Skip header and navigation

27 records – page 1 of 2.

Document Type
Table
Review Code
INF031801v017 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
November 26, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Document Type
Table
Review Code
INF031801v017 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
November 26, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Category
Epidemiology
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Vaccines
Immunity
Infection Prevention and Control
Clinical Presentation
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
ICU
Medicine Unit
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Jagwani, M; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Howell-Spooner, B; Miller, L. How effective are COVID-19 vaccines? 2021 Nov 26; Document no.: INF031801v017 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. (CEST Table)
Similar Reviews
EOC011901 RR
EOC031001 RR
Review History
INF031801v16 RR: November 12, 2021
INF031801v15 RR: October 28, 2021
INF031801v014 RR: October 16, 2021
INF031801v013 RR: September 24, 2021
INF031801v012 RR: September 10, 2021
INF031801v010 RR: August 25, 2021
INF031801v9 RR: August 23, 2021
INF031801v8 RR: August 9, 2021
INF031801v7 RR: July 20, 2021
INF031801v6 RR: July 2, 2021
INF031801v5 RR: June 22, 2021
INF031801v4 RR: June 3, 2021
INF031801v3 RR: May 24, 2021
INF031801v2 RR: May 14, 2021
INF031801 RR: March 31, 2021
Related Documents
Documents

INF031801v017 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
INF031801v017 RR
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
November 26, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
INF031801v017 RR
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
November 26, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Updated Key Findings
November 16, 2021
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that any individuals who develop myocarditis/pericarditis after a dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine should defer receiving a subsequent dose until additional safety data are available.
On 9th November, 2021, the CDC allows mix and match of booster shots in USA.
National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommended boosters for other high-risk groups, including people 70 years of age and older and front-line health care workers who had a short period of time between their first two shots.
NACI also recommended boosters for people who received two doses of the Astra Zeneca vaccine, as the mRNA vaccines appear to offer better protection.
On 4th November, 2021, the United Kingdom became the first country to approve Pfizer’s competitorOK competitor Merck's COVID-19 pill, which is already under review at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after showing strong initial results. Other antivirals are under consideration including an agent from Pfizer (Paxlovid). While promising, caution should be taken with interpreting data from oral antivirals as currently, no published data exist and much conclusions are drawn off grey literature .
India’s Covaxin covid 19 vaccine by Bharat Biotech reported a vaccine effectiveness of 77.8% from a clinical trial. , 2021, a CDC reported vaccine efficacy of 90.9% with primary data from one phase II/III clinical trial in preventing symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in children aged 5–11 years with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Key Findings
November 2, 2021
October 21st, 2021 Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech announced results from a Phase 3 randomized, controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of a 30-µg booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 with a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6%.
On 21st October, 2021, the advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said people who received Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID-19 vaccines should receive a booster dose, and should continue with the original vaccine they recieved.
NACI’s latest guidelines suggest provinces should offer boosters to Canadians who received two doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine advisory group on 26th October 2021 approved the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11 at a reduced dosage from the stanard dosing available for those over 12.
Therapeutic Goods Administration (Australia) has provisionally approved a third dose of the Pfizer (Comirnaty) vaccine for individuals 18 years or older. Pfizer (Comirnaty) is recommended as a single booster dose, irrespective of the primary COVID-19 vaccine used.
On 29th October, 2021, NACI issued new guidance "strongly" recommending booster shots for seniors 80 and older.
A survey at University of Oxford, UK, found that social media played a part in children aged 9 to 18 being more undecided than their older counterparts.
A report by the CDC found that the effectiveness of 2 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine against COVID-19 hospitalization was 93% during the period of B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant dominance among children and adolescents aged 12–18 years.
Category
Epidemiology
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Vaccines
Immunity
Clinical Presentation
Infection Prevention and Control
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
ICU
Medicine Unit
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Jagwani, M; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Hernandez, L; Howell-Spooner, B; Miller, L. How effective are COVID-19 vaccines? 2021 Nov 26. Document no.: INF031801v017 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 96 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Review History
INF031801v16 RR: November 12, 2021
INF031801v15 RR: October 28, 2021
INF031801v014 RR: October 16, 2021
INF031801v013 RR: September 24, 2021
INF031801v012 RR: September 10, 2021
INF031801v010 RR: August 25, 2021
INF031801v9 RR: August 23, 2021
INF031801v8 RR: August 9, 2021
INF031801v7 RR: July 20, 2021
INF031801v6 RR: July 2, 2021
INF031801v5 RR: June 22, 2021
INF031801v4 RR: June 3, 2021
INF031801v3 RR: May 24, 2021
INF031801v2 RR: May 14, 2021
INF031801 RR: March 31, 2021
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC031801v017 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
November 23, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC031801v017 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
November 23, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Category
Epidemiology
Healthcare Services
Subject
Health Planning
Variants
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Asamoah, G; Badea, A; Hernandez-Ronquillo, L; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Muhajarine, N; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What is the epidemiology of variants and what are the implications for healthcare? 2021 Nov 23. Document no.: EOC031801v017 RR Table. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. (CEST table).
Review History
EOC031801v16 RR
EOC031801v15 RR
EOC031801v14 RR
v012 and v013 RR were combined into v013
EOC031801v011 RR: August 27, 2021
v010 and v011 RR were combined into v011
EOC031801v9 RR: August 19, 2021
EOC031801v8 RR: July 12, 2021
EOC031801v7 RR; June 24, 2021
EOC031801v6 RR; June 17, 2021
EOC031801v5 RR; June 2, 2021
EOC031801v4 RR; May 17, 2021
EOC031801v3 RR: May 3, 2021
EOC031801v2 RR: April 20, 2021
EOC031801 RR: March 25, 2021
Related Documents
Documents

EOC031801v017 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC031801v017 RR
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
November 23, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC031801v017 RR
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
November 23, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Updated Key Findings
November 23, 2021 - Delta dominance - Delta continues to account for most of variants sequenced from surveillance data from Public Health Ontario, Public Health England and ECDC. - The Delta sub-lineage AY.4.2 (Delta plus) accounts for a slowly increasing proportion of Delta cases in the UK. However, evidence is still emerging on its effect on vaccine efficacy and disease severity. - Increased disease severity (hospitalization) has been observed in adults 18 to 49 years during Delta variant dominance and has been attributed to the low vaccination rates among this age group. - Epidemiological models predict a new wave of infection if measures such as NPIs are relaxed due to changes in immune escape capability and transmissibility of variants. - While of moderate certainty, evidence exists to suggest the Delta variant is associated with a higher secondary attack rate, especially among unvaccinated populations.
Key Findings
November 12, 2021 - Emerging data suggest the Delta variant can initiate fast-rising outbreaks in populations with immune responses to prior variants, resulting in reinfections and vaccination breakthroughs. However, we have low certainty of evidence at this point. - A quarter of Delta-associated outbreaks in Ontario were reported in elementary school settings for the week of September 12 to September 18, 2021. - Full vaccination against COVID-19 has been reported to be more effective in protecting against Delta infection and severe illness (hospitalization and ICU admissions) than partial vaccination. - Effective protection for essential workers and prompt surveillance of occupational health in the workplace are needed due to disproportionate Delta variant infection among workers such as cleaners. - While the certainty is low, evidence exists to suggest that a lower gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, higher diabetes prevalence, higher cardiovascular disease rate, and lower percentage of fully vaccinated people have been reported as predictors of higher Delta variant Case Fatality Rate (CFR)
Category
Epidemiology
Healthcare Services
Subject
Health Planning
Variants
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Asamoah, G; Badea, A; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Muhajarine, N; Hernandez-Ronquillo L; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What is the epidemiology of variants and what are the implications for healthcare? 2021 Nov 23. Document no.: EOC031801v017 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 48 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Review History
EOC031801v16 RR
EOC031801v15 RR
EOC031801v14 RR
v012 and v013 RR were combined into v013
EOC031801v011 RR: August 27, 2021
v010 and v011 RR were combined into v011
EOC031801v9 RR: August 19, 2021
EOC031801v8 RR: July 12, 2021
EOC031801v7 RR; June 24, 2021
EOC031801v6 RR; June 17, 2021
EOC031801v5 RR; June 2, 2021
EOC031801v4 RR; May 17, 2021
EOC031801v3 RR: May 3, 2021
EOC031801v2 RR: April 20, 2021
EOC031801 RR: March 25, 2021
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC210902 RR Table
Question Submitted
September 22, 2021
Date Completed
October 7, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC210902 RR Table
Question Submitted
September 22, 2021
Date Completed
October 7, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Clinical Management
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Decision Making
Health Planning
Infection Prevention and Control
Vaccination
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Related Documents
Documents

EOC210902 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210902 RR
Question Submitted
September 22, 2021
Date Completed
October 7, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210902 RR
Question Submitted
September 22, 2021
Date Completed
October 7, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Emerging evidence suggesting waning levels of immune markers with time, particularly against more virulent variants. How this will correlate to functional immunity is yet to be documented.
Immunocompromised populations with lower levels of responses to standard 2-dose regimens may benefit from a 3rd dose of mRNA vaccine as a part of the primary series, though their response may still be lower than what is expected in the general population
Current recommendation for populations to receive a 3rd dose include adults over a certain age (depending on jurisdiction), those living in long-term care settings, frontline health and social workers and/or people working in high risk settings, those with immune compromising conditions leading to increased risk of severe disease/poor outcomes if infected
Safety trials have indicated that side effects to 3rd/booster doses are similar to those following the 2nd dose in initial vaccination series
Category
Clinical Management
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Decision Making
Health Planning
Infection Prevention and Control
Vaccination
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Muhajarine, N; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Hernandez-Ronquillo, L; Tian, K. What is the current evidence and recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccine booster shots (exceeding 2 doses) for the general population? 2021 Oct 07, Document no.: EOC210902 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 8 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EPM210602 RR Table
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EPM210602 RR Table
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Category
Clinical Presentation
Epidemiology
Subject
Long Covid
Health Planning
Clinical Presentation
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Community
Emergency
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
McLean, M; Williams-Roberts, H; Reeder, B; Howell-Spooner, B; Ellsworth, C. What are long COVID's demands on the healthcare system, and its severity of the illness? 2021 Jul 12, Document no.: EPM210602 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. (CEST table).
Related Documents
Documents

EPM210602 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EPM210602 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EPM210602 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Key Findings
Long COVID-19 is likely to increase healthcare demands across the health system, including emergency departments, hospital admissions, primary care visits, specialists appointments, and home care and rehabilitation services.
The clinical care burden of long COVID-19 is the greatest in the first 3 months after testing and is likely to place the greatest demand on primary care services.
Patients with severe COVID-19 illness are more likely to place longer-term demands (4-6 months) on specialist care due to respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, metabolic, psychiatric and unspecified conditions.
Category
Clinical Presentation
Epidemiology
Subject
Long Covid
Health Planning
Clinical Presentation
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Community
Emergency
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
McLean, M; Williams-Roberts, H; Reeder, B; Howell-Spooner, B; Ellsworth, C. What are long COVID's demands on the healthcare system, and its severity of the illness? 2021 Jul 12, Document no.: EPM210602 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 23 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EPM210601 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 9, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EPM210601 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 9, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Key Findings
The frequency of Long COVID symptoms varies widely across studies based on populations studied, duration of follow up and methods of assessment of symptoms.
It is estimated that 1 in 50 persons experience Long COVID symptoms after 12 weeks; however, higher estimates up to 80% have been reported in studies with a greater proportion of persons who were previously hospitalized. A recent study of a mixed cohort of 96 persons found that only 22.9% had no symptoms at 12 months post diagnosis.
A wide range of symptoms affecting multiple organ systems has been reported. For many persons symptoms improve over time while others experience persistent and/or new symptoms. Among studies with the longest duration of follow up, the most frequently reported symptoms included fatigue (up to 65%), dyspnea (up to 50%), headache (up to 45%), anosmia/ageusia (up to 25%), cognitive memory/concentration (up to 39.6%) and sleep disorders (up to 26%).
Few studies estimated the duration of symptoms with estimates ranging from 2.2% for 6 months and 27% for 7-9 months.
The mechanism(s) leading to Long COVID remain unclear but those experiencing post acute sequelae tend to be older, have a greater number of symptoms during the acute phase of illness or manifest specific symptoms and live with multiple comorbid conditions such as obesity.
The lack of consensus on a definition of Long COVID contributes to marked variations in robust prevalence estimates.
Category
Clinical Presentation
Epidemiology
Subject
Long Covid
Symptoms
Clinical Presentation
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Community
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Williams-Roberts, H; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Howell-Spooner, B; Ellsworth, C. What is the incidence and duration of Long COVID cases? 2021 Jul 09, Document no.: EPM210601 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 19 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EPM210601 RR Table
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 9, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EPM210601 RR Table
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 9, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Category
Clinical Presentation
Epidemiology
Subject
Long Covid
Symptoms
Clinical Presentation
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Community
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Williams-Roberts, H; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Howell-Spooner, B; Ellsworth, C. What is the incidence and duration of Long COVID cases? 2021 Jul 09; Document no.: EPM210601 RR Table. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. (CEST table).
Related Documents
Documents

