On the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, certainties and uncertainties

Introduction: The COVID-19 vaccines in use (inactivaded virus, encapsulated m-RNA, non-replicating adenovirus-vectored DNA) were clinically tested in randomized placebocontrolled phase-3 studies. Objective: To address certainties and uncertainties about safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines that were approved for use in various countries. Method: The evidence provided by clinical studies on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines was critically appraised. Results: COVID-19 vaccines proved to be efficacious and safe in clinical trials. Adverse events were mostly those of minor severity commonly noted with other vaccines such as injection site pain, mild flu-like symptoms, headache and asthenia. Although being very rare, anaphylaxis-like reactions were noted with mRNA vaccines. Uncertainties regarding vaccine effectiveness refer mainly to the (long-term) duration of immunity provided by vaccination, the degree of protection conferred to elderly people, and how effective vaccines are against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. There are few uncertainties about vaccine safety including the absence of clinical trial data in pregnant women (and the impact on the unborn child), children and adolescents. Conclusions:  Notwithstanding the knowledge gaps about effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (to be further addressed by observational studies), there is overwhelming evidence that public health benefits of vaccination by far outweigh any foreseeable risk.TÍTULO PT: Sobre a segurança e efetividade das vacinas para COVID-19, certezas e incertezas Introdução: As vacinas contra COVID-19 (vírus inativado, m-RNA encapsulado, vetor adenovírus não replicante) foram testadas em ensaios clínicos randomizados (fase-3) controlados com placebo. Objetivo: Abordar as certezas e incertezas sobre segurança e efetividade das vacinas para COVID-19 já aprovadas para uso em vários países. Método: A evidência clínica de eficácia e segurança das vacinas contra COVID-19 foram examinadas criticamente. Resultados: As vacinas (COVID-19) mostraram ser eficazes e seguras nos ensaios clínicos. Os eventos adversos foram predominantemente os de menor  gravidade comumente observados com outras vacinas, tais como dor no  local da injeção, sintomas gripais leves, cefaleia e fraqueza. Embora sejam raras, reações do tipo anafilático foramregistradas com vacinas mRNA. As incertezas sobre efetividade referem-se à duração da imunidade conferida pela vacina, o grau de proteção de idosos, e a efetividade das vacinas contra as novas variantes do SARS-CoV-2. As incertezas sobre segurança são poucas e incluem a ausência de estudos clínicos em grávidas (e sobre o bebê no útero), em crianças e adolescentes. Conclusões: Não obstante as poucas lacunas acerca da efetividade e segurança das vacinas contra COVID-19 (a serem abordadas por estudos observacionais), os previsíveis benefícios da vacinação para a saúde pública excedem de longe quaisquer riscos antecipáveis

Drug repurposing clinical trials in the search for life-saving COVID-19 therapies; research targets and methodological and ethical issues

Introduction: So far, there is no vaccine, nor are there effective drugs to treat COVID-19, an emerging viral respiratory infection deadlier than influenza. Objective: To take a snapshot picture of planned and ongoing clinical research addressing drugs potentially useful for treating SAR-CoV-2 infections. Method: A search was conducted (20 April 2020) in an international registry of clinical studies (https://ClinicalTrials.gov, US NIH). After excluding observational studies and other interventions that fell outside the scope of this study, 294 research protocols (out of 516 retrieved protocols) were selected for analysis. Results: Of 294 included trials, 249 were Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT), 118 of which were double-, triple- or quadruple-blinded studies. The interventions (drug therapies) were compared with “standard-of-care” (SOC) or with the placebo plus SOC, or yet with presumed “active” comparators. RCT focused on the primary treatment of the disease (inhibitors of viral replication) or on the therapy for resolution of hyperinflammation in pneumonia/Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and thromboembolism associated with SARS-CoV-2. The trials found in the database involve existing antiviral compounds and drugs with multiple modes of antiviral action. Antiparasitic drugs, which inhibited viral replication in cell-culture assays, are being tested as well. Regarding the adjunctive immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic therapies, a number of drugs with distinct pharmacological targets are under investigation in trials enrolling patients with severe COVID-19. Conclusions: Although many clinical studies of drugs for COVID-19 are planned or in progress, only a minority of them are sufficiently large, randomized and placebo-controlled trials with masking and concealment of allocation. Owing to methodological limitations, only a few clinical trials found in the registry are likely to yield robust evidence of effectiveness and safety of drugs repurposable for COVID-19.TÍTULO PT: Ensaios clínicos para reposicionamento de medicamentos para COVID-19 na busca de terapias para salvar vidas; alvos de pesquisa, e questões metodológicas e éticas Introdução: Até agora, não há vacinas ou medicamentos eficazes para tratar COVID-19, uma infecção viral respiratória emergente mais letal do que a gripe. Objetivo: Desenhar um quadro das pesquisas planejadas e em curso sobre medicamentos potencialmente úteis para tratar infecções por SARS-CoV-2. Método: Um levantamento foi realizado (20 de abril de 2020) em um registro internacional de estudos clínicos (https://ClinicalTrials.gov, US NIH). Após excluir estudos observacionais e outras interveções fora do escopo deste estudo, 294 protocolos (de 516 identificados na busca) foram selecionados para análise. Resultados: De 294 ensaios incluídos, 249 eram Ensaios Controlados Randomizados (ECR), dos quais 118 eram estudos duplo-, triplo- ou quadruplo-cego. As intervenções (medicamentos testados) foram comparadas com o “tratamento padrão” (TP) ou com placebo mais TP, ou ainda com comparadores supostamente ativos. ECR abordaram o tratamento primário da doença (inibidores da replicação viral) ou a resolução da super-inflamação na pneumonia e Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório Agudo (SDRA), e do tromboembolismo associados ao SARS-CoV-2. Os ensaios localizados no registro envolviam fármacos antivirais com múltiplos modos de ação e medicamentos anti-parasitários que inibem a replicação viral em cultura de células. Em relação às terapias imunomodulatória, antiinflamatória e antitrombótica adjuvantes, inúmeros medicamentos com alvos farmacológicos distintos também estão sendo investigados em ensaios envolvendo pacientes graves com COVID-19. Conclusões: Embora muitos ensaios clínicos de medicamentos para COVID-19 tenham sido planejados e estejam em andamento, apenas uma minoria deles são estudos suficientemente grandes, randomizados, controlados com placebo e com mascaramento, e ocultação da alocação. Em virtude das limitações metodológicas apontadas, provavelmente apenas uns poucos ensaios clínicos fornecerão evidências robustas da eficácia e segurança de medicamentos potencialmente redirecionáveis para COVID-19

Safety and efficacy of fenproporex for obesity treatment: a systematic review

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To evaluate clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy of fenproporex for treating obesity. METHODS MEDLINE, LILACS and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched as well as references cited by articles and relevant documents. Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and regarding risk of bias, collected data, and accuracy. Eligible studies were all those placebo-controlled that provided data on the efficacy and safety of Fenproporex to treat obesity. RESULTS Only four controlled studies met the inclusion criteria. One randomized, placebo-controlled trial on Fenproporex was found on electronic databases. Three placebo-controlled studies (in non-indexed journals) were identified by hand-searching. Patients with cardiovascular and other comorbidities were excluded in all studies. Trials lasted from 40 to 364 days and doses ranged from 20 to 33.6 mg/d. All controlled studies found that weight loss among Fenproporex-treated patients was greater than that produced by the placebo, but drug effect was modest. Fenproporex produced additional weight reductions of 4.7 kg (one year), 3.8 kg (six months) and 1.55 kg (two months) in average, in relation to diet and exercise only (three trials). Insomnia, irritability, and anxiety were the most frequently reported side effects in the four studies. CONCLUSIONS There is a paucity of randomized, placebo-controlled trials on Fenproporex and those identified here present major methodological flaws. These studies suggest that Fenproporex is modestly effective in promoting weight loss. Nonetheless, they failed to provide evidence that it reduces obesity-associated morbidity and mortality. Data from these studies are insufficient to determine the risk-benefit profile of Fenproporex. Abuse potential and amphetamine-like adverse effects are causes for concern

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Ethical considerations on placebo-controlled vaccine trials in pregnant women

Abstract Placebo use in clinical trials, whenever a proven effective treatment exists, is one of the most debated topics in contemporary research ethics. This article addresses the ethical framework for placebo use in clinical trials assessing vaccine efficacy in pregnant women. Vaccine trial participants are healthy at the outset and some must be infected during the study to demonstrate the product’s efficacy, meaning that placebo-treated participants are under risk of serious and irreversible harm. If effective vaccines exist, such risk precludes placebo use. This interdiction should be extended to any clinical trial of vaccine efficacy in pregnant women, because a demonstration of clinical efficacy in nonpregnant individuals and comparable immunogenic responses in pregnant women are predictors of efficacy in pregnancy as well. Moreover, product effectiveness in real-world use scenarios can be ascertained by observational studies conducted after its inclusion in vaccination campaigns