METHODS: Randomized trials, assessing the efficacy of antiviral drugs for HBV and HIV co-infected patients were searched in health-related databases. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Main outcome in this meta-analysis study was the success of treatment by antivirals as determined by virologic response. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis of these trials and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Seven randomized trials (329 participants) were included in this network meta-analysis study. A network geometry was formed with six treatment options including four antiviral drugs, adefovir (ADV), emtricitabine (FTC), lamivudine (LMV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), combination treatment of TDF plus LMV, and placebo. The weighted percentage contributions of each comparison distributed fairly equally in the entire network of evidence. An assumption of consistency required for network meta-analysis was not violated (the global Wald test for inconsistency: Chi2(4) = 3.63, p = 0.46). The results of estimates showed no differences between the treatment regimens in terms of viral response for treating HBV and HIV co-infected patients, which spanned both benefit and harm (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.06-2.41). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low in all comparisons (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: 218 fewer per 1000,121 more to 602 fewer, very low certainty). Therefore, we remained uncertain to the true ranking of the antiviral treatments in HBV/ HIV co-infected patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the evidence is insufficient to provide guidance to the relative effectiveness of currently available antiviral drugs with dual activity in treating co-infection of HBV/HIV. Well-designed, large clinical trials in this field to address other important outcomes from different epidemiological settings are recommended.
METHODS: Rotavirus infection in Children in Southeast Asia countries was assessed using data from Pubmed and Google Scholars. Most countries in Southeast Asia have not yet introduced national RV vaccination programs. We exclude Brunei Darussalam, and Timor Leste because there were no eligible studies identified during that time.
RESULTS: According to the 2008-2018 RV surveillance data for Southeast Asia, 40.78% of all diarrheal disease in children were caused by RV infection, which is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality in children under 5 years old in Southeast Asia. Mortality was inversely related to socioeconomic status. The most predominant genotype distribution of RV changed from G1P[8] and G2P[4] into the rare and unusual genotypes G3P[8], G8P[8], and G9P[8]. Although the predominat strain has changed, but the seasonality of RV infection remains unchanged. One of the best strategies for decreasing the global burden of the disease is the development and implementation of effective vaccines.
CONCLUSIONS: The most predominant genotype distribution of RV was changed time by time. Rotavirus vaccine is highly cost effective in Southeast Asian countries because the ratio between cost per disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is less than one. These data are important for healthcare practitioners and officials to make appropriate policies and recommendations about RV vaccination.
METHODOLOGY: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. From the relevant articles, we extracted data and conducted a risk of bias assessment of individual studies.
RESULTS: The search yielded 22 and 13 publications on HAV seroprevalence and incidence, respectively. Overall, our findings point to a very low HAV endemicity profile in Thailand and Singapore and evidence of a shift towards low HAV endemicity in Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Only Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines have existing HAV disease surveillance and reported incidence rates below 1 per 100,000. Several outbreaks with varying magnitude documented in the region provide insights into the evolving epidemiology of HAV in the region. Risk of bias assessment of studies revealed that the individual studies were of low to medium risk.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The available HAV endemicity profiles in Southeast Asian countries, aside from Thailand, are limited and outdated, but suggest an endemicity shift in the region that is not fully documented yet. These findings highlight the need to update information on HAV epidemiology through strengthening of disease surveillance mechanisms to confirm the shift in HAV endemicity in the region.