Effectiveness of Messenger RNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccines Against Symptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections During the Delta Variant Epidemic in Japan: Vaccine Effectiveness Real-time Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 (VERSUS)

Background. Although high vaccine effectiveness of messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has been reported in studies in several countries, data are limited from Asian countries, especially against the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant.Methods. We conducted a multicenter test-negative case-control study in patients aged ≥16 years visiting hospitals or clinics with signs or symptoms consistent with COVID-19 from 1 July to 30 September 2021, when the Delta variant was dominant (≥90% of SARS-CoV-2 infections) nationwide in Japan. Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections was evaluated. Waning immunity among patients aged 16–64 years was also assessed.Results. We enrolled 1936 patients, including 396 test-positive cases and 1540 test-negative controls for SARS-CoV-2. The median age was 49 years, 53.4% were male, and 34.0% had underlying medical conditions. Full vaccination (receiving 2 doses ≥14 days before symptom onset) was received by 6.6% of cases and 38.8% of controls. Vaccine effectiveness of full vaccination against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections was 88.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.8%–93.9%) among patients aged 16–64 years and 90.3% (95% CI, 73.6%–96.4%) among patients aged ≥65 years. Among patients aged 16–64 years, vaccine effectiveness was 91.8% (95% CI, 80.3%–96.6%) within 1–3 months after full vaccination, and 86.4% (95% CI, 56.9%–95.7%) within 4–6 months.Conclusions. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines had high effectiveness against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in Japan during July–September 2021, when the Delta variant was dominant nationwide

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

Background and purposeThe Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 and published in the Journal of JSICM, [2017; Volume 24 (supplement 2)] https://doi.org/10.3918/jsicm.24S0001 and Journal of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine [2017; Volume 28, (supplement 1)] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jja2.2017.28.issue-S1/issuetoc.This abridged English edition of the J-SSCG 2016 was produced with permission from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Intensive Care Medicine.MethodsMembers of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ) and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (> 66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members.ResultsA total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation, and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty-seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for five CQs.ConclusionsBased on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals