-
BMC Medicine Jun 2024To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of three or four heterologous versus homologous booster regimens.
METHODS
From November 3 2022 to December 21, 2023, we searched five databases for randomised clinical trials (RCT). Reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed bias risks independently with the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. We conducted meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) on our primary (all-cause mortality; laboratory confirmed symptomatic and severe COVID-19; serious adverse events [SAE]) and secondary outcomes (quality of life [QoL]; adverse events [AE] considered non-serious). We assessed the evidence with the GRADE approach. Subgroup analyses were stratified for trials before and after 2023, three or four boosters, immunocompromised status, follow-up, risk of bias, heterologous booster vaccine platforms, and valency of booster.
RESULTS
We included 29 RCTs with 43 comparisons (12,538 participants). Heterologous booster regimens may not reduce the relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality (11 trials; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.26; I 0%; very low certainty evidence); laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 (14 trials; RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; I 0%; very low certainty); or severe COVID-19 (10 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.33; I 0%; very low certainty). For safety outcomes, heterologous booster regimens may have no effect on SAE (27 trials; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.95; I 0%; very low certainty) but may raise AE considered non-serious (20 trials; RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32; I 64.4%; very low certainty). No data on QoL was available. Our TSAs showed that the cumulative Z curves did not reach futility for any outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
With our current sample sizes, we were not able to infer differences of effects for any outcomes, but heterologous booster regimens seem to cause more non-serious AE. Furthermore, more robust data are instrumental to update this review.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Vaccines; Immunization, Secondary; COVID-19; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Adult; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38915011
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03471-3 -
PloS One 2024COVID-19 and its prevention measures have had a significant impact on patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) by disrupting routine healthcare service and...
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 and its prevention measures have had a significant impact on patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) by disrupting routine healthcare service and increasing risk factors. These challenges were expected to be more severe in sub-Saharan Africa due to the lack of physical infrastructure and inadequate resources. The quantity of studies conducted was limited, and there was a lack of published systematic reviews in the specified region. This systematic review aimed to assess the indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown measures on individuals with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in sub-Saharan African countries.
METHOD
This systematic review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and is registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD42023387755). Extensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases in December 2023, supplemented by a manual search of references, grey literature, and the WHO COVID-19 database. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies that reported on the impact of COVID-19 on NCD patients in sub-Saharan African countries, focusing on access to care, health outcomes, and factors related to NCDs. Critical appraisal of study quality was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) analytical cross-sectional studies critical appraisal tool. Data were extracted and synthesized, highlighting the main findings and relevant limitations.
FINDINGS
This review included 30 primary studies with a cumulative sample size of 25634 participants, conducted in seven sub-Saharan African countries. These studies demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted regular NCD patient care provision, with regional variations. The studies also identified a reduction in patient health-seeking behavior and reduced medication adherence, leading to poor treatment outcome. Furthermore, the pandemic and related lockdowns have been implicated in the increased prevalence of substance use, decreased physical exercise, and increased mental health problems.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review identified the complex challenges faced by NCD patients in sub-Saharan Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also underlines the need to consider the indirect impact on vulnerable populations while developing pandemic prevention and control strategies for the future. The current NCD management strategies should prioritize the restoration of access to essential healthcare services while considering the multifaceted risks posed by decreased physical activity, poor dietary practices, and increased substance use. The main limitation of this review was the study design and setting. All of the studies included in this review employed a cross-sectional design, which may result in a low quality of evidence. This study identified research conducted in only seven countries among the 46 UN-classified sub-Saharan nations, which may impair the generalizability of the result.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Africa South of the Sahara; Noncommunicable Diseases; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics
PubMed: 38905254
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293376 -
Parasites & Vectors Jun 2024Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an emerging tick-borne zoonosis caused by the SFTS virus (SFTSV). Understanding the prevalence of SFTSV RNA in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an emerging tick-borne zoonosis caused by the SFTS virus (SFTSV). Understanding the prevalence of SFTSV RNA in humans, vertebrate hosts and ticks is crucial for SFTS control.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the prevalence of SFTSV RNA in humans, vertebrate hosts and questing ticks. Nine electronic databases were searched for relevant publications, and data on SFTSV RNA prevalence were extracted. Pooled prevalence was estimated using a random effects model. Subgroup analysis and multivariable meta-regression were performed to investigate sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
The pooled prevalence of SFTSV RNA in humans was 5.59% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.78-9.15%) in those in close contact (close contacts) with infected individuals (infected cases) and 0.05% (95% CI 0.00-0.65%) in healthy individuals in endemic areas. The SFTSV infection rates in artiodactyls (5.60%; 95% CI 2.95-8.96%) and carnivores (6.34%; 95% CI 3.27-10.23%) were higher than those in rodents (0.45%; 95% CI 0.00-1.50%). Other animals, such as rabbits, hedgehogs and birds, also played significant roles in SFTSV transmission. The genus Haemaphysalis was the primary transmission vector, with members of Ixodes, Dermacentor, and Amblyomma also identified as potential vectors. The highest pooled prevalence was observed in adult ticks (1.03%; 95% CI 0.35-1.96%), followed by nymphs (0.66%; 95% CI 0.11-1.50%) and larvae (0.01%; 95% CI 0.00-0.46%). The pooled prevalence in ticks collected from endemic areas (1.86%; 95% CI 0.86-3.14%) was higher than that in ticks collected in other regions (0.41%; 95% CI 0.12-0.81%).
