Noam Barda

Bio: Noam Barda is an academic researcher from Clalit Health Services. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Population. The author has an hindex of 10, co-authored 29 publications receiving 1526 citations. Previous affiliations of Noam Barda include Ben-Gurion University of the Negev & Harvard University.

BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting.

Abstract: Background As mass vaccination campaigns against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) commence worldwide, vaccine effectiveness needs to be assessed for a range of outcomes across diverse p...

Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting.

Abstract: Background Preapproval trials showed that messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had a good safety profile, yet these tria...

Prediction of acute myeloid leukaemia risk in healthy individuals

Abstract: The incidence of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) increases with age and mortality exceeds 90% when diagnosed after age 65. Most cases arise without any detectable early symptoms and patients usually present with the acute complications of bone marrow failure1. The onset of such de novo AML cases is typically preceded by the accumulation of somatic mutations in preleukaemic haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) that undergo clonal expansion2,3. However, recurrent AML mutations also accumulate in HSPCs during ageing of healthy individuals who do not develop AML, a phenomenon referred to as age-related clonal haematopoiesis (ARCH)4–8. Here we use deep sequencing to analyse genes that are recurrently mutated in AML to distinguish between individuals who have a high risk of developing AML and those with benign ARCH. We analysed peripheral blood cells from 95 individuals that were obtained on average 6.3 years before AML diagnosis (pre-AML group), together with 414 unselected age- and gender-matched individuals (control group). Pre-AML cases were distinct from controls and had more mutations per sample, higher variant allele frequencies, indicating greater clonal expansion, and showed enrichment of mutations in specific genes. Genetic parameters were used to derive a model that accurately predicted AML-free survival; this model was validated in an independent cohort of 29 pre-AML cases and 262 controls. Because AML is rare, we also developed an AML predictive model using a large electronic health record database that identified individuals at greater risk. Collectively our findings provide proof-of-concept that it is possible to discriminate ARCH from pre-AML many years before malignant transformation. This could in future enable earlier detection and monitoring, and may help to inform intervention.

Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy.

Abstract: To evaluate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine in pregnant women, we conducted an observational cohort study of pregnant women aged 16 years or older, with no history of SARS-CoV-2, who were vaccinated between 20 December 2020 and 3 June 2021. A total of 10,861 vaccinated pregnant women were matched to 10,861 unvaccinated pregnant controls using demographic and clinical characteristics. Study outcomes included documented infection with SARS-CoV-2, symptomatic COVID-19, COVID-19-related hospitalization, severe illness and death. Estimated vaccine effectiveness from 7 through to 56 d after the second dose was 96% (95% confidence interval 89-100%) for any documented infection, 97% (91-100%) for infections with documented symptoms and 89% (43-100%) for COVID-19-related hospitalization. Only one event of severe illness was observed in the unvaccinated group and no deaths were observed in either group. In summary, the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was estimated to have high vaccine effectiveness in pregnant women, which is similar to the effectiveness estimated in the general population.

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

Abstract: Objective To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. Design Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. Data sources PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. Study selection Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. Data extraction At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). Results 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. Conclusion Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. Systematic review registration Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant.

Abstract: Background The B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), has contributed to ...

Covid-19 Breakthrough Infections in Vaccinated Health Care Workers.

Abstract: Background Despite the high efficacy of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), rare breakthrough infections have been repo...

A global database of COVID-19 vaccinations.

Abstract: An effective rollout of vaccinations against COVID-19 offers the most promising prospect of bringing the pandemic to an end. We present the Our World in Data COVID-19 vaccination dataset, a global public dataset that tracks the scale and rate of the vaccine rollout across the world. This dataset is updated regularly and includes data on the total number of vaccinations administered, first and second doses administered, daily vaccination rates and population-adjusted coverage for all countries for which data are available (169 countries as of 7 April 2021). It will be maintained as the global vaccination campaign continues to progress. This resource aids policymakers and researchers in understanding the rate of current and potential vaccine rollout; the interactions with non-vaccination policy responses; the potential impact of vaccinations on pandemic outcomes such as transmission, morbidity and mortality; and global inequalities in vaccine access.