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.

IntroductionIn the past decade, direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have been introduced to medical practice for several indications, with a wide range of dosing regimens. As both over- and under-dosing might lead to life-threatening events, development of methods promoting safe and effective utilization of these agents is imperative. The Hadassah Clinical Pharmacy team initiated a hospital-wide program, for monitoring and promoting safe and effective prescription of DOAC during hospitalization. This study describes the types of drug related problems addressed and the program’s performance in terms of consultation rates and physician acceptance.MethodsElectronic medical records throughout the hospital were screened for DOAC orders. All DOAC orders were assessed by a clinical pharmacist for potentially-inappropriate prescribing. When potentially-inappropriate prescribing or a drug-related problem was identified, the clinical pharmacist provided consultation on management options. In specific cases, additional guidance was provided by coagulation and pharmacology specialists. Data on patient characteristics, clinical pharmacist consultations, and physician response was retrospectively retrieved for the first six months of 2017. Characteristics of patients with and without consultations were compared, consultations were categorized by the recommended management of the drug related problem, and physician acceptance rates were evaluated by category.ResultsDuring the evaluated period, 585 patients with DOAC orders were identified. Patients were evenly distributed by gender, and age averaged 78 years. Most patients received apixaban (75%) followed by rivaroxaban (14%) and dabigatran (11%), and most (63%) received “reduced dose” regimens. Clinical pharmacists provided 258 consultations for 210 patients, regarding anticoagulation management, such that more than one in three patients on DOAC had potentially inappropriate prescribing or drug related problems. Consultations included alerts regarding potentially inappropriate DOAC doses and recommendations to increase (29%) or decrease (5%) the dose, potentially inappropriate concomitant antiplatelet agents (20%), need for DOAC level monitoring (23%), and alerts regarding other drug related problems (23%). More than 70% of recommendations were accepted by the attending physician.ConclusionDue to the complexity of DOAC management, potentially-inappropriate prescribing and drug related problems are common. Multidisciplinary collaborative projects including review and consultation by clinical pharmacists are an effective method of improving management of patients on DOAC.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03527615.

Vaccination with mRNA vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with a risk of developing myocarditis and pericarditis, with an estimated standardized incidence ratio of myocarditis being 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48 to 6.40) as compared to the expected incidence based on historical data according to a large national study in Israel. Most cases of myocarditis in vaccine recipients occur in young males, particularly following the second dose, and the presentation is usually mild. Recently, the third (booster) dose has been shown to reduce confirmed infections and severe illness even against common variants of the virus. In Israel, over 4.4 million citizens (more than 45% of the population) have been vaccinated with the third dose of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2. Herein, we report the first case of a histologically confirmed severe myocarditis following the third dose of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine.

The protocol for this study was registered at the PROSPERO registry of systematic reviews (registry number: CRD42017056362).