No abstract

smoking, extrapulmonary TB, history of previous TB treatment, advanced chest radiography findings and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Factors found associated with all-cause mortality were similar except for nationality (higher among Malaysians) and place of residence (higher among rural dwellers), while smoking and history of previous TB treatment were not found to be associated with all-cause mortality. Conclusions This study identified various sociodemographic characteristics and TB disease-related variables which were associated with unsuccessful TB treatment outcomes and mortality; these can be used to guide measures for risk assessment and stratification of TB patients in future.

Given emerging evidence of immune escape in the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron viral variant, and its dominance, effectiveness of heterologous and homologous boosting schedules commonly used in low-to-middle income countries needs to be re-evaluated. We conducted a test-negative design using consolidated national administrative data in Malaysia to compare the effectiveness of homologous and heterologous BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and AZD1222 booster vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection in predominant-Delta and predominant-Omicron periods. Across both periods, homologous CoronaVac and AZD1222 boosting demonstrated lower effectiveness than heterologous boosting for CoronaVac and AZD1222 primary vaccination recipients and homologous BNT162b2 boosting. Broadly, marginal effectiveness was smaller by 40–50 percentage points in the Omicron period than the Delta period. Without effective and accessible second-generation vaccines, heterologous boosting using BNT162b2 for inactivated and vectored primary vaccination recipients is preferred.

Malaysia rolled out a diverse portfolio of predominantly three COVID-19 vaccines (AZD1222, BNT162b2, and CoronaVac) beginning 24 February 2021. We evaluated vaccine effectiveness with two methods, covering 1 April to 15 September 2021: (1) the screening method for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and symptomatic COVID-19; and (2) a retrospective cohort of confirmed COVID-19 cases for COVID-19 related ICU admission and death using logistic regression. The screening method estimated partial vaccination to be 48.8% effective (95% CI: 46.8, 50.7) against COVID-19 infection and 33.5% effective (95% CI: 31.6, 35.5) against symptomatic COVID-19. Full vaccination is estimated at 87.8% effective (95% CI: 85.8, 89.7) against COVID-19 infection and 85.4% effective (95% CI: 83.4, 87.3) against symptomatic COVID-19. Among the cohort of confirmed COVID-19 cases, partial vaccination with any of the three vaccines is estimated at 31.3% effective (95% CI: 28.5, 34.1) in preventing ICU admission, and 45.1% effective (95% CI: 42.6, 47.5) in preventing death. Full vaccination with any of the three vaccines is estimated at 79.1% effective (95% CI: 77.7, 80.4) in preventing ICU admission and 86.7% effective (95% CI: 85.7, 87.6) in preventing deaths. Our findings suggest that full vaccination with any of the three predominant vaccines (AZD1222, BNT162b2, and CoronaVac) in Malaysia has been highly effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, symptomatic COVID-19, COVID-19-related ICU admission, and death.

BackgroundThe use of lengthy, detailed, and complex informed consent forms (ICFs) is of paramount concern in biomedical research as it may not truly promote the rights and interests of research participants. The extent of information in ICFs has been the subject of debates for decades; however, no clear guidance is given. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the perspectives of research participants about the type and extent of information they need when they are invited to participate in biomedical research.MethodsThis multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).ResultsOf the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be ‘moderately important’ to ‘very important’ for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively).ConclusionsResearch participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-018-0318-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.