Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak.It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.

Background Since it was first identified in early November 2021, the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread quickly and replaced the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant as the dominant variant in many countries. Data on the real-world effectiveness of vaccines against the omicron variant in children are lacking. Methods In a study conducted from January 21, 2022, through April 8, 2022, when the omicron variant was spreading rapidly, we analyzed data on children in Singapore who were 5 to 11 years of age. We assessed the incidences of all reported SARS-CoV-2 infections (confirmed on polymerase-chain-reaction [PCR] assay, rapid antigen testing, or both), SARS-CoV-2 infections confirmed on PCR assay, and coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19)–related hospitalizations among unvaccinated, partially vaccinated (≥1 day after the first dose of vaccine and up to 6 days after the second dose), and fully vaccinated children (≥7 days after the second dose). Poisson regression was used to estimate vaccine effectiveness from the incidence rate ratio of outcomes. Results A total of 255,936 children were included in the analysis. Among unvaccinated children, the crude incidence rates of all reported SARS-CoV-2 infections, PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, and Covid-19–related hospitalizations were 3303.5, 473.8, and 30.0 per 1 million person-days, respectively. Among partially vaccinated children, vaccine effectiveness was 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.7 to 15.5) against all SARS-CoV-2 infections, 24.3% (95% CI, 19.5 to 28.9) against PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 42.3% (95% CI, 24.9 to 55.7) against Covid-19–related hospitalization; in fully vaccinated children, vaccine effectiveness was 36.8% (95% CI, 35.3 to 38.2), 65.3% (95% CI, 62.0 to 68.3), and 82.7% (95% CI, 74.8 to 88.2), respectively. Conclusions During a period when the omicron variant was predominant, BNT162b2 vaccination reduced the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Covid-19–related hospitalization among children 5 to 11 years of age.

Objectives-This critical review aimed to identify, consolidate and evaluate the quality of Willingness to Pay (WTP) studies applied to clinical contexts in the field of dentistry.Methods-PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for relevant publications. Screening and data extraction was then performed. Primary literature in Englishlanguage were included to assess the WTP for oral health interventions, when the valuations were applied to a clinical measure. Twenty-six publications met the inclusion criteria.Results-WTP was elicited mainly via face-to-face interviews (13 publications) and questionnaires (12 publications). The majority (24) of publications selected an out-of-pocket payment vehicle. Eleven publications adopted a bidding method, nine publications adopted an open-ended format, and the remaining six studies adopted a payment card or choice method. Pretesting was reported in only nine publications, and few studies accounted for starting point bias. Eight of 11 publications found that higher incomes were associated with higher WTP values. The female gender, a younger age and higher education levels were associated with a higher WTP in select studies.Conclusions-Only a small minority of the studies used strategies to avoid well documented biases related to WTP elicitation. Cost versus benefit of many clinical scenarios remain uninvestigated.Clinical significance-WTP studies in dentistry may benefit from pre-testing and the inclusion of a script to minimise hypothetical bias. They may also be better conducted face-to-face and via a shuffled payment card method. Income levels, and potentially education levels, gender and age, should be assessed for their influence on WTP values.

Author Contributions: Dr Miech had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.