-
International Journal of Molecular... Aug 2022Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a viral agent that causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that causes flu-like symptoms... (Review)
Review
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a viral agent that causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that causes flu-like symptoms that, when exacerbated, can have life-threatening consequences. COVID-19 has been linked to persistent symptoms, sequelae, and medical complications that can last months after the initial infection. This systematic review aims to elucidate the innate and adaptive immune mechanisms involved and identify potential characteristics of COVID-19 pathology that may increase symptom duration. We also describe he three different stages of COVID-19-viral replication, immune hyperactivation, and post-acute sequelae-as well as each phase's corresponding immune response. Finally, we use this multiphasic approach to describe different treatment approaches for each of the three stages-antivirals, immunosuppressants and monoclonal antibodies, and continued immunosuppressants-to fully curate the treatment to the stage of disease.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35955740
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23158606 -
Communications Medicine Oct 2023Heterogeneity in type 2 diabetes presentation and progression suggests that precision medicine interventions could improve clinical outcomes. We undertook a systematic...
BACKGROUND
Heterogeneity in type 2 diabetes presentation and progression suggests that precision medicine interventions could improve clinical outcomes. We undertook a systematic review to determine whether strategies to subclassify type 2 diabetes were associated with high quality evidence, reproducible results and improved outcomes for patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase for publications that used 'simple subclassification' approaches using simple categorisation of clinical characteristics, or 'complex subclassification' approaches which used machine learning or 'omics approaches in people with established type 2 diabetes. We excluded other diabetes subtypes and those predicting incident type 2 diabetes. We assessed quality, reproducibility and clinical relevance of extracted full-text articles and qualitatively synthesised a summary of subclassification approaches.
RESULTS
Here we show data from 51 studies that demonstrate many simple stratification approaches, but none have been replicated and many are not associated with meaningful clinical outcomes. Complex stratification was reviewed in 62 studies and produced reproducible subtypes of type 2 diabetes that are associated with outcomes. Both approaches require a higher grade of evidence but support the premise that type 2 diabetes can be subclassified into clinically meaningful subtypes.
CONCLUSION
Critical next steps toward clinical implementation are to test whether subtypes exist in more diverse ancestries and whether tailoring interventions to subtypes will improve outcomes.
PubMed: 37798471
DOI: 10.1038/s43856-023-00360-3 -
Environmental Research Feb 2021The amount of natural vegetation surrounding homes (residential greenness) has been proposed as a mitigation measure to buffer the adverse health effects of urban... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The amount of natural vegetation surrounding homes (residential greenness) has been proposed as a mitigation measure to buffer the adverse health effects of urban living, associated with promoting health and wellbeing including birth outcomes. This study aimed to systematically review the epidemiological evidence on the association of residential greenness with birth outcomes and quantitatively provide summary effect estimates of the current literature.
METHODS
We extensively searched epidemiological studies related to residential greenness and birth outcomes in three electronic databases (EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed) using terms related to residential greenness and birth outcomes before July 10, 2020. Summary effect estimates of residential greenness on birth outcomes including SGA (small for gestational age), PTB (preterm birth), LBW (low birth weight), and birth weight were calculated for each 0.1 unit increase in residential greenness exposure, as well as comparing the highest to the lowest categories using random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of each individual study, and the overall quality of the body of evidence and level of evidence for each exposure-outcome were also evaluated.
RESULTS
The initial search identified 161 studies, of which 29 studies were finally included. Meta-analysis for continuous exposure suggested that an increase in residential greenness, measured by NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) with different buffer sizes, was generally associated with higher birth weights ranging from 7.99 g [95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.29-11.70] to 15.35 g (95% CI = 11.41-19.29) and lower odds of LBW ranging from 0.79 (95% CI = 0.65-0.96) to 0.93 (95% CI = 0.86-1.00), but associations between residential greenness and PTB or SGA were not significant. When introducing the exposure as high versus low categories, similar results were found. The overall evidence for each exposure-outcome combination was considered to be of "moderate" certainty.
CONCLUSIONS
This study indicated a potential positive association between residential greenness and several birth outcomes. However, because of the moderate to high between-study heterogeneity, further studies with better adjustment of covariates, improved residential greenness assessment in a longitudinal approach throughout pregnancy rather than a cross-sectional approach at time of delivery, and accounting thoroughly for socioeconomic status, are warranted to replicate these findings as well as to explore in greater detail in their implications.
