No abstract

Background Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus and subsequent COVID‐19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID‐19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS‐CoV‐2. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID‐19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes. We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Main results We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty‐two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty‐nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two‐month follow‐up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available. This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID‐19, severe and critical COVID‐19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO‐approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO‐approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all‐cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high‐certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID‐19 High‐certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA‐1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP‐CorV (Sinopharm‐Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVI...

Background Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community based package of care, aiming to provide long term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. ICM evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (less than 20) and high intensity input. Objectives To assess the effects of Intensive Case Management (caseload <20) in comparison with non-Intensive Case Management (caseload > 20) and with standard community care in people with severe mental illness. To evaluate whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation depends on its fidelity to the ACT model and on the setting. Search methods For the current update of this review we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2009), which is compiled by systematic searches of major databases, hand searches and conference proceedings. Selection criteria All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community-care setting, where Intensive Case Management, non-Intensive Case Management or standard care were compared. Outcomes such as service use, adverse effects, global state, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs were sought. Data collection and analysis We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes we calculated relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI). We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention’s fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect. Main results We included 38 trials (7328 participants) in this review. The trials provided data for two comparisons: 1. ICM versus standard care, 2. ICM versus non-ICM. 1. ICM versus standard care Twenty-four trials provided data on length of hospitalisation, and results favoured Intensive Case Management (n=3595, 24 RCTs, MD −0.86 CI −1.37 to −0.34). There was a high level of heterogeneity, but this significance still remained when the outlier studies were excluded from the analysis (n=3143, 20 RCTs, MD −0.62 CI −1.00 to −0.23). Nine studies found participants in the ICM group were less likely to be lost to psychiatric services (n=1633, 9 RCTs, RR 0.43 CI 0.30 to 0.61, I2=49%, p=0.05). One global state scale did show an Improvement in global state for those receiving ICM, the GAF scale (n=818, 5 RCTs, MD 3.41 CI 1.66 to 5.16). Results for mental state as measured through various rating scales, however, were equivocal, with no compelling evidence that ICM was really any better than standard care in improving mental state. No differences in mortality between ICM and standard care ...

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Comparison of di erent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine types and dose schedules for prevention of HPV-related disease in females and males (Review)

JR. New WHO guidelines for treatment of gambiense human African trypanosomiasis including fexinidazole: fundamental changes for clinical practice.

RV1 and RV5 prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. The vaccine efficacy is lower in high-mortality countries; however, due to the higher burden of disease, the absolute benefit is higher in these settings. No increased risk of serious adverse events including intussusception was detected, but post-introduction surveillance studies are required to detect rare events associated with vaccination.

BackgroundRotavirus results in more diarrhoea‐related deaths in children under five years than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea‐related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Rotavirus vaccines that have been prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include a monovalent vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), a pentavalent vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck), and, more recently, another monovalent vaccine (Rotavac, Bharat Biotech).ObjectivesTo evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO (RV1, RV5, and Rotavac) for their efficacy and safety in children.Search methodsOn 4 April 2018 we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.Selection criteriaWe selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO versus placebo or no intervention.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risks of bias. One review author extracted data and a second author cross‐checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analysis by country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty.Main resultsFifty‐five trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 216,480 participants. Thirty‐six trials (119,114 participants) assessed RV1, 15 trials (88,934 participants) RV5, and four trials (8432 participants) Rotavac.RV1Children vaccinated and followed up the first year of lifeIn low‐mortality countries, RV1 prevents 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; 43,779 participants, 7 trials; high‐certainty evidence), and probably prevents 41% of cases of severe all‐cause diarrhoea (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.74; 28,051 participants, 3 trials; moderate‐certainty evidence). In high‐mortality countries, RV1 prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60; 6114 participants, 3 trials; high‐certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all‐cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 5639 participants, 2 trials; high‐certainty evidence).Children vaccinated and followed up for two yearsIn low‐mortality countries, RV1 prevents 82% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23; 36,002 participants, 9 trials; high‐certainty evidence), and probably prevents 37% of severe all‐cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, 2 trials; moderate‐certainty evidence). In high‐mortality countries RV1 probably prevents 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83; 13,768 participants, 2 trials; high‐certainty ev...

Background Social skills programmes (SSP) are treatment strategies aimed at enhancing the social performance and reducing the distress and di iculty experienced by people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and can be incorporated as part of the rehabilitation package for people with schizophrenia. Objectives The primary objective is to investigate the e ects of social skills training programmes, compared to standard care, for people with schizophrenia. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (November 2006 and December 2011) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials. A further search for studies has been conducted by the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group in 2015, 37 citations have been found and are currently being assessed by review authors. Selection criteria We included all relevant randomised controlled trials for social skills programmes versus standard care involving people with serious mental illnesses. Data collection and analysis We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean di erences (MD) and 95% CIs. Main results We included 13 randomised trials (975 participants). These evaluated social skills programmes versus standard care, or discussion group. We found evidence in favour of social skills programmes compared to standard care on all measures of social functioning. We also found that rates of relapse and rehospitalisation were lower for social skills compared to standard care (relapse: 2 RCTs, n = 263, RR 0.52 CI 0.34 to 0.79, very low quality evidence), (rehospitalisation: 1 RCT, n = 143, RR 0.53 CI 0.30 to 0.93, very low quality evidence) and participants' mental Social skills programmes for schizophrenia (Review)