CONCLUSIONS
Latent SFTSV infections are present in healthy individuals residing in endemic areas, and close contacts with SFTS cases are at a significantly higher risk of infection. The type of animal is linked to infection rates in vertebrate hosts, while infection rates in ticks are associated with the developmental stage. Further research is needed to investigate the impact of various environmental factors on SFTSV prevalence in vertebrate hosts and ticks.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Phlebovirus; Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome; Ticks; Vertebrates; Prevalence; RNA, Viral
PubMed: 38902842
DOI: 10.1186/s13071-024-06341-2 -
Systematic Reviews Jun 2024Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) appear to be effective for improving the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs). However, the effectiveness of MBIs on...
BACKGROUND
Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) appear to be effective for improving the mental health of healthcare professionals (HCPs). However, the effectiveness of MBIs on extreme psychological trauma caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is largely unknown. The aim of this paper was to systematically review empirical studies of MBIs for HCPs carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic, to evaluate them and their effectiveness in different areas of mental health.
METHODS
The electronic databases searched were Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and PsycINFO. The date when each database was last searched was September 15, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs), and non-randomized non-controlled trials (NRNCTs) focused on MBIs for health care staff who were working in healthcare centers during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. All of them employed standardized measures of mental health. The review followed the best practices and reported using PRISMA guidelines. A data collection form, adapted from the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, was used to extract and synthesize the results. The methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies were the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the ROBINS-I Tool.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was moderate. The results showed the effectiveness of MBIs in improving levels of stress, mindfulness, and mental well-being. However, no conclusive results were found regarding the effectiveness of MBIs in improving the levels of burnout, anxiety, depression, sleep quality, and resilience of HCPs.
CONCLUSIONS
The MBIs for HCPs carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly contributed to improving stress, mindfulness, and mental well-being at a time of serious health emergency. However, more robust studies at a methodological level would have been desirable.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021267621.
Topics: Humans; Mindfulness; COVID-19; Health Personnel; Mental Health; SARS-CoV-2; Burnout, Professional; Pandemics
PubMed: 38902795
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02574-5 -
BMC Public Health Jun 2024Although the COVID-19 pandemic claimed a great deal of lives, it is still unclear how it affected mortality in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although the COVID-19 pandemic claimed a great deal of lives, it is still unclear how it affected mortality in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). This review summarized the available literature on excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in LLMICs, including methods, sources of data, and potential contributing factors that might have influenced excess mortality.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in LLMICs in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We included studies published from 2019 onwards with a non-COVID-19 period of at least one year as a comparator. The meta-analysis included studies reporting data on population size, as well as observed and expected deaths. We used the Mantel-Haenszel method to estimate the pooled risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022378267).
RESULTS
The review covered 29 countries, with 10 countries included in the meta-analysis. The pooled meta-analysis included 1,405,128,717 individuals, for which 2,152,474 deaths were expected, and 3,555,880 deaths were reported. Calculated excess mortality was 100.3 deaths per 100,000 population per year, with an excess risk of death of 1.65 (95% CI: 1.649, 1.655, p < 0.001). The data sources used in the studies included civil registration systems, surveys, public cemeteries, funeral counts, obituary notifications, burial site imaging, and demographic surveillance systems. The primary techniques used to estimate excess mortality were statistical forecast modelling and geospatial analysis. One out of the 24 studies found higher excess mortality in urban settings.
