to a standardised data extraction form. Main Results The results of this review will be used to inform the development of guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. This guidance will be official GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group guidance. The GRADE system is internationally recognised as a standard for guideline development. The findings of this review will assist organisations who develop healthcare, public health and health policy guidelines, such as the World Health Organization, to involve multiple stakeholders in the guideline development process to ensure the development of relevant, high quality and transparent guidelines

Clinical presentations and outcomes of Filipino juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>Juvenile Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) varies by location and ethnicity. This study describes the clinical, laboratory profile and outcome of juvenile SLE seen at Philippine General Hospital (PGH) from 2004-2008.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Medical charts of all Filipino Juvenile SLE cases admitted at PGH during the 5-year period were reviewed collecting demographic profile, clinical and laboratory manifestations and treatment during disease course.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventy-eight cases of juvenile SLE were reviewed. There were 7 boys and 71 girls. The mean age at diagnosis was 14 years (SD 2.7) with a range of 8-18 years. Fever (52.5%) and malar rash (41.0%) were the most common features at disease onset. At the time of diagnosis, the most common features were malar rash (65.3%), renal involvement (62.8%) and photosensitivity (55.1%). Mucocutaneous (92.3%), renal (71.7%) and hematologic (69.2%) involvement were the most common features during the entire course of illness. Infection (34.5%) and neurologic (19.0%) complications were observed most frequently. Corticocosteroid treatment was given in most of the patients in the form of prednisone (97.4%) and concomitant methylprednisolone intravenous pulses (29.4%). Nine patients died during the study period. The overall 5-year mortality rate was 11.5%. Infection (77.0%) was the most frequent cause of death.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Malar rash was a common feature at disease onset and at diagnosis among Filipinos with juvenile SLE. Throughout the disease course, renal involvement occurs in 71.7% of patients. Infection was the leading cause of complication and death. The clinical presentations of Filipinos with juvenile SLE were similar to juvenile SLE in other countries.</p

Painless Evidence-Based Medicine

xx+140hlm.;20c