-
Journal of Psychosomatic Research Aug 2024Research shows that people with a history of mental health conditions were at increased risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, and mortality. However, the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Research shows that people with a history of mental health conditions were at increased risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, and mortality. However, the relationship between mental health conditions and COVID-19 vaccine outcomes such as vaccine intention, uptake and vaccine breakthrough is not yet well-understood.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search on the topics of COVID-19 vaccine intentions, vaccine uptake, and vaccine breakthrough, in relation to mental health conditions (e.g., depression, schizophrenia), in four databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and PsychINFO, and the publication lists of Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), The Health Improvement Network (THIN), OpenSAFELY, and QResearch. Inclusion criteria focussed on studies reporting any of the aforementioned COVID-19 vaccine outcomes among people with mental health conditions.
RESULTS
Of 251 publications initially identified, 32 met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the levels of intention to accept COVID-19 vaccines among people with mental health conditions. People with mental health conditions were more likely to have lower uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, compared to people without. Common barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake included concerns about the safety, effectiveness, and side effects of the vaccines. Limited evidence also suggests that vaccine breakthrough may be a particular risk for those with substance use disorder.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence for the association between COVID-19 vaccine intentions and mental health conditions is mixed. Vaccine uptake might be lower in people with mental health conditions compared to people without, yielding interventions to encourage vaccine uptake in this population. Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough in this population also needs enhancing.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Vaccines; COVID-19; Mental Disorders; Mental Health; SARS-CoV-2; Vaccination; Intention
PubMed: 38870550
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2024.111826 -
PloS One 2024Molecular tests can detect lower concentrations of viral genetic material over a longer period of respiratory infection than antigen tests. Delays associated with...
BACKGROUND
Molecular tests can detect lower concentrations of viral genetic material over a longer period of respiratory infection than antigen tests. Delays associated with central laboratory testing can result in hospital-acquired transmission, avoidable patient admission, and unnecessary use of antimicrobials, all which may lead to increased cost of patient management. The aim of this study was to summarize comparisons of clinical outcomes associated with rapid molecular diagnostic tests (RMDTs) versus other diagnostic tests for viral respiratory infections.
METHODS
A systematic literature review (SLR) conducted in April 2023 identified studies evaluating clinical outcomes of molecular and antigen diagnostic tests for patients suspected of having respiratory viral infections.
RESULTS
The SLR included 21 studies, of which seven and 14 compared RMDTs (conducted at points of care or at laboratories) to standard (non-rapid) molecular tests or antigen tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 and influenza, respectively. In studies testing for SARS-CoV-2, RMDTs led to reductions in time to test results versus standard molecular tests (range of the reported medians: 0.2-3.8 hours versus 4.3-35.9 hours), with similar length of emergency department stay (3.2-8 hours versus 3.7-28.8 hours). Similarly, in studies testing for influenza, RMDTs led to reductions in time to test results versus standard molecular tests (1-3.5 hours versus 18.2-29.2 hours), with similar length of emergency department stay (3.7-11 hours versus 3.8-11.9 hours). RMDTs were found to decrease exposure time of uninfected patients, rate of hospitalization, length of stay at the hospitals, and frequency of unnecessary antiviral and antibacterial therapy, while improving patient flow, compared to other tests.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to other diagnostic tests, RMDTs improve clinical outcomes, test turnaround time, and stewardship by decreasing unnecessary use of antibiotics and antivirals. They also reduce hospital admission and length of stay, which may, in turn, reduce unnecessary exposure of patients to hospital-acquired infections and their associated costs.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Molecular Diagnostic Techniques; Respiratory Tract Infections; SARS-CoV-2; Influenza, Human
PubMed: 38870136
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303560 -
PloS One 2024The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2).
