-
Frontiers in Public Health 2024Exposure to pesticides is a global public health problem, especially for children. Its association with chronic respiratory disease among children has attracted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Exposure to pesticides is a global public health problem, especially for children. Its association with chronic respiratory disease among children has attracted considerable attention, but the existing evidence remains inconclusive and cannot be certain. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine the global pooled effect size of association with pesticide exposure and asthma, wheezing, and respiratory tract infections among children.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted for relevant literature from electronic databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, Hinari, Semantic Scholar, and Science Direct. Studies that provided effect size on the association between pesticide exposure and childhood asthma, wheezing, and respiratory tract infections in children were included. The articles were screened, data was extracted, and the quality of each study was assessed with four independent reviewers. Random effects models for significant heterogeneity and fixed effect models for homogeneous studies were conducted to estimate pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3.3.070 and MetaXL version 2. Funnel plot and Higgins statistics were used to determine the heterogeneity of the included studies. Subgroup analyses were computed based on the types of pesticide exposure, study design, sample size category, and outcome assessment technique.
RESULT
A total of 38 articles with 118,303 children less than 18 years of age were included in this meta-analysis. Pesticide exposure among children increased the risk of asthma by 24%; (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.14-1.35) with extreme heterogeneity ( = 81%, < 0.001). Exposure to pesticides increased the odds of developing wheezing among children by 34% (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.14-1.57), with high heterogeneity ( = 79%, < 0.001) and also increased the risk of developing lower respiratory tract infection by 79% (OR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.45-2.21) with nonsignificant low heterogeneity ( = 30%, -value = 0.18).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis provided valuable evidence supporting the association between childhood asthma, wheezing, and lower respiratory tract infection with pesticide exposure. The findings would contribute to a better understanding of the estimate of the effect of pesticide exposure on respiratory health in children and inform evidence-based preventive strategies and public health interventions.
Topics: Humans; Asthma; Respiratory Sounds; Pesticides; Respiratory Tract Infections; Child; Environmental Exposure; Child, Preschool; Adolescent; Infant
PubMed: 38868160
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1402908 -
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 -
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 -
Annals of Saudi Medicine 2024Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which results in lung injury as a consequence of sepsis and septic shock, is associated with severe systemic inflammation and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which results in lung injury as a consequence of sepsis and septic shock, is associated with severe systemic inflammation and is responsible for a high worldwide mortality rate.
OBJECTIVE
Investigate whether corticosteroids could benefit clinical outcomes in adult with ARDS.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of electronic databases Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMbase, and Cochrane Library from their inception to 7 May 2023 was conducted to identify studies that met the eligibility criteria, including only randomized controlled trials. The study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the methods of trial sequential analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Mortality rates, including including the 14-, 28-, 45-, and 60-day mortality, hospital mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality.
SAMPLE SIZE
17 studies with 2508 patients.
RESULTS
Data relating to mortality at 14, 28, 45, and 60 days were not significantly different when treatments with corticosteroids and placebo were compared. In terms of hospital and ICU mortality, the mortality of those who had received corticosteroids was significantly lower than that of those who had not. ARDS patients who received assisted ventilation benefited from corticosteroid therapy, as revealed by the significant difference in outcome days between those who received assisted ventilation and those who did not. Corticosteroid had significantly more days free from mechanical ventilation, ICU-free days, and MODS-free days during the first 28 days, but not more organ support-free days up to day 28.
CONCLUSION
Although corticosteroid therapy did not reduce mortality rates at different observation periods, it significantly reduced hospital and ICU mortality. Administering corticosteroids to ARDS patients significantly decreased the days of assisted ventilation and time cost consumption. This study confirmed that long-term use of low-dose glucocorticoids may have a positive effect on early ARDS.
LIMITATION
Risk of bias due to the differences in patient characteristics.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Hospital Mortality; Intensive Care Units; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38853475
DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.2024.167 -
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 -
BMC Health Services Research Jun 2024Community health workers (CHWs) had important roles mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in vulnerable communities. We described how CHWs supported the...
BACKGROUND
Community health workers (CHWs) had important roles mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in vulnerable communities. We described how CHWs supported the dissemination of COVID-19 information and services during the early pandemic response.
METHODS
Online article searches were conducted across five scientific databases, with review article reference lists hand searched to identify grey/unpublished literature. Articles were included if they reported on a program that engaged CHWs and aimed to prevent/control COVID-19.
RESULTS
Nineteen relevant programs were identified from 18 included articles. CHWs were widely engaged in the pandemic response, especially in low- and middle-income countries and in vulnerable communities. CHWs' ability to effectively disseminate COVID-19 information/services was enabled by community trust and understanding community needs. CHWs were often underfunded and required to work in difficult conditions. Pre-existing services incorporating CHWs rapidly adapted to the new challenges brought by the pandemic.
CONCLUSIONS
We recommend establishing programs that employ CHWs to disseminate health information and services in communities at-risk of misinformation and poor health outcomes during non-pandemic times. CHWs are well-placed to deliver interventions should an infectious disease outbreak arise. Having pre-existing trusted relationships between CHWs and community members may help protect vulnerable groups, including when outbreaks occur.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Community Health Workers; Information Dissemination; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 38849842
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-11165-y -
BMC Oral Health Jun 2024To assess the efficacy of positional therapy and oral appliance therapy for the management of positional obstructive sleep apnea. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To assess the efficacy of positional therapy and oral appliance therapy for the management of positional obstructive sleep apnea.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and SCOPUS for relevant clinical trials. Quality assessment of the included trials was evaluated according to Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We included the following outcomes: The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), AHI non-supine, AHI supine, sleep efficiency, percentage of supine sleep, Adherence (≥ 4 h/night, ≥ 5 days/week), Oxygen desaturation Index, Arousal Index, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (ESS), Mean SpO2, and Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire.