CONCLUSION
Our findings demonstrate that excess mortality in LLMICs during the pandemic was substantial. However, estimates of excess mortality are uncertain due to relatively poor data. Understanding the drivers of excess mortality, will require more research using various techniques and data sources.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Developing Countries; Mortality; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 38902661
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19154-w -
Frontiers in Immunology 2024The rate and prognosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with solid cancer tumors actively treated with immune... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
The rate and prognosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with solid cancer tumors actively treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have not been fully determined. The goal of this meta-analysis was to explore this issue, which can be helpful to clinicians in their decision-making concerning patient treatment. We conducted a thorough search for relevant cohort studies in the databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Mortality and infection rate were the primary endpoints, and the incidence of severe or critical disease was the secondary result. A total of 6,267 cases (individual patients) were represented in 15 studies. Prior exposure to ICIs was not correlated with an elevated risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.57-1.88, z = 0.12, = 0.905) or mortality (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99-1.50, z = 1.90, = 0.057). However, the results of the meta-analysis revealed that taking ICIs before SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis increased the chance of developing severe or critical disease (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.09-2.10, z = 2.46, = 0.014). No significant inter-study heterogeneity was observed. The infection and mortality rates of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with solid tumors who previously received ICIs or other antitumor therapies did not differ significantly. However, secondary outcomes showed that ICIs treatment before the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly associated with the probability of severe or critical illness.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023393511.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Neoplasms; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; SARS-CoV-2; Prognosis
PubMed: 38887296
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1259112 -
The Journal of the Association of... May 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to identify the risk factors of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to provide insight for selecting cases... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
This systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to identify the risk factors of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to provide insight for selecting cases for more aggressive monitoring and treatment after COVID-19 infection and reduce morbidity due to long COVID-19.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
All relevant studies published till July 2022 were searched for in PubMed, Trip database, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library). Reference lists of the studies selected for appraisal were also considered. The National Institute of Health Clinical Database and Google Scholar were searched for unpublished studies. All cohort studies which studied risk factors for long COVID-19 in adults (>18 years age-group) were included. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were used for data extraction and bias assessment were. The outcomes were risk factors identified as being related with persistent symptoms 3 months after recovery from COVID-19. Random-effects model (RevMan 5.3) was used to pool the data.
RESULTS
Total nine studies were included with overall quality scores ranging from 16 to 19 out of the maximum 22. Pooled results demonstrated statistically significant association of long COVID-19 with female gender [odds ratio (OR) -1.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-2.09], need of hospitalization (OR -1.80; 95% CI 1.22-2.64), and hospital stay (OR 2.41; 95% CI 0.75-4.07).
CONCLUSION
Female gender, need for hospitalization and duration of hospitalization during acute COVID-19 infection are the risk factors for later development of long COVID-19. There should be specific guidelines for monitoring and treatment of this population after acute COVID-19 infection.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Risk Factors; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome; SARS-CoV-2; Sex Factors
PubMed: 38881113
DOI: 10.59556/japi.72.0528 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Jun 2024The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic underscored the need for pandemic preparedness, with respiratory-transmitted viruses considered as a substantial risk. In pandemics, long-term...
How to protect long-term care facilities from pandemic-like events? - A systematic review on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological measures to prevent viral respiratory infections.
BACKGROUND
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic underscored the need for pandemic preparedness, with respiratory-transmitted viruses considered as a substantial risk. In pandemics, long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are a high-risk setting with severe outbreaks and burden of disease. Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) constitute the primary defence mechanism when pharmacological interventions are not available. However, evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs implemented in LTCFs remains unclear.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review assessing the effectiveness of NPIs implemented in LTCFs to protect residents and staff from viral respiratory pathogens with pandemic potential. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and two COVID-19 registries in 09/2022. Screening and data extraction was conducted independently by two experienced researchers. We included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized observational studies of intervention effects. Quality appraisal was conducted using ROBINS-I and RoB2. Primary outcomes encompassed number of outbreaks, infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. We synthesized findings narratively, focusing on the direction of effect. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE.