EPM210601 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210503 RR
Question Submitted
May 28, 2021
Date Completed
June 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210503 RR
Question Submitted
May 28, 2021
Date Completed
June 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Requiring proof of vaccination for entry into another country is not a new idea. There are regulations that need to be followed to set up a “vaccine passport” in relation to international travel (International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005))
At present the World Health Organization does not recommend vaccine passports for international travel, but they are working on a standard Smart Vaccination Certificate technical specification and standards to allow for harmonised processes to include COVID-19 vaccines into an updated version of the IHR (2005)
Countries around the world are beginning to put vaccine passports into place for international travel, as well as in some countries within country travel and access to services or businesses including Israel, France, Italy, Denmark, and the EU
The Canadian Federal government is supportive of a vaccine passport for international travel but recognize the issuing of vaccine passports will need to be province led
As of May 13, 2021, the province of Quebec has begun issuing a downloadable QR code that individual can keep on their smart phone.
As of June 9, 2021, the Federal government of Canada discussed easing restrictions for fully vaccinated Canadian citizens returning to the country
Ethical considerations in the use of vaccine passports include equitable access to vaccination (domestically and internationally), access to technology (eg. Smartphone passports), marginalization, or stigmatization especially among historically racialized groups, and socially isolated populations
Legal considerations include o Clarifying who has the legal authority to require proof of vaccination, o Ensuring that if new legislation is created and implemented it is in line with all pre-existing legislation (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Human Rights Codes, privacy legislation, employment legislation), o Ensuring that, if created by the government, there is coordination of the Provincial and Federal governments for international travel with respect to jurisdictional overlap, security of information, fraud
Health care facilities should be able to legally enact vaccination policies for patient-facing employees so long as they allow for exemptions due to medical inability or bona fide religious, or conscientious beliefs
Six in ten Canadians (61%) expect vaccine passports to be widely used in Canada by the end of 2021, the same proportion (61%) of Canadians also agreed that only vaccinated people should be allowed to engage in events involving larger crowds such as public transit, air travel, or attending cultural and sports events
Category
Administration
Subject
Ethics
Decision Making
Vaccination
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Lashta E, von Tigerstrom B, Reeder B, Groot G; Miller, L; Mueller, M. What are the ethical/legal aspects of vaccine requirements? 2021 Jun 21, Document no.: EOC210503 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 25 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC210503 RR Table
Question Submitted
May 28, 2021
Date Completed
June 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC210503 RR Table
Question Submitted
May 28, 2021
Date Completed
June 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Administration
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Lashta E, von Tigerstrom B, Reeder B, Groot G; Miller, L; Mueller, M. What are the ethical/legal aspects of vaccine requirements? 2021 Jun 21, Document no.: EOC210503 RR Table. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. (CEST Table).
Related Documents
Documents