RESULTS
The AHI non-supine and the ESS scores were significantly lower in the OAT cohort than in the PT cohort. The PT cohort was associated with a significantly decreased percentage of supine sleep than the OAT cohort (MD= -26.07 [-33.15, -19.00], P = 0.0001). There was no significant variation between PT cohort and OAT cohort regarding total AHI, AHI supine, ODI, sleep efficiency, arousal index, FOSQ, adherence, and mean SpO2.
CONCLUSION
Both Positional Therapy and Oral Appliance Therapy effectively addressed Obstructive Sleep Apnea. However, Oral Appliance Therapy exhibited higher efficiency, leading to increased supine sleep percentage and more significant reductions in the Apnea Hypopnea Index during non-supine positions, as well as lower scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale.
Topics: Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Supine Position; Patient Positioning
PubMed: 38849827
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04277-8 -
PloS One 2024The recommendation for Chlorhexidine (CHX) as a traditional oral care solution is decreasing, and herbal oral care products are being considered as a potential... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The recommendation for Chlorhexidine (CHX) as a traditional oral care solution is decreasing, and herbal oral care products are being considered as a potential alternative. This network meta-analysis aims to determine if herbal oral care products for oral care in mechanically ventilated patients are superior to CHX and provide direction for future research by comparing the effectiveness of herbal oral care products currently available.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched for English-language published and grey literature sources of randomized clinical trials involving herbal oral care solutions in intensive care unit (ICU) oral care (until September 2023). The primary outcome was the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP); the secondary outcome was the oral microbiota quantity. Data were pooled by pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework.
RESULTS
Our network meta-analysis included 29 studies, and the results showed that Chinese herb (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.2-0.75) and Miswak (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.07-0.91) were more effective in reducing VAP incidence than CHX. In terms of reducing bacterial counts, Chinese herb (OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.19-0.48) was superior to CHX, and all herbal oral care products, including Persica® (alcoholic extract of S. persica, Achillea millefolium, and Mentha spicata), Matrica® (Chamomile extract), and Listerine® (main components include Menthol, Thymol, and Eucalyptol), were better than saline in all aspects but without significant differences.
CONCLUSION
Based on our network meta-analysis, we have observed that Chinese herbal medicine and Miswak are superior to CHX in reducing the incidence of VAP. However, the safety and feasibility of traditional Chinese herbal medicine require further high-quality research for validation. Simultaneously, Matrica® demonstrates a significant reduction in microbial counts but does not exhibit a significant advantage in lowering the incidence of VAP. This observation aligns with the results of clinical double-blind trials. Therefore, we identify Miswak and Matrica® as promising herbal oral care products with the potential to replace CHX. It is essential to emphasize that our study provides guidance for future research rather than conclusive determinations.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO no. CRD42023398022.
Topics: Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Network Meta-Analysis; Chlorhexidine; Mouthwashes; Bayes Theorem; Intensive Care Units
PubMed: 38848351
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304583 -
BMC Public Health Jun 2024Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been widely utilised to control the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is unclear what the optimal strategies are for...
BACKGROUND
Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been widely utilised to control the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is unclear what the optimal strategies are for implementing NPIs in the context of coronavirus vaccines. This study aims to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate existing ecological studies on the real-world impact of NPIs in containing COVID-19 pandemic following the roll-out of coronavirus vaccines.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of relevant studies from January 1, 2021, to June 4, 2023 in PubMed, Embase, Web of science and MedRxiv. Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the studies and extracted the data. A risk of bias assessment tool, derived from a bibliometric review of ecological studies, was applied to evaluate the study design, statistical methodology, and the quality of reporting. Data were collected, synthesised and analysed using qualitative and quantitative methods. The results were presented using summary tables and figures, including information on the target countries and regions of the studies, types of NPIs, and the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
The review included a total of 17 studies that examined the real-world impact of NPIs in containing the COVID-19 pandemic after the vaccine roll-out. These studies used five composite indicators that combined multiple NPIs, and examined 14 individual NPIs. The studies had an average quality assessment score of 13 (range: 10-16), indicating moderately high quality. NPIs had a larger impact than vaccination in mitigating the spread of COVID-19 during the early stage of the vaccination implementation and in the context of the Omicron variant. Testing policies, workplace closures, and restrictions on gatherings were the most effective NPIs in containing the COVID-19 pandemic, following the roll-out of vaccines. The impact of NPIs varied across different time frames, countries and regions.
CONCLUSION
NPIs had a larger contribution to the control of the pandemic as compared to vaccination during the early stage of vaccine implementation and in the context of the omicron variant. The impact of NPIs in containing the COVID-19 pandemic exhibited variability in diverse contexts. Policy- and decision-makers need to focus on the impact of different NPIs in diverse contexts. Further research is needed to understand the policy mechanisms and address potential future challenges.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics
PubMed: 38844867
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-18980-2