METHODS
A search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until October 20, 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess the quality of included studies. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used to analyze data.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies including 10,011 patients were examined. The meta-analysis results showed that azvudine and standard of care/placebo (SOC/PBO) were significantly different concerning mortality rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 0.57) and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference = - 0.75, 95% CI: -1.29 to-0.21). However, the two groups did not show significant differences concerning hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and need for mechanical ventilation (P > 0.05). On the other hand, azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were significantly different in mortality rate (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.92), ICU admission (RR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.78), and need for mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.89), but the two treatments were not significantly different in negative PCR conversion time, and hospital stay (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse events between groups was not significant (P > 0.05). The certainty of evidence was rated as low or moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
The antiviral effectiveness of azvudine against SARS-COV-2 is questionable with regard to the certainty of evidence. Further research should be conducted to establish the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in COVID-19.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Antiviral Agents; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38870134
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298772 -
PloS One 2024The recent usage of immunotherapy combined with chemoradiotherapy has improved survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, determining the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of concurrent immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The recent usage of immunotherapy combined with chemoradiotherapy has improved survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, determining the most effective therapy combination remains a topic of debate. Research suggests immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) post-chemoradiotherapy enhance survival, but the impact of concurrent ICIs during chemoradiotherapy on rapid disease progression is unclear. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of concurrent ICIs with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for relevant studies, extracting data on overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
The analysis included ten studies with 490 participants. Stage III NSCLC ORR was 81.8%, while Stage IV ORR was 39.9%. One-year PFS and OS for Stage III were 68.2% and 82.6%, compared to 27.9% and 72.2% for Stage IV. Common adverse events included anemia (46.6%), nausea (47.6%), rash (36.4%), and radiation pneumonitis (36.3%).
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis shows concurrent ICIs with chemoradiotherapy are effective and safe in advanced NSCLC, particularly in stage III patients at risk of progression before starting ICIs after chemoradiotherapy. The findings support further phase III trials. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023493685) and is detailed on the NIHR HTA programme website.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Lung Neoplasms; Chemoradiotherapy; Progression-Free Survival; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38865375
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304941 -
Scientific Reports Jun 2024There have been 774,075,242 cases of COVID-19 and 7,012,986 deaths worldwide as of January 2024. In the early stages of the pandemic, there was an urgent need to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis, investigating dose and time of fluvoxamine treatment efficacy for COVID-19 clinical deterioration, death, and Long-COVID complications.
There have been 774,075,242 cases of COVID-19 and 7,012,986 deaths worldwide as of January 2024. In the early stages of the pandemic, there was an urgent need to reduce the severity of the disease and prevent the need for hospitalization to avoid stress on healthcare systems worldwide. The repurposing of drugs to prevent clinical deterioration of COVID-19 patients was trialed in many studies using many different drugs. Fluvoxamine (an SSRI and sigma-1 receptor agonist) was initially identified to potentially provide beneficial effects in COVID-19-infected patients, preventing clinical deterioration and the need for hospitalization. Fourteen clinical studies have been carried out to date, with seven of those being randomized placebo-controlled studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis covers the literature from the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019 until January 2024. Search terms related to fluvoxamine, such as its trade names and chemical names, along with words related to COVID-19, such as SARS-CoV-2 and coronavirus, were used in literature databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the ClinicalTrials.gov database from NIH, to identify the trials used in the subsequent analysis. Clinical deterioration and death data were extracted from these studies where available and used in the meta-analysis. A total of 7153 patients were studied across 14 studies (both open-label and double-blind placebo-controlled). 681 out of 3553 (19.17%) in the standard care group and 255 out of 3600 (7.08%) in the fluvoxamine-treated group experienced clinical deterioration. The estimated average log odds ratio was 1.087 (95% CI 0.200 to 1.973), which differed significantly from zero (z = 2.402, p = 0.016). The seven placebo-controlled studies resulted in a log odds ratio of 0.359 (95% CI 0.1111 to 0.5294), which differed significantly from zero (z = 3.103, p = 0.002). The results of this study identified fluvoxamine as effective in preventing clinical deterioration, and subgrouping analysis suggests that earlier treatment with a dose of 200 mg or above provides the best outcomes. We hope the outcomes of this study can help design future studies into respiratory viral infections and potentially improve clinical outcomes.
Topics: Fluvoxamine; Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; Clinical Deterioration; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 38862591
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-64260-9 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jun 2024This meta-analysis examines the comparative diagnostic performance of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) on different...
BACKGROUND
This meta-analysis examines the comparative diagnostic performance of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) on different respiratory tract samples, in both human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and non-HIV populations.
METHODS
A total of 55 articles met inclusion criteria, including 11 434 PCR assays on respiratory specimens from 7835 patients at risk of PCP. QUADAS-2 tool indicated low risk of bias across all studies. Using a bivariate and random-effects meta-regression analysis, the diagnostic performance of PCR against the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Mycoses Study Group definition of proven PCP was examined.
