Skip header and navigation

3 records – page 1 of 1.

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
Rapid Review
Review Code
PPE110201 RR
Question Submitted
November 2, 2020
Date Completed
November 20, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Personal Protective Equipment
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PPE110201 RR
Question Submitted
November 2, 2020
Date Completed
November 20, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Personal Protective Equipment
Key Findings
N95 respirators that have been reprocessed demonstrate acceptable fit and filtration performance under laboratory conditions
Increased use over time both in terms of length of wear and number of donning/doffings increases the likelihood of fit failure
Reprocessing masks does not render them to ‘new’ condition
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Face Masks
Health Personnel
Population
Other
Clinical Setting
Other
all clinical (and non) settings
Priority Level
Level 4 Three weeks (21 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M; Miller, L. What is the evidence to support the reprocessing and re-use of N95 respirators by healthcare workers? 2020 Nov 20; Document no.: PPE110201 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
EOC110401 RR
Question Submitted
November 4, 2020
Date Completed
November 10, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC110401 RR
Question Submitted
November 4, 2020
Date Completed
November 10, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
An optimal surveillance strategy for COVID-19 infection in healthcare workers (HCWs) has yet to be determined.
Weekly screening of HCWs for infection through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing would reduce their contribution to SARS-CoV-2 transmission by approximately one quarter.
Any testing surveillance strategy should be in addition to other strategies already in place to identify symptomatic HCW.
Any strategy needs to take into consideration the availability of testing (i.e. feasibility) and the level of community transmission (i.e. the risk of asymptomatic HCWs entering the facility and spreading the virus).
HCWs could be categorized as high, medium, or low risk based upon their exposure to COVID-19 and the frequency of surveillance could be designed accordingly.
Category
Diagnostics
Administration
Subject
Testing
Screening
Health Personnel
Risk
Population
Other
Clinical Setting
Other
All
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Newaz, S; Lee, S; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Young, C; Fox, L. What surveillance strategy is most effective for COVID-19 testing in healthcare workers? 2020 Nov 10; Document no.: EOC110401 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 26 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail