-
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health Dec 2023Stigma reduces access to alcohol and other drug (AOD) support. This systematic review explored perceptions and experiences of stigma associated with AOD use among... (Review)
Review
Stigma reduces access to alcohol and other drug (AOD) support. This systematic review explored perceptions and experiences of stigma associated with AOD use among migrant and ethnic minority groups. Qualitative studies published in English were identified using six databases. Two reviewers screened and critically appraised articles using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for qualitative studies. Data were synthesised using best fit framework synthesis. Twenty-three studies were included. Stigma drivers and facilitators included stereotypes, socio-cultural norms, legal responses and precarious lived experiences. Stigma intersected with gender, citizenship, race and ethnicity and manifested though shame, exclusion, secondary stigma and discrimination in treatment. Outcomes and impacts included avoidance of services, emotional distress, isolation and loneliness. This review identified similar stigma experiences to other populations, however outcomes were complicated by precarious lived experiences and multiple stigmatised identities. Multi-level interventions are required to reduce AOD-related stigma for migrant and ethnic minority groups.
Topics: Humans; Ethnicity; Minority Groups; Ethnic and Racial Minorities; Transients and Migrants; Qualitative Research
PubMed: 36976449
DOI: 10.1007/s10903-023-01468-3 -
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 -
Hepatology Communications Apr 2023Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are almost exclusively approved for the treatment of chronic HCV. This poses a significant barrier to the treatment of recently acquired... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are almost exclusively approved for the treatment of chronic HCV. This poses a significant barrier to the treatment of recently acquired HCV because of the limited access to DAAs. This review seeks to address this issue by synthesizing evidence of the benefits and harms of immediate treatment after the detection of recently acquired HCV in people at higher risk of infection.
APPROACH AND RESULTS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted reporting on populations with recently acquired HCV at higher risk of infection. Studies were included if they assessed standard duration DAA treatment regimens and reported on the benefits and harms of immediate treatment (within one year of diagnosis). Outcomes included sustained virological response at 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12), incidence, treatment initiation and adherence, overtreatment, engagement in care, and adverse events. Eight cohort studies, 3 open-label trials, and 1 case series study were included, reporting on 2085 participants with recently acquired HCV infection. No studies included a comparison group. Eight studies assessed DAA treatment in either men who have sex with men or men who have sex with men with HIV, 2 studies assessed treatment in people who inject drugs, and 2 among people living with HIV. Immediate treatment of HCV was associated with a pooled SVR12 of 95.9% (95% CI, 92.6%-99.3%). Three studies reported on hepatitis C incidence, where most participants were treated in the chronic phase of infection. A treatment completion rate of 100% was reported in 2 studies, and only 1 serious adverse event was described.
CONCLUSIONS
High rates of cure were achieved with the treatment of recently acquired hepatitis C in people at higher risk of infection. Serious adverse events were rare, highlighting individual benefits consistent with the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. The impact of immediate treatment on HCV incidence requires further evaluation.
Topics: Male; Humans; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Homosexuality, Male; Sexual and Gender Minorities; Hepatitis C; Hepacivirus; HIV Infections; Risk-Taking
PubMed: 36930865
DOI: 10.1097/HC9.0000000000000082 -
European Review For Medical and... Feb 2023The triplet regimen based on the programmed cell death 1 (PD1)/ programmed cell death ligand 1 (PDL1) inhibitors combined radiotherapy and antiangiogenic drugs is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The triplet regimen based on the programmed cell death 1 (PD1)/ programmed cell death ligand 1 (PDL1) inhibitors combined radiotherapy and antiangiogenic drugs is a novel therapeutic strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the triplet therapeutic regimen in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched scientific literature databases and clinical trial databases through October 31, 2022, for required studies. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) was used to analyze the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and the pooled relative risk (RR) was used to analyze the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), mortality rate (MR), and adverse events (AEs) through random or fixed effects model, 95% confidence interval (CI) was determined for all outcomes. Qualities of the included literature were assessed by MINORS Critical appraisal checklist. Funnel plot was used to assess publication bias in the included studies.
RESULTS
Five studies (3 single-arm and 2 non-randomized comparative trials), including 358 cases, were enrolled. Meta-analysis showed that the pooled ORR, DCR, and MR were 51% (95% CI: 34%-68%), 86% (95% CI: 69-102%), and 38% (95% CI: 18-59%), respectively. Compared with triplet regimen, the single or dual-combination treatments had shorter OS (HR=0.53, 95%: 0.34-0.83 via univariate analysis; HR=0.49, 95%: 0.31-0.78 via multivariable analysis) and PFS (HR=0.52, 95%: 0.35-0.77 via univariate analysis; HR=0.54, 95%: 0.36-0.80 via multivariable analysis). Common AEs to triplet regimens included skin reaction (17%), nausea/vomiting (27%), fatigue (23%), while severe AEs (10%), fever (18%), diarrhea (15%), and hypertension (5%) without statistically significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS
In the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, PD1/PDL1 inhibitors combined radiotherapy and antiangiogenic drugs achieved better survival benefits than alone or dual-combination regimens. In addition, the triple-combination therapy has tolerable safety.