RESULTS
Quantitative PCR (qPCR) on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid provided the highest pooled sensitivity of 98.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.8%-99.5%), adequate specificity of 89.3% (95% CI, 84.4%-92.7%), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.014, and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 9.19. qPCR on induced sputum provided similarly high sensitivity of 99.0% (95% CI, 94.4%-99.3%) but a reduced specificity of 81.5% (95% CI, 72.1%-88.3%), LR- of 0.024, and LR+ of 5.30. qPCR on upper respiratory tract samples provided lower sensitivity of 89.2% (95% CI, 71.0%-96.5%), high specificity of 90.5% (95% CI, 80.9%-95.5%), LR- of 0.120, and LR+ of 9.34. There was no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity of PCR according to HIV status of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
On deeper respiratory tract specimens, PCR negativity can be used to confidently exclude PCP, but PCR positivity will likely require clinical interpretation to distinguish between colonization and active infection, partially dependent on the strength of the PCR signal (indicative of fungal burden), the specimen type, and patient population tested.
PubMed: 38860786
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciae239 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2024The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of Vitamin A (VitA) as an adjuvant therapy for pediatric Pneumonia (MPP) through meta-analysis, and to investigate... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of Vitamin A (VitA) as an adjuvant therapy for pediatric Pneumonia (MPP) through meta-analysis, and to investigate its impact on inflammation levels (IL-6, IL-10), in order to explore the role of VitA in pediatric MPP.
METHODS
Using a systematic literature search method, relevant research literature is searched, and RCT studies that meet the requirements are selected based on preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then, a quality evaluation was conducted on the included literature, and meta-analysis was used to calculate the combined effect values of mortality rate, hospital stay, lung rale disappearance time, cough duration, fever duration, IL-6 and IL-10 levels, and heterogeneity analysis was conducted. The levels of IL-6 and IL-10 represent the inflammatory levels in pediatric MPP patients, and exploring their changes has significant implications for the anti-inflammatory effect of treatment.
RESULTS
A total of 10 RCT studies were included, with a total sample size of 1,485, including 750 cases in the control group and 735 cases in the observation group. The meta-analysis results of this study showed that there was a significant difference in the total clinical efficacy of using VitA adjuvant therapy compared to the control group without VitA [OR = 3.07, 95%CI = (2.81, 4.27)], < 0.05. However, there was no significant difference in the adverse reaction rate between the use of VitA as an adjuvant therapy and the control without VitA [OR = 1.17, 95%CI = (0.61, 2.27)], > 0.05. At the same time, the hospitalization time [MSD = -0.86, 95% CI = (-1.61, -0.21)], lung rale disappearance time [MSD = -0.78, 95%CI = (-1.19,-0.51)], cough duration [MSD = -1.07, 95%CI = (-1.41, -0.71)], and fever duration [MSD = -0.47, 95%CI = (-0.72, -0.23)] using VitA as an adjuvant treatment were obviously lower. In addition, the meta-analysis outcomes also showed that the use of VitA adjuvant therapy can significantly reduce IL-6 [MSD = -1.07, 95%CI = (-1.81, -0.27)] and IL-10 [MSD = -0.13, 95%CI = (-0.31, 0.12)] levels. This indicates that the application of VitA in pediatric MPP also has the effect of reducing inflammatory response.
CONCLUSION
Based on the meta-analysis results, VitA adjuvant therapy can significantly improve the clinical symptoms of pediatric MPP patients, shorten hospitalization time, promote the disappearance of lung rales, and alleviate cough and fever symptoms. In addition, VitA adjuvant therapy can effectively reduce inflammation levels, indicating its potential role in inhibiting inflammatory responses. In clinical practice, VitA adjuvant therapy for pediatric MPP can be promoted as a potential treatment option.
PubMed: 38859981
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2024.1345458 -
BMC Psychology Jun 2024As future physicians, medical students have experienced tremendous pressure during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which is associated with a high risk of depression and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
As future physicians, medical students have experienced tremendous pressure during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which is associated with a high risk of depression and anxiety. We aimed to investigate an overview of the prevalence of anxiety and depression among medical students in various countries during the global COVID-19 pandemic, and discuss associated stressors.
METHODS
We systematically searched CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science for relevant articles from December 1, 2019 to March 15, 2023. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model with REML method to calculate the pooled prevalence of anxiety and depression. Begg's and Egger's tests were used to identify the potential risk of publication bias. Meta-regression was used to explore potential sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
We identified 130 studies reporting anxiety and depression among 132,068 medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eight screening tools were identified for anxiety and six for depression. The pooled prevalence of mental health outcomes for anxiety and depression was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40%-49%) and 48% (95% CI, 43%-52%), respectively. The pooled prevalence of mental health outcomes for moderate and severe anxiety and moderate and severe depression was 28% (95% CI, 24%-32%) and 30% (95% CI, 26%-35%), respectively. There was high heterogeneity between studies, with I ranging from 99.58%-99.66%. Continent and survey date were included in the meta-regression model. The results of meta-regression revealed that medical students in Asia had a lower prevalence of anxiety, and depression than those in other regions. The survey date (from February to June, 2020) showed a significantly positive correlation with the prevalence of anxiety and depression.