EOC210503 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210302 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210302 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
The group designated in Saskatchewan as Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) is a heterogenous clinical population with factors that impair their immune response to differing degrees.
Very Limited evidence is currently available to assess the immune response following vaccination is selected clinical populations; no evidence is available to assess vaccine efficacy or effectiveness in these populations. The clinical relevance of measured immune response with respect to protection from disease is still uncertain.
In considering the immune response of the CEV population, it is recommended that the absolute difference in immune response between 1 and 2 doses be considered, as it is possible some patient groups will have lowered protection regardless of vaccine strategy.
In terms of clinical subgroups: oOrgan transplantation recipients on immunosuppressive medication: solid organ transplant recipients receiving anti-metabolite maintenance immunosuppression therapy were less likely to develop an antibody response to an mRNA vaccine, compared to those receiving other types of therapies (37% vs 63%). In a study of 242 kidney transplant recipients on immunosuppressive therapy only 10.8% became seropositive at 28 days after a single dose of mRNA vaccine. oCancer: A study of 151 elderly patients with solid and hematological malignancies and 54 healthy controls who received one or two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine shows approximately 39% of solid cancer patients, 13% of hematological cancer patients, and 97% of healthy controls (p<0.0001) developed anti-S IgG 21 days following a single dose vaccine. However, response in solid cancer patients increased to 95% within 2 weeks of the second dose at 21 days. oOther immunocompromising conditions (e.g., auto-immune disorders and therapy): some level of immunity is generated with vaccination; however, what this means clinically is unknown. It seems that ensuring the dosing is properly timed around biologic therapy is important.
Category
Clinical Management
Healthcare Services
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Risk
Comorbidities
Population
All
Other
vulnerable populations (clinically)
Clinical Setting
Cardiac unit
Community
Dialysis unit
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the risks or benefits of extended intervals between doses of COVID-19 vaccines compared to recommended dosing in extremely vulnerable populations? 2021 Apr 20, Document no.: EOC210302 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 15 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Similar Reviews
INF031801 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC210302 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC210302 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Clinical Management
Healthcare Services
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Risk
Comorbidities
Population
All
Other
vulnerable populations (clinically)
Clinical Setting
Cardiac unit
Community
Dialysis unit
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the risks or benefits of extended intervals between doses of COVID-19 vaccines compared to recommended dosing in extremely vulnerable populations? 2021 Apr 20, Document no.: EOC210302 RR Table. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. (CEST table).
Similar Reviews
INF031801 RR
Related Documents
Documents

