Jacqueline Veronica Velasco

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has infected over 600 million individuals and caused nearly 7 million deaths worldwide (10 January 2023). Patients with renal disease undergoing hemodialysis are among those most adversely affected, with an increased predisposition to SARS-CoV-2 infection and death. This systematic review aimed to pool evidence assessing the humoral response of hemodialysis patients (HDP) post-mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. A systematic search of the literature was performed through MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv and bioRxiv preprint servers up to 10 January 2023. Cohort and case-control studies were included if they reported an immune response in one group of patients undergoing hemodialysis who received mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination compared with another group of patients receiving the same vaccine but not on hemodialysis. The methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was not deemed appropriate due to the high heterogeneity between studies. From the 120 studies identified, nine (n = 1969 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 8/9, 88%) were of high or medium methodological quality (≥6/9 stars). The results revealed that HDP developed lower antibody levels across all timepoints post-vaccination when compared with controls. Patients with chronic kidney disease elicited the highest antibody immune response, followed by HDP and, lastly, kidney transplant recipients. Overall, post-vaccination antibody titers were comparatively lower than in the healthy population. Current results imply that robust vaccination strategies are needed to address waning immune responses in vulnerable populations.

Identification of predictors of long COVID-19 is essential for managing healthcare plans of patients. This systematic literature review and meta-analysis aimed to identify risk factors not associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but rather potentially predictive of the development of long COVID-19. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv and bioRxiv preprint servers were screened through 15 September 2022. Peer-reviewed studies or preprints evaluating potential pre-SARS-CoV-2 infection risk factors for the development of long-lasting symptoms were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPSs) tool. Random-effects meta-analyses with calculation of odds ratio (OR) were performed in those risk factors where a homogenous long COVID-19 definition was used. From 1978 studies identified, 37 peer-reviewed studies and one preprint were included. Eighteen articles evaluated age, sixteen articles evaluated sex, and twelve evaluated medical comorbidities as risk factors of long COVID-19. Overall, single studies reported that old age seems to be associated with long COVID-19 symptoms (n = 18); however, the meta-analysis did not reveal an association between old age and long COVID-19 (n = 3; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.03, p = 0.17). Similarly, single studies revealed that female sex was associated with long COVID-19 symptoms (n = 16); which was confirmed in the meta-analysis (n = 7; OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.86, p = 0.01). Finally, medical comorbidities such as pulmonary disease (n = 4), diabetes (n = 1), obesity (n = 6), and organ transplantation (n = 1) were also identified as potential risk factors for long COVID-19. The risk of bias of most studies (71%, n = 27/38) was moderate or high. In conclusion, pooled evidence did not support an association between advancing age and long COVID-19 but supported that female sex is a risk factor for long COVID-19. Long COVID-19 was also associated with some previous medical comorbidities.

The association of SARS-CoV-2 variants with long-COVID symptoms is still scarce, but new data are appearing at a fast pace. This systematic review compares the prevalence of long-COVID symptoms according to relevant SARS-CoV-2 variants in COVID-19 survivors. The MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases, as well as the medRxiv and bioRxiv preprint servers, were searched up to 25 October 2022. Case-control and cohort studies analyzing the presence of post-COVID symptoms appearing after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection by the Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2) or Omicron (B.1.1.529/BA.1) variants were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. From 430 studies identified, 5 peer-reviewed studies and 1 preprint met the inclusion criteria. The sample included 355 patients infected with the historical variant, 512 infected with the Alpha variant, 41,563 infected with the Delta variant, and 57,616 infected with the Omicron variant. The methodological quality of all studies was high. The prevalence of long-COVID was higher in individuals infected with the historical variant (50%) compared to those infected with the Alpha, Delta or Omicron variants. It seems that the prevalence of long-COVID in individuals infected with the Omicron variant is the smallest, but current data are heterogeneous, and long-term data have, at this stage, an obviously shorter follow-up compared with the earlier variants. Fatigue is the most prevalent long-COVID symptom in all SARS-CoV-2 variants, but pain is likewise prevalent. The available data suggest that the infection with the Omicron variant results in fewer long-COVID symptoms compared to previous variants; however, the small number of studies and the lack of the control of cofounders, e.g., reinfections or vaccine status, in some studies limit the generality of the results. It appears that individuals infected with the historical variant are more likely to develop long-COVID symptomatology.

With the advent of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, several vaccines have been developed to mitigate its spread and prevent adverse consequences of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The mRNA technology is an unprecedented vaccine, usually given in two doses to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. Despite effectiveness and safety, inter-individual immune response heterogeneity has been observed in recipients of mRNA-based vaccines. As a novel disease, the specific immune response mechanism responsible for warding off COVID-19 remains unclear at this point. However, significant evidence suggests that humoral response plays a crucial role in affording immunoprotection and preventing debilitating sequelae from COVID-19. As such this paper focused on the possible effects of age, sex, serostatus, and comorbidities on humoral response ( i . e ., total antibodies, IgG and/or IgA) of different populations post-mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination. A systematic search of literature was performed through PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar. Studies were included if they reported humoral response to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. A total of 32 studies was identified and reviewed, and the percent difference of means of reported antibody levels were calculated for comparison. Findings revealed that older individuals, the male sex, seronegativity, and those with more comorbidities mounted less humoral immune response. Given these findings, several recommendations were proposed regarding the current vaccination practices. These include giving additional doses of vaccination for immunocompromised and elderly populations. Another recommendation is conducting clinical trials in giving a combined scheme of mRNA vaccines, protein vaccines, and vector-based vaccines.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic warrants an immediate response. Persons with disabilities (PWDs) are one of the most vulnerable populations susceptible to marginalization. While there are existing guidelines in the Philippines that aim to assist their basic needs, a call for inclusivity in policymaking for the COVID-19 response is highly advocated. This paper aims to analyze existing policy guidelines concerning the welfare of PWDs in the country based on several policy domains. Methods: Relevant documents were acquired through extensive search of government and nongovernment websites and news agencies. Literature included memorandums, circulars, and news bulletins in the period between January 2020 to May 2021. This study conducted a framework analysis on policies enacted by the Philippine government during the COVID-19 pandemic concerning PWDs. The framework was divided into eight areas: access to (1) information, (2)healthcare, (3) education, and (4) financial support, (5) protection from infection in residential settings, (6) reasonable accommodation, (7) consideration for disabled people facing multiple exclusions, and (8) inclusion to decision-making process. Results: Fifteen PWD related COVID-19 response documents from the Philippines were reviewed and analyzed. Most policies corresponded to themes related to financial support and reasonable accommodations. Most documents were limited to proposals and suggestions with only a few documents including specific details on how the program will be implemented and monitored. Conclusion: The state has proven its cognizance for PWDs; however, implementation and its impact remain to be seen. The government needs to evaluate these efforts to identify gaps and barriers. A comprehensive national database should be implemented to centralize registration of PWDs, and efforts should be made to inform and educate PWDs of their rights and of existing programs. Most importantly, PWDs should be included in the discourse and decision-making process to ensure programs are acceptable and accessible.