Topics: Birth Weight; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth
PubMed: 33307084
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.110599 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2023To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools.
BACKGROUND
To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.
METHODS
For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.
CONCLUSION
An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Alendronate; Canada; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Hip Fractures; Osteoporotic Fractures; Primary Health Care; Primary Prevention; Risedronic Acid; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 36945065
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02181-w -
Neurosurgical Focus Jan 2022The utility of robotic instrumentation is expanding in neurosurgery. Despite this, successful examples of robotic implementation for endoscopic endonasal or skull base...
OBJECTIVE
The utility of robotic instrumentation is expanding in neurosurgery. Despite this, successful examples of robotic implementation for endoscopic endonasal or skull base neurosurgery remain limited. Therefore, the authors performed a systematic review of the literature to identify all articles that used robotic systems to access the sella or anterior, middle, or posterior cranial fossae.
METHODS
A systematic review of MEDLINE and PubMed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines performed for articles published between January 1, 1990, and August 1, 2021, was conducted to identify all robotic systems (autonomous, semiautonomous, or surgeon-controlled) used for skull base neurosurgical procedures. Cadaveric and human clinical studies were included. Studies with exclusively otorhinolaryngological applications or using robotic microscopes were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 561 studies were identified from the initial search, of which 22 were included following full-text review. Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) using the da Vinci Surgical System was the most widely reported system (4 studies) utilized for skull base and pituitary fossa procedures; additionally, it has been reported for resection of sellar masses in 4 patients. Seven cadaveric studies used the da Vinci Surgical System to access the skull base using alternative, non-TORS approaches (e.g., transnasal, transmaxillary, and supraorbital). Five cadaveric studies investigated alternative systems to access the skull base. Six studies investigated the use of robotic endoscope holders. Advantages to robotic applications in skull base neurosurgery included improved lighting and 3D visualization, replication of more traditional gesture-based movements, and the ability for dexterous movements ordinarily constrained by small operative corridors. Limitations included the size and angulation capacity of the robot, lack of drilling components preventing fully robotic procedures, and cost. Robotic endoscope holders may have been particularly advantageous when the use of a surgical assistant or second surgeon was limited.
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic skull base neurosurgery has been growing in popularity and feasibility, but significant limitations remain. While robotic systems seem to have allowed for greater maneuverability and 3D visualization, their size and lack of neurosurgery-specific tools have continued to prevent widespread adoption into current practice. The next generation of robotic technologies should prioritize overcoming these limitations.
Topics: Humans; Neurosurgery; Neurosurgical Procedures; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Skull Base
PubMed: 34973668
DOI: 10.3171/2021.10.FOCUS21505 -
Brain Sciences Nov 2022Thyroid hormone (TH) augmentation, although commonly used for major depression, is sparingly used for bipolar disorder (BD) after the failure of mood-stabilizing agents.... (Review)
Review
Thyroid hormone (TH) augmentation, although commonly used for major depression, is sparingly used for bipolar disorder (BD) after the failure of mood-stabilizing agents. While the exact mechanisms of thyroid hormone action in BD remains unclear, central thyroid hormone deficit has been postulated as a mechanism for rapid cycling. This systematic review-conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines-of eight studies synthesizes the evidence for TH augmentation in BD. A systematic search of the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCT), open-label trials, and observational studies of levothyroxine (LT4) and triiodothyronine (T3) for BD. Open-label studies of high dose LT4 augmentation for bipolar depression and rapid cycling showed improvement in depression outcomes and reduction in recurrence, respectively. However, an RCT of high-dose LT4 did not show benefit in contrast to placebo. An RCT comparing LT4, T3, and placebo showed benefit only in rapid-cycling bipolar women. A meta-analysis could not be completed due to significant differences in study designs, interventions, and outcomes. Our systematic review shows mixed evidence and a lack of high-quality studies. The initial promise of supratherapeutic LT4 augmentation from open-label trials has not been consistently replicated in RCTs. Limited data are available for T3. The studies did not report significant thyrotoxicosis, and TH augmentation were well tolerated. Therefore, TH augmentation, especially with supratherapeutic doses, should be reserved for highly treatment-resistant bipolar depression and rapid-cycling BD.
PubMed: 36421864
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12111540 -
Current Topics in Behavioral... 2022Drug addiction is a complex brain disorder that is characterized by craving, withdrawal, and relapse, which can be perpetuated by social stress. Stemming from an acute...
BACKGROUND
Drug addiction is a complex brain disorder that is characterized by craving, withdrawal, and relapse, which can be perpetuated by social stress. Stemming from an acute life event, chronic stress, or trauma in a social context, social stress has a major role in the initiation and trajectory of substance use. Preclinical literature shows that early life stress exposure and social isolation facilitate and enhance drug self-administration. Epidemiological evidence links childhood adversity to increased risk for drug use and demonstrates that cumulative stress experiences are predictive of substance use severity in a dose-dependent manner. Stress and drug use induce overlapping brain alterations leading to downregulation or deficits in brain reward circuitry, thereby resulting in greater sensitization to the rewarding properties of drugs. Though stress in the context of addiction has been studied at the neural level, a gap in our understanding of the neural underpinnings of social stress in humans remains.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of in vivo structural and functional neuroimaging studies to evaluate the neural processes associated with social stress in individuals with substance use disorder. Results were considered in relation to participants' history of social stress and with regard to the effects of social stress induced during the neuroimaging paradigm.
RESULTS
An exhaustive search yielded 21 studies that matched inclusion criteria. Social stress induces broad structural and functional neural effects in individuals with substance use disorder throughout their lifespan and across drug classes. A few patterns emerged across studies: (1) many of the brain regions altered in individuals who were exposed to chronic social stress and during acute stress induction have been implicated in addiction networks (including the prefrontal cortex, insula, hippocampus, and amygdala); (2) individuals with childhood maltreatment and substance use history had decreased gray matter or activation in regions of executive functioning (including the medial prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex), the hippocampal complex, and the supplementary motor area; and (3) during stress-induction paradigms, activation in the anterior cingulate cortex, caudate, and amygdala was most commonly observed.
CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS
A distinct overlap is shown between social stress-related circuitry and addiction circuitry, particularly in brain regions implicated in drug-seeking, craving, and relapse. Given the few studies that have thoroughly investigated social stress, the evidence accumulated to date needs to be replicated and extended, particularly using research designs and methods that disentangle the effects of substance use from social stress. Future clinical studies can leverage this information to evaluate the impact of exposure to trauma or adverse life events within substance use research. Expanding knowledge in this emerging field could help clarify neural mechanisms underlying addiction risk and progression to guide causal-experimental inquiry and novel prevention and treatment strategies.
Topics: Behavior, Addictive; Brain; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Recurrence; Stress, Psychological; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34971448
DOI: 10.1007/7854_2021_272 -
Animals : An Open Access Journal From... May 2023Many different animal models are in use for drug development for leishmaniasis, but a universal model does not exist. There is a plethora of models, and this review... (Review)
Review
Many different animal models are in use for drug development for leishmaniasis, but a universal model does not exist. There is a plethora of models, and this review assesses their design, quality, and limitations, including the attention paid to animal welfare in the study design and execution. A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines of available literature after the year 2000 describing animal models for leishmaniasis. The risk of bias was determined using the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias assessment tool. A total of 10,980 records were initially identified after searching the databases PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, and SciELO. Based on the application of predetermined exclusion and inclusion criteria, a total of 203 papers describing 216 animal experiments were available for full analysis. Major reasons for exclusion were a lack of essential study information or appropriate ethical review and approval. Mice (82.8%; an average of 35.9 animals per study) and hamsters (17.1%; an average of 7.4 animals per study) were the most frequently used animals, mostly commercially sourced, in the included studies. All studies lacked a formal sample size analysis. The promastigote stages of or were most frequently used to establish experimental infections (single inoculum). Animal welfare was poorly addressed in all included studies, as the definition of a human end-point or consideration of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) was hardly addressed. Most animals were euthanized at the termination of the experiment. The majority of the studies had an unknown or high risk of bias. Animal experiments for drug development for leishmaniasis mainly poorly designed and of low quality, lack appropriate ethical review, and are deficient in essential information needed to replicate and interpret the study. Importantly, aspects of animal welfare are hardly considered. This underpins the need to better consider and record the details of the study design and animal welfare.