EOC210302 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC031001 RR
Question Submitted
March 10, 2021
Date Completed
March 18, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC031001 RR
Question Submitted
March 10, 2021
Date Completed
March 18, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Current recommendations suggest phased distribution of authorized vaccines and prioritization of the recipients (e.g., health care workers, frontline essential workers, and elderly population).
A concern that could exist with using AstraZeneca on critical populations is that it may have little coverage for mild-moderate B.1.351, which may have implications in transmission. This could be a concern in critical workforces if the variant becomes predominant, especially given the potentially higher transmissibility of variant. The literature is mixed but it is possible that AstraZeneca has lower efficacy than the mRNA vaccines.
Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends that in the context of limited vaccine supply, initial doses of mRNA vaccines should be prioritized for those at highest risk of severe illness and death and highest risk of exposure to COVID-19. On the other hand, US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends no product preference for the vaccines.
Just recently, NACI has expanded its recommendation for the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to all people over the age of 18, now including those 65 years of age and over.
While Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines and need special logistical and transportation considerations, AstraZeneca and Johnson&Johnson (J&J) vaccines are viral vector vaccines that are easier to transport.
J&J is a single dose vaccine thus may be more appropriate in certain settings (such as homeless shelters and correctional facilities). Of note, there is no empirical evidence yet available to support this use; this suggestion is based simply on the nature of the vaccine.
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Decision Making
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Shumilak, G; Lee, S; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the differences between COVID-19 vaccines and how they should be distributed based on population group(s)? 2021 Mar 18; Document no.: EOC031001 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 19 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH030401 RR
Question Submitted
March 4, 2021
Date Completed
March 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH030401 RR
Question Submitted
March 4, 2021
Date Completed
March 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Key Findings
Vulnerable populations such as those experiencing homelessness are 20 times more likely to be hospitalised due to COVID-19, 10 times more likely to require intensive care for COVID-19 and 5 times more likely to die within 21 days of a positive test for COVID-19
Many organizations advocate for socially vulnerable populations to be considered priority populations due to their oftencomplex health needs and inability to fully execute best practices for infection prevention and control
Past experiences from Hepatitis vaccination (requiring 3 injections) and H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccination indicate that partnering with community organizations to provide vaccinations in shelters, community centers and other frequently accessed places along with education and access to known, trusted healthcare providers greatly increase the uptake of vaccination among socially vulnerable populations
Beyond sheltered populations experiencing homelessness, considerations for equitable vaccination programs for the general population should include plans for accessibility for all, including underserved geographic regions
Category
Healthcare Services
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Health Planning
Vulnerable Populations
Vaccination
Population
All
Neonates
Infants
All Pediatrics
All adults
Aged (80+)
Homeless
Mental Health patients
Indigenous Peoples
Other
vulnerable populations
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Reeder, B; Hanson, L; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the vaccination strategies for vulnerable populations? 2021 Mar 12; Document no.: PH030401 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 33 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC011901 RR
Question Submitted
January 19, 2021
Date Completed
January 24, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC011901 RR
Question Submitted
January 19, 2021
Date Completed
January 24, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Initial findings from RCTs of the two authorized COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) reported that the vaccines are safe. However, subsequent reports show that the adverse and severe allergic reactions to these vaccines are higher than the general rates for vaccines.
Various regulatory agencies identify the risk for serious allergic reactions as low for the authorized vaccines, and they continue to monitor the vaccines’ safety closely.
Further investigations to make causal relationships with reported severe allergic reactions or deaths are needed.
Risks and benefits of receiving the vaccines should be discussed individually in vulnerable populations including pregnant or breast-feeding women, immunocompromised people, or frail elderly people.
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Vaccination
Risk
Infection Prevention and Control
Population
All adults
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Groot, G; Mueller, M; Young, C. How safe are the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations? 2021 Jan 24; Document no.: EOC011901 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 30 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
INF121501 RR
Question Submitted
December 15, 2020
Date Completed
December 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
INF121501 RR
Question Submitted
December 15, 2020
Date Completed
December 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Key Findings
· A recent evidence synthesis was completed by Public Health Ontario to answer a similar question. That synthesis has been deemed of sufficiently high quality and contains a recent enough evidence review to provide the necessary information to answer the question. Please refer to the attached document for the Key Points · We have reviewed the literature identified by our search that has been published since the time of the literature review in the Public Health Ontario evidence synthesis (i.e., between Oct 14, 2020 and Dec 15, 2020). No significant changes to the Key Points are noted. · Our team agrees with the conclusion of Public Health Ontario that the dominant mechanism of transmission is primarily through direct contact with respiratory droplets but that COVID-19 is an opportunistic airborne Rapid Review Report: INF121501 RR (Version 1: December 17, 2020 17:30) 2 pathogen, where aerosol transmission occurs under the right combination of conditions (for instance a poorly ventilated space where a high volume of virus can be produced and concentrated).
Category
Epidemiology
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Transmission
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Vanstone, J; Miller, L; Fox, L. How is COVID-19 transmitted from person-to-person and what is the most common source of transmission? 2020 Dec 15; Document no.: INF121501 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 11 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
INF121501 RR Table
Question Submitted
December 15, 2020
Date Completed
December 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Document Type
Table
Review Code
INF121501 RR Table
Question Submitted
December 15, 2020
Date Completed
December 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Category
Epidemiology
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Transmission
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Vanstone, J; Miller, L; Fox, L. How is COVID-19 transmitted from person-to-person and what is the most common source of transmission? 2020 Dec 17; Document no.: INF121501 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. (CEST table)
Related Documents
Documents

INF121501 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC100801 RR
Question Submitted
October 8, 2020
Date Completed
October 19, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC100801 RR
Question Submitted
October 8, 2020
Date Completed
October 19, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Well established that older individuals, particularly those with pre-existing conditions are at increased risk of severe disease and/or complications with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and volunteers should take this into consideration · No other evidence specific to healthcare workers or volunteers to guide age restriction policies
Category
Administration
Subject
Risk
Elderly
Facilities
Health Personnel
Population
Aged (80+)
Clinical Setting
Community
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Miller, L; Mueller, M. What are the age restrictions for healthcare workers/volunteer? 2020 Oct 19; Document no.: EOC100801 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 8 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail

27 records – page 1 of 2.