Background: It was urgent and necessary to synthesize the evidence for vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness profile of COVID-19 vaccines against VOC. Methods: Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies that evaluated the VE against VOC (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Omicron) were searched until 4 March 2022. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. VE was defined as (1-estimate). Results: Eleven RCTs (161,388 participants), 20 cohort studies (52,782,321 participants), and 26 case-control studies (2,584,732 cases) were included. Eleven COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, Ad26.COV2.S, NVX-CoV2373, BBV152, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, SCB-2019, CVnCoV, and HB02) were included in this analysis. Full vaccination was effective against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants, with VE of 88.0% (95% CI, 83.0–91.5), 73.0% (95% CI, 64.3–79.5), 63.0% (95% CI, 47.9–73.7), 77.8% (95% CI, 72.7–82.0), and 55.9% (95% CI, 40.9–67.0), respectively. Booster vaccination was more effective against Delta and Omicron variants, with VE of 95.5% (95% CI, 94.2–96.5) and 80.8% (95% CI, 58.6–91.1), respectively. mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273/BNT162b2) seemed to have higher VE against VOC over others; significant interactions (p_interaction < 0.10) were observed between VE and vaccine type (mRNA vaccines vs. not mRNA vaccines). Conclusions: Full vaccination of COVID-19 vaccines is highly effective against Alpha variant, and moderate effective against Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants. Booster vaccination is more effective against Delta and Omicron variants. mRNA vaccines seem to have higher VE against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants over others.

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is commonly used to treat patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE), but the findings of a recent large clinical trial suggest that NIV may be less effective for ACPE than previously thought. To provide an estimate of the effect of NIV on clinical outcomes in patients with ACPE that incorporates recent trial evidence and explore ways to interpret that evidence in the context of preceding evidence that favors NIV. PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2009, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and conference proceedings through December 2009, and reference lists, without language restriction. Randomized trials that compared continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel ventilation with standard therapy or each other. Two independent reviewers extracted data. Outcomes examined were mortality, intubation rate, and incidence of new myocardial infarction (MI). Compared with standard therapy, continuous positive airway pressure reduced mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.92]) and need for intubation (RR, 0.44 [CI, 0.32 to 0.60]) but not incidence of new MI (RR, 1.07 [CI, 0.84 to 1.37]). The effect was more prominent in trials in which myocardial ischemia or infarction caused ACPE in higher proportions of patients (RR, 0.92 [CI, 0.76 to 1.10] when 10% of patients had ischemia or MI vs. 0.43 [CI, 0.17 to 1.07] when 50% had ischemia or MI). Bilevel ventilation reduced the need for intubation (RR, 0.54 [CI, 0.33 to 0.86]) but did not reduce mortality or new MI. No differences were detected between continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel ventilation on any clinical outcomes for which they were directly compared. The quality of the evidence base was limited. Definitions, cause, and severity of ACPE differed among the trials, as did patient characteristics and clinical settings. Although a recent large trial contradicts results from previous studies, the evidence in aggregate still supports the use of NIV for patients with ACPE. Continuous positive airway pressure reduces mortality more in patients with ACPE secondary to acute myocardial ischemia or infarction. None.

Introduction: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a new class of drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) are the most frequently reported treatment-related AEs for GLP-1 RAs. We aim to evaluate the effect of GLP-1 RAs on the incidence of GI AEs of T2DM. Materials and Methods: The overview of the GI events of GLP-1 RAs has been performed on relevant publications through the literature search, such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov The manufacturer was contacted regarding unpublished data. We analyzed direct and indirect comparisons of different treatments using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Results: Taspoglutide 30 mg once weekly (TAS30QW) and lixisenatide 30 μg twice daily (LIX30BID) were ranked the top two drugs in terms of GI AEs versus placebo. The odds ratios of nausea and vomiting for TAS30QW were 11.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.89, 46.9) and 51.7 (95% CI, 7.07, 415), respectively, and that of diarrhea was 4.93 (95% CI, 1.75, 14.7) for LIX30BID. Conclusions: Our study found all GLP-1 RA dose regimens significantly increased the incidence of GI AEs, compared with placebo or conventional treatment. The occurrence of GI AEs was different with diverse dose regimens of GLP-1 RAs. TAS30QW had the maximum probability to occur nausea and vomiting, whereas LIX30BID had the maximum probability to cause development of diarrhea versus other treatments.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) is a relatively new therapy used in adults with respiratory failure. Whether it is superior to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or to noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether HFNC was superior to either COT or NIV in adult acute respiratory failure patients. A review of the literature was conducted from the electronic databases from inception up to 20 October 2016. Only randomized clinical trials comparing HFNC with COT or HFNC with NIV were included. The intubation rate was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included the mechanical ventilation rate, the rate of escalation of respiratory support and mortality. Eleven studies that enrolled 3459 patients (HFNC, n = 1681) were included. There were eight studies comparing HFNC with COT, two comparing HFNC with NIV, and one comparing all three. HFNC was associated with a significant reduction in intubation rate (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, P = 0.002), mechanical ventilation rate (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.97, P = 0.04) and the rate of escalation of respiratory support (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.67, P < 0.0001) when compared to COT. There was no difference in mortality between HFNC and COT utilization (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53, P = 0.96). When HFNC was compared to NIV, there was no difference in the intubation rate (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.39, P = 0.84), the rate of escalation of respiratory support (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28, P = 0.97) or mortality (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.68, P = 0.65). Compared to COT, HFNC reduced the rate of intubation, mechanical ventilation and the escalation of respiratory support. When compared to NIV, HFNC showed no better outcomes. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are necessary to prove our findings. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews on May 25, 2016 registration no. CRD42016039581 .