PubMed: 37238080
DOI: 10.3390/ani13101650 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2022This study showed the effectiveness of biomedical interventions in obesity, diabetes and hypertension (NCDs), but innovative and intersectoral elements in the fight... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
This study showed the effectiveness of biomedical interventions in obesity, diabetes and hypertension (NCDs), but innovative and intersectoral elements in the fight against obesity, type 2 diabetes and hypertension were rare.
BACKGROUND
Is it possible to find effective and innovative actions to promote health and prevent NCDs in Brazilian municipalities? Can they be replicated?
OBJECTIVE
Our objectives were to identify innovative and effective intersectoral actions for promoting and preventing NCDs in Brazilian municipalities.
METHODS
This is a systematic review in an exploratory theoretical essay with a qualitative and quantitative approach. It is descriptive and analytical in terms of reporting findings and results. Inclusion and exclusion criteria favored health promotion work. Bias risk assessments was performed using the Cochrane GRADE and bias risk, with meta-analyses using RevMan and Iramuteq.
RESULTS
Meta-analysis of biometric markers resulted in -4.46 [95% IC; -5.42, -3.49], = 0.00001, indicating a reduction in NCD risk rates. The textual meta-analysis revealed P(r) ≈ 83% (Reinert), meaning low connectivity between the 'halos'.
CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence of the effectiveness in interventions, but innovative and intersectoral elements to combat and prevent NCDs were barely seen. While evidence of intervention effectiveness was observed, innovative and intersectoral elements to combat and prevent NCDs were barely noticed.
Topics: Humans; Brazil; Cities; Health Promotion; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Hypertension; Obesity
PubMed: 36293640
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192013059 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine with properties to inhibit viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. Positive results from early studies attracted media attention and led to...
BACKGROUND
Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine with properties to inhibit viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. Positive results from early studies attracted media attention and led to emergency use authorisation of remdesivir in COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effects of remdesivir as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of remdesivir compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 16 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised adults compared to placebo or standard care alone irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation, duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen, new need for mechanical ventilation (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen, new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, quality of life, adverse events (any grade), and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs with 7452 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 59 years, of whom 3886 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen (n=4409) or mechanical ventilation (n=1025) at baseline. We identified two ongoing studies, one was suspended due to a lack of COVID-19 patients to recruit. Risk of bias was considered to be of some concerns or high risk for clinical status and safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information to these outcomes. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals Remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 7 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Considering the initial severity of condition, only one study showed a beneficial effect of remdesivir in patients who received low-flow oxygen at baseline (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66, 435 participants), but conflicting results exists from another study, and we were unable to validly assess this observations due to limited availability of comparable data. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on the duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (2 studies, 1298 participants, data not pooled, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases the chance of clinical improvement in terms of duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen at up to day 28 (3 studies, 1691 participants, data not pooled, very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether remdesivir decreases or increases the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for mechanical ventilation at up to day 28 (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 68 fewer to 32 more; 3 studies, 6696 participants; very low-certainty evidence); new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98; RD 72 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 118 fewer to 5 fewer; 1 study, 573 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22; RD 84 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 204 fewer to 98 more; 1 study, 138 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that remdesivir may decrease the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for invasive mechanical ventilation (67 fewer participants amongst 1000 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.77; 2 studies, 1159 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported quality of life. Remdesivir probably decreases the serious adverse events rate at up to 28 days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD 63 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 94 fewer to 25 fewer; 3 studies, 1674 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases adverse events rate (any grade) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 82 fewer to 158 more; 3 studies, 1674 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the currently available evidence, we are moderately certain that remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 in hospitalised adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are uncertain about the effects of remdesivir on clinical improvement and worsening. There were insufficient data available to validly examine the effect of remdesivir on mortality in subgroups depending on the extent of respiratory support at baseline. Future studies should provide additional data on efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups. This could allow us to draw more reliable conclusions on the potential benefits and harms of remdesivir in future updates of this review. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Antiviral Agents; Bias; COVID-19; Cause of Death; Confidence Intervals; Disease Progression; Humans; Middle Aged; Oxygen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; Ventilator Weaning; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34350582
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014962