CONCLUSIONS
We demonstrated the global prevalence of anxiety and depression among medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. The data highlight that medical students worldwide are at high risk of experiencing anxiety and depression. The reported stressors can be categorized into personal, academic, environmental and cultural, and pandemic factors. Schools and institutions should ensure optimal alternative learning environments for uninterrupted provision of medical education. The appropriate authorities should prioritize the provision of adequate protection for medical students and establish policies to promote new methods of training and education during a disaster, such as via distance learning.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Students, Medical; Prevalence; Depression; Anxiety; Global Health; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 38858700
DOI: 10.1186/s40359-024-01838-y -
Diabetic Medicine : a Journal of the... Jun 2024Diabetes is known to increase morbidity and mortality after major surgery. However, literature is conflicting on whether elevated preoperative haemoglobin A (HbA) levels... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Diabetes is known to increase morbidity and mortality after major surgery. However, literature is conflicting on whether elevated preoperative haemoglobin A (HbA) levels are associated with worse outcomes following major noncardiac surgery. We aimed to investigate the effect of incremental preoperative HbA levels on postoperative outcomes in adults who had undergone major noncardiac surgery.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases for eligible studies published between January 2012 and July 2023. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies (cohort and case-control studies) which measured HbA within 6 months before surgery and compared outcomes between at least three incremental subgroups or analysed HbA as a continuous variable were included. The systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023391946).
RESULTS
Twenty observational studies investigating outcomes across multiple surgical types were included. Higher preoperative HbA levels were associated with increased odds of overall postoperative complications, postoperative acute kidney injury, anastomotic leak, surgical site infections and increased length of stay. Each 1% increase in preoperative HbA was associated with increased odds of these complications. No association with reoperations and 30-day mortality was identified. The literature was highly variable with respect to composite major complications, perioperative cardiovascular events, hospital readmissions, postoperative pneumonia and systemic thromboembolism.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggested that higher preoperative HbA levels were associated with increased odds of postoperative complications and extended length of stay in adults undergoing major noncardiac surgery. Further high-quality studies would be needed to quantify the risks posed and determine whether early intervention improves outcomes.
PubMed: 38853752
DOI: 10.1111/dme.15380 -
Journal of Translational Medicine Jun 2024The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a serious public health issue. In COVID-19 patients, the elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines lead to the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a serious public health issue. In COVID-19 patients, the elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines lead to the manifestation of COVID-19 symptoms, such as lung tissue edema, lung diffusion dysfunction, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), secondary infection, and ultimately mortality. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) exhibit anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties, thus providing a potential treatment option for COVID-19. The number of clinical trials of MSCs for COVID-19 has been rising. However, the treatment protocols and therapeutic effects of MSCs for COVID-19 patients are inconsistent. This meta-analysis was performed to systematically determine the safety and efficacy of MSC infusion in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search from PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to 22 November 2023 to screen for eligible randomized controlled trials. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for searched literature were formulated according to the PICOS principle, followed by the use of literature quality assessment tools to assess the risk of bias. Finally, outcome measurements including therapeutic efficacy, clinical symptoms, and adverse events of each study were extracted for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 14 randomized controlled trials were collected. The results of enrolled studies demonstrated that patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received MSC inoculation showed a decreased mortality compared with counterparts who received conventional treatment (RR: 0.76; 95% CI [0.60, 0.96]; p = 0.02). Reciprocally, MSC inoculation improved the clinical symptoms in patients (RR: 1.28; 95% CI [1.06, 1.55]; p = 0.009). In terms of immune biomarkers, MSC treatment inhibited inflammation responses in COVID-19 patients, as was indicated by the decreased levels of CRP and IL-6. Importantly, our results showed that no significant differences in the incidence of adverse reactions or serious adverse events were monitored in patients after MSC inoculation.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrated that MSC inoculation is effective and safe in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Without increasing the incidence of adverse events or serious adverse events, MSC treatment decreased patient mortality and inflammatory levels and improved the clinical symptoms in COVID-19 patients. However, large-cohort randomized controlled trials with expanded numbers of patients are required to further confirm our results.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; Mesenchymal Stem Cells
PubMed: 38851730
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-024-05358-6