RESULTS
We analysed 13 observational studies and three (cluster) randomized controlled trials. All studies were conducted in high-income countries, all but three focused on SARS-CoV-2 with the rest focusing on influenza or upper-respiratory tract infections. The evidence indicates that a combination of different measures and hand hygiene interventions can be effective in protecting residents and staff from infection-related outcomes (moderate CoE). Self-confinement of staff with residents, compartmentalization of staff in the LTCF, and the routine testing of residents and/or staff in LTCFs, among others, may be effective (low CoE). Other measures, such as restricting shared spaces, serving meals in room, cohorting infected and non-infected residents may be effective (very low CoE). An evidence gap map highlights the lack of evidence on important interventions, encompassing visiting restrictions, pre-entry testing, and air filtration systems.
CONCLUSIONS
Although CoE of interventions was low or very low for most outcomes, the implementation of NPIs identified as potentially effective in this review often constitutes the sole viable option, particularly prior to the availability of vaccinations. Our evidence-gap map underscores the imperative for further research on several interventions. These gaps need to be addressed to prepare LTCFs for future pandemics.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42022344149.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Long-Term Care; Respiratory Tract Infections; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics; Infection Control; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38880893
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-024-09271-7 -
BMC Geriatrics Jun 2024The impact of social frailty on older adults is profound including mortality risk, functional decline, falls, and disability. However, effective strategies that respond...
BACKGROUND
The impact of social frailty on older adults is profound including mortality risk, functional decline, falls, and disability. However, effective strategies that respond to the needs of socially frail older adults are lacking and few studies have unpacked how social determinants operate or how interventions can be adapted during periods requiring social distancing and isolation such as the COVID-19 pandemic. To address these gaps, we conducted a scoping review using JBI methodology to identify interventions that have the best potential to help socially frail older adults (age ≥65 years).
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL (EPSCO), EMBASE and COVID-19 databases and the grey literature. Eligibility criteria were developed using the PICOS framework. Our results were summarized descriptively according to study, patient, intervention and outcome characteristics. Data synthesis involved charting and categorizing identified interventions using a social frailty framework. RESULTS: Of 263 included studies, we identified 495 interventions involving ~124,498 older adults who were mostly female. The largest proportion of older adults (40.5%) had a mean age range of 70-79 years. The 495 interventions were spread across four social frailty domains: social resource (40%), self-management (32%), social behavioural activity (28%), and general resource (0.4%). Of these, 189 interventions were effective for improving loneliness, social and health and wellbeing outcomes across psychological self-management, self-management education, leisure activity, physical activity, Information Communication Technology and socially assistive robot interventions. Sixty-three interventions were identified as feasible to be adapted during infectious disease outbreaks (e.g., COVID-19, flu) to help socially frail older adults.
CONCLUSIONS
Our scoping review identified promising interventions with the best potential to help older adults living with social frailty.
Topics: Humans; Aged; COVID-19; Frail Elderly; Social Isolation; Frailty; Aged, 80 and over; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 38879489
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-024-05096-w -
BMJ Mental Health Jun 2024To describe the pattern of the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and examine the impact of containment measures on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To describe the pattern of the prevalence of mental health problems during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and examine the impact of containment measures on these trends.
METHODS
We identified articles published until 30 August 2021 that reported the prevalence of mental health problems in the general population at two or more time points. A crowd of 114 reviewers extracted data on prevalence, study and participant characteristics. We collected information on the number of days since the first SARS-CoV-2 infection in the study country, the stringency of containment measures and the number of cases and deaths. We synthesised changes in prevalence during the pandemic using a random-effects model. We used dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the trajectory of the changes in mental health problems.
RESULTS
We included 41 studies for 7 mental health conditions. The average odds of symptoms increased during the pandemic (mean OR ranging from 1.23 to 2.08). Heterogeneity was very large and could not be explained by differences in participants or study characteristics. Average odds of psychological distress, depression and anxiety increased during the first 2 months of the pandemic, with increased stringency of the measures, reported infections and deaths. The confidence in the evidence was low to very low.
CONCLUSIONS
We observed an initial increase in the average risk of psychological distress, depression-related and anxiety-related problems during the first 2 months of the pandemic. However, large heterogeneity suggests that different populations had different responses to the challenges imposed by the pandemic.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Prevalence; Mental Disorders; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics; Anxiety; Mental Health; Depression
PubMed: 38876492
DOI: 10.1136/bmjment-2024-301018