Topics: Humans; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Checklist; Liver Neoplasms
PubMed: 36876689
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202302_31390 -
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open Jun 2023Genicular artery embolization (GAE) is a novel, minimally invasive procedure for treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). This meta-analysis investigated the safety and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Genicular artery embolization (GAE) is a novel, minimally invasive procedure for treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). This meta-analysis investigated the safety and effectiveness of this procedure.
DESIGN
Outcomes of this systematic review with meta-analysis were technical success, knee pain visual analog scale (VAS; 0-100 scale), WOMAC Total Score (0-100 scale), retreatment rate, and adverse events. Continuous outcomes were calculated as the weighted mean difference (WMD) versus baseline. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) rates were estimated in Monte Carlo simulations. Rates of total knee replacement and repeat GAE were calculated using life-table methods.
RESULTS
In 10 groups (9 studies; 270 patients; 339 knees), GAE technical success was 99.7%. Over 12 months, the WMD ranged from -34 to -39 at each follow-up for VAS score and -28 to -34 for WOMAC Total score (all p < 0.001). At 12 months, 78% met the MCID for VAS score; 92% met the MCID for WOMAC Total score, and 78% met the SCB for WOMAC Total score. Higher baseline knee pain severity was associated with greater improvements in knee pain. Over 2 years, 5.2% of patients underwent total knee replacement and 8.3% received repeat GAE. Adverse events were minor, with transient skin discoloration as the most common (11.6%).
CONCLUSIONS
Limited evidence suggests that GAE is a safe procedure that confers improvement in knee OA symptoms at established MCID thresholds. Patients with greater knee pain severity may be more responsive to GAE.
PubMed: 36865988
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocarto.2023.100342 -
Scientific Reports Feb 2023We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials to formally assess the safety and efficacy of autologous whole cell vaccines as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials to formally assess the safety and efficacy of autologous whole cell vaccines as immunotherapies for solid tumors. Our primary safety outcome was number, and grade of adverse events. Our primary efficacy outcome was clinical responses. Secondary outcomes included survival metrics and correlative immune assays. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published between 1946 and August 2020 using any autologous whole cell product in the treatment of any solid tumor. The Cochrane Randomized Controlled Trial risk of bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Eighteen manuscripts were identified with a total of 714 patients enrolled in control and 808 in vaccine arms. In 698 patients receiving at least one dose of vaccine, treatment was well tolerated with a total of 5 grade III or higher adverse events. Clinical response was reported in a minority (n = 2, 14%) of studies. Autologous cell vaccines were associated with improved overall (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01-1.63) and disease-free survival (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.05-1.67) over thirteen and ten trials respectively. Where reported, immune assays correlated well with clinical outcomes. Our results suggest that autologous whole cell vaccination is safe and efficacious in increasing survival in patients undergoing treatment for solid tumors.Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019140187.
Topics: Humans; Cancer Vaccines; Immunotherapy; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36849805
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-29630-9 -
Clinical and Applied... 2023Sepsis is a syndrome of severe systemic inflammatory response. When combined with disseminated intravascular coagulation, mortality is increased. The need for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sepsis is a syndrome of severe systemic inflammatory response. When combined with disseminated intravascular coagulation, mortality is increased. The need for anticoagulant therapy is still the focus of debate.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched. Adult patients with sepsis-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation were included in this study. All-cause mortality as efficacy and serious bleeding complications as adverse effect were measured as primary outcomes. Methodological quality of included studies were assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS). Meta-analysis was performed using R software (version 3.5.1) and Review Manager (version 5.3.5).
RESULTS
There were nine eligible studies with 17,968 patients included. There were no significant reductions in mortality between the anticoagulant group and the non-anticoagulant group (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72-1.10; = 0.27). The DIC resolution rate in the anticoagulation group has a statistically significant increase compared with the control group [OR: 2.62, 95% CI (1.54-4.45), < 0.05]. And there was no significant difference in bleeding complications between the two groups (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.77-2.09; = 0.69). SOFA score reduction did not change significantly between the two groups ( = 0.13).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study observed no significant benefit of anticoagulant therapy on mortality of sepsis-induced DIC. Anticoagulation therapy can promote DIC resolution in sepsis-induced DIC. In addition, anticoagulant therapy does not increase the risk of bleeding in these patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anticoagulants; Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation; Blood Coagulation; Hemorrhage; Sepsis
PubMed: 36802946
DOI: 10.1177/10760296231157766 -
Environmental Research Letters : ERL... Mar 2023Past influenza pandemics including the Spanish flu and H1N1 have disproportionately affected Indigenous Peoples. We conducted a systematic scoping review to provide an... (Review)
Review
Past influenza pandemics including the Spanish flu and H1N1 have disproportionately affected Indigenous Peoples. We conducted a systematic scoping review to provide an overview of the state of understanding of the experience of Indigenous peoples during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, in doing so we capture the state of knowledge available to governments and decision makers for addressing the needs of Indigenous peoples in these early months of the pandemic. We addressed three questions: (a) How is COVID-19 impacting the health and livelihoods of Indigenous peoples, (b) What system level challenges are Indigenous peoples experiencing, (c) How are Indigenous peoples responding? We searched Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases and UN organization websites for publications about Indigenous peoples and COVID-19. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. A total of 153 publications were included: 140 peer-reviewed articles and 13 from UN organizations. Editorial/commentaries were the most (43%) frequent type of publication. Analysis identified Indigenous peoples from 19 different countries, although 56% of publications were centered upon those in Brazil, United States, and Canada. The majority (90%) of articles focused upon the general adult population, few (<2%) used a gender lens. A small number of articles documented COVID-19 testing (0.04%), incidence (18%), or mortality (16%). Five themes of system level challenges affecting exposure and livelihoods evolved: ecological, poverty, communication, education and health care services. Responses were formal and informal strategies from governments, Indigenous organizations and communities. A lack of ethnically disaggregated health data and a gender lens are constraining our knowledge, which is clustered around a limited number of Indigenous peoples in mostly high-income countries. Many Indigenous peoples have autonomously implemented their own coping strategies while government responses have been largely reactive and inadequate. To 'build back better' we must address these knowledge gaps.
PubMed: 36798651
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/acb804 -
The Journal of Infectious Diseases Aug 2023This study aims to comparatively analyze clinical features, treatment, and patient outcomes between the previous and the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreaks. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This study aims to comparatively analyze clinical features, treatment, and patient outcomes between the previous and the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreaks.
METHODS
Five bibliographic databases were searched for studies reporting clinical features, management, and patient outcomes of mpox. Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed.
RESULTS
In total, 73 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 33 studies were subjected to meta-analysis. Previous outbreaks substantially affected children, whereas the 2022 outbreak primarily affected male adults, of which 94.66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.03-98.95) were men who have sex with men. Furthermore, 72.47% (95% CI, 51.04-89.71) reported high-risk sexual activity and the overall human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence was 37.65% (95% CI, 30.09-45.50). Skin lesions remain the typical symptom; however, their anatomic distribution differed. Systemic manifestations were common, but rectal pain was unique to the 2022 outbreak. The estimated overall fatality during past outbreaks in Africa was 4.61% (95% CI, 2.39%-7.35%), whereas 6.34% (95% CI, 3.35%-10.10%) of patients from the 2022 outbreak required hospitalization. Antiviral treatment, in particular tecovirimat, has been prescribed for a subset of patients, but the efficacy remains inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings are important for better understanding the disease and guiding adequate response to mpox outbreaks.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Male; Female; Homosexuality, Male; Mpox (monkeypox); Sexual and Gender Minorities; Antiviral Agents; Disease Outbreaks; Pelvic Pain
PubMed: 36735342
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiad034 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Several clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the effects of blinatumomab in childhood B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). We conducted this...
Several clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the effects of blinatumomab in childhood B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). We conducted this meta-analysis to validate the efficacy and safety of blinatumomab in pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL (R/R B-ALL). We searched and investigated all relevant studies in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The primary outcomes were complete response (CR), overall survival (OS), event free survival (EFS), minimal residual disease (MRD) response, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) and were calculated separately for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm studies. The secondary end points were adverse effects (AEs) and the relapse rate. The Cochrane, bias assessment tool, was used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. The methodological quality of single-arm studies was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) tool. The meta-analysis included two RCTs and 10 single-arm studies, including 652 patients in total. Our study showed that in the single-arm studies, the combined CR rate was 0.56 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45 -0.68), the odds ratios (ORs) of OS was 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 -0.54), the EFS rate was 0.30 (95% CI: 0.20 -0.40), the MRD response was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.34 -0.68), allo-HSCT rate was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.50 -.74), the AE rate was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.54 -0.76) and the relapse rate was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.27 -0.38). In the RCTs, the blinatumomab-treated group compared with the chemotherapy group had a combined OS rate of 0.12 (95% CI: 0.05 -0.19) and an EFS rate of 2.16 (95% CI: 1.54 -3.03). The pooled MRD response rate was 4.71 (95% CI:2.84 -7.81), allo-HSCT was 3.24 (95% CI: 1.96 -5.35), the AE rate was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.16 -0.60), and the relapse rate was 0 .69 (95% CI: 0.43 -1.09). According to this meta-analysis, blinatumomab shows potent therapeutic efficacy and limited AEs in children with R/R B- ALL. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022361914.
PubMed: 36703737
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1032664