-
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 -
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 -
The Journal of Arthroplasty Jun 2024Sarcopenia is a progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass and function. It is associated with adverse outcomes after several orthopaedic procedures. However, its role in...
BACKGROUND
Sarcopenia is a progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass and function. It is associated with adverse outcomes after several orthopaedic procedures. However, its role in total joint arthroplasty(TJA) is not fully explored. Therefore, we wanted to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to answer the following questions:(1) What is the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients undergoing TJA?;(2) What factors are associated with the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients undergoing TJA?;What is the impact of sarcopenia on medical outcomes following TJA?;and (4) What is the impact of sarcopenia on surgical outcomes following TJA?
METHODS
Electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched. The data was pooled using the random-effects model and graphically represented by a forest plot. We included a total of thirteen studies, evaluating 399,097 patients.
RESULTS
The pooled prevalence of sarcopenia was 20.1%(95% CI[confidence interval] 13.6 to 28.8%; P<0.00001;I=94.7%) in total knee arthroplasty(TKA) and 5.2%(95% CI 0.1 to 69.7%;P=0.128;I=99.6%) in total hip arthroplasty(THA). Meta-regression found no links between age, sex, body mass index(BMI), diabetes, obesity, arthroplasty type, and sarcopenia prevalence in TJA. Sarcopenia increased risk of blood transfusion (OR [odds ratio] 4.68[95% CI 3.51 to 6.25];P<0.00001), pneumonia (OR 1.94[95% CI 1.14 to 3.30];P=0.01),Urinary Tract Infection UTI (OR 1.64 [95% CI 1.31 to 2.05];P<0.001), prosthetic fracture (OR 2.12[95% CI 1.51 to 2.98];P<0.0001), prosthetic dislocation (OR 1.99[95% CI 1.62 to 2.44];P<0.00001), and mechanical loosening (OR 1.78[95% CI 1.43 to 2.22];P<0.00001) in TKA. Sarcopenic patients were at an increased the risk of UTI (OR 1.79 [95% CI 1.32 to 2.43];P=0.0002) and prosthetic loosening (OR 1.97[95% CI 1.10 to 3.53];P=0.02) post-THA.
CONCLUSION
Baseline sarcopenia was prevalent in patients undergoing TJA. It was associated with an increased risk of UTI and prosthetic loosening following TKA and THA. Increased risk of blood transfusion, pneumonia, prosthetic fractures, and mechanical loosening following TKA.
PubMed: 38901711
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.06.021 -
Respiratory Research Jun 2024The term "post-COVID-19 condition" refers to the symptomatology that appears between four to twelve weeks after Covid-19 infection. These symptoms can persist for weeks... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The term "post-COVID-19 condition" refers to the symptomatology that appears between four to twelve weeks after Covid-19 infection. These symptoms can persist for weeks or even months, significantly diminishing the quality of life for affected individuals. The primary objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation programs and/or respiratory muscle training on respiratory sequelae in patients with post-COVID condition.
METHODS
The literature search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, PEDro, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science. Randomized clinical trials were included in which participants were aged 18 years or older. Articles were excluded if at least one of the therapies did not involve pulmonary rehabilitation or respiratory muscle training, if the participants were COVID positive, if studies lacked results, and finally, if interventions were conducted without supervision or at home. This review only encompasses supervised non-virtual interventions. This study adheres to the PRISMA statement and has been registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023433843).
RESULTS
The outcomes obtained in the included studies