New Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are available to prevent the ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. We compared the efficacy of new COVID-19 vaccines to prevent symptomatic and severe disease in the adult population and to prevent symptomatic COVID-19 among the elderly. Leading medical databases were searched until August 30, 2021. Published phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated efficacy of the vaccine to prevent symptomatic and sever COVID-19 in adults were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated the literature search results and independently extracted summary data. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) according to PRISMA-NMA 2015 to pool indirect comparisons between different vaccines regarding their relative efficacy. The primary outcomes were the efficacy of the vaccine against symptomatic COVID-19 in adults (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021235364). Above 200,000 adult participants from eight phase 3 RCTs were included in NMA, of whom 52% received the intervention (active COVID-19 vaccine). While each of nine vaccines was tested in the unique clinical trial as compared to control, based on indirect comparison, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were ranked with the highest probability of efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 (P-scores 0.952 and 0.843, respectively), followed by Gam-COVID-Vac (P-score 0.782), NVX-CoV23730 (P-score 0.700), CoronaVac (P-score 0.570), BN02 (P-score 0.428), WIV04 (P-score 0.327), and Ad26.COV2.S (P-score 0.198). No statistically significant difference was seen in the ability of the vaccines to prevent symptomatic disease in the elderly population. No vaccine was statistically significantly associated with a decreased risk for severe COVID-19 than other vaccines, although mRNA-1273 and Gam-COVID-Vac have the highest P-scores (0.899 and 0.816, respectively), indicating greater protection against severe disease than other vaccines. In our indirect comparison, the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, which use mRNA technology, were associated with the highest efficacy to prevent symptomatic COVID-19 compared to other vaccines. This finding may have importance when deciding which vaccine to use, together with other important factors as availability of the vaccines, costs, logistics, side effects, and patient acceptability.

No abstract

Studies reporting an increased risk for cardiac toxicities with macrolide antibiotics have raised concern regarding their cardiovascular safety. We sought to assess the cardiac safety of macrolide antibiotics as a class and of the individual agents by conducting a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to February 2018 for studies reporting on cardiovascular outcomes with macrolides. We followed the PRISMA 2009 guidelines for data selection and extraction. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects models and odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for arrhythmia, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction (MI). A total of 33 studies and data on 22,601,032 subjects were retrieved and included in the current meta-analyses. Macrolide use was not associated with the risk of arrhythmia or cardiovascular mortality. In the primary analysis, macrolide use was associated with a small but statistically significant 15% increase in risk for MI (OR = 1.15 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.30]). In indirect network meta-analysis, erythromycin and clarithromycin were ranked considerably more likely to be associated with a higher risk for MI and significantly associated with increased risk of MI compared to azithromycin (OR = 1.58 [95% CI, 1.18 to 2.11] and OR = 1.41 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.81], respectively). Our findings indicate that macrolide antibiotics as a group are associated with a significant risk for MI but not for arrhythmia and cardiovascular mortality. Among the macrolides, erythromycin and clarithromycin were associated with a greater risk of MI. However, it is possible that the association between macrolide use and risk of MI is the result of residual confounding.

The approach to treating febrile non-neutropenic hematooncologic patients with central venous catheters varies. We recently introduced once-daily administration of cefonicid and gentamicin for such children who were in good clinical condition and without focal signs of infection. Our 2-year experience of 125 episodes in 54 children is hereby reported. Absolute neutrophil counts were 550 to 16,700/mm. Bacteremia occurred in 6.4% episodes: only in patients with Hickman/Broviac catheters and not in those with port-a-caths [8/37 (21.6%) vs. 0/17 patients, P=0.046; 8/86 (9.3%) vs. 0/39 episodes, P=0.056]. The pathogens were coagulase-negative staphylococci (3), Streptococcus pneumoniae (2), Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella pneumoniae (1), methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (1), and Streptococcus milleri (1). All patients remained in stable clinical condition and all, except for 2 who became neutropenic and 1 with S. aureus bacteremia who developed cellulitis, defervesced while on the empiric therapy. Three episodes could not be managed as outpatients. No adverse effects were observed. We conclude that our approach is efficacious and safe and, furthermore, that empiric antibiotic therapy may not be indicated for selected patients with port-a-caths. Future study of children with Hickman/Broviac catheters will evaluate the use of cefonicid alone.