OBJECTIVES: To estimate the required coverage and costs of a national screening strategy to inform the launch of an HCV elimination program.
METHODS: We designed an HCV screening strategy based on a "stepwise" approach. This approach relied on targeting of people who inject drugs in the early years, with delayed onset of widespread general population screening. Annual coverage requirements and associated costs were estimated to ensure that the World Health Organization elimination treatment targets were met.
RESULTS: In total, 6 million individuals would have to be screened between 2018 and 2030. Targeting of people who inject drugs in the early years would limit annual screening coverage to less than 1 million individuals from 2018 to 2026. General population screening would have to be launched by 2026. Total costs were estimated at MYR 222 million ($58 million). Proportional to coverage targets, 60% of program costs would fall from 2026 to 2030.
CONCLUSIONS: This exercise was one of the first attempts to conduct a detailed analysis of the required screening coverage and costs of a national HCV elimination strategy. These findings suggest that the stepwise approach could delay the onset of general population screening by more than 5 years after the program's launch. This delay would allow additional time to mobilize investments required for a successful general population screening program and also minimize program costs. This strategy prototype could inform the design of effective screening strategies in other countries.
CONCLUSION: All examined treatments, although potentiality effective against COVID-19, need either appropriate drug development or clinical trial to be suitable for clinical use.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and medRxiv (preprint repository) databases (up to 7 January 2021). Pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence interval (CI) were generated using random-effects and inverse variance heterogeneity models. The risk of bias of the included RCTs was appraised using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.
RESULTS: Six RCTs were included: two trials with an overall low risk of bias and four trials had some concerns regarding the overall risk of bias. Our meta-analysis did not find significant mortality benefits with the use of tocilizumab among patients with COVID-19 relative to non-use of tocilizumab (pooled hazard ratio = 0.83; 95% CI 0.66-1.05, n = 2,057). Interestingly, the estimated effect of tocilizumab on the composite endpoint of requirement for mechanical ventilation and/or all-cause mortality indicated clinical benefits, with some evidence against our model hypothesis of no significant effect at the current sample size (pooled hazard ratio = 0.62; 95% CI 0.42-0.91, n = 749).
CONCLUSION: Despite no clear mortality benefits in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, tocilizumab appears to reduce the likelihood of progression to mechanical ventilation.
METHODS: This prospective open-label single-arm observational clinical trial enrolled 41 patients who underwent liver transplantation between 2010 and 2016 because of a condition related to chronic HBV infection. At the time of enrollment, all patients had taken entecavir and discontinued HBIG administration. When hepatitis B surface antibody titer was undetectable after the withdrawal of HBIG, a recombinant HBV vaccine was injected intramuscularly at month 0, 1, and 6.
RESULTS: After excluding 5 patients who dropped out and 2 patients who had a persistent hepatitis B surface antibody titer, 9 (26.5%) of 34 patients had a positive vaccination response. The median hepatitis B surface antibody titer at seroconversion was 86 (12-1000) IU/L, and those at the end of follow-up were 216 (30-1000) IU/L. No patients experienced HBV recurrence during the study period. Sex (female, odds ratio 32.91 [1.83-592.54], P = .018) and the dosing interval of HBIG before withdrawal (≥90 days, 16.21 [1.21-217.31], P = .035) were independent contributing factors for positive response to the vaccination.
CONCLUSION: HBV vaccination still deserves consideration as active immunoprophylaxis after liver transplantation because it could provide added immunity to nucleoside/nucleotide analogs monotherapy with excellent cost-effectiveness.
METHODS: A systematic literature search with no language restriction was performed in electronic databases and preprint repositories to identify eligible studies published up to 29 June 2021. The outcomes of interest were hospital admission and all-cause mortality. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest with the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies relative to nonuse of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, at 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Our systematic literature search identified nine randomized controlled trials. Three trials had an overall low risk of bias, while four trials had some concerns in the overall risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.33-1.47), but a statistically significant reduction in the odds of hospital admission (pooled OR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.21-0.42), with the administration of a neutralizing monoclonal antibody among patients with COVID-19, relative to non-administration of a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, at the current sample size.
CONCLUSION: The reduced risk of hospital admission with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies use suggests that the timing of neutralizing antibodies administration is key in preventing hospital admission and, ultimately, death. Future randomized trials should aim to determine if the clinical outcomes with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies differ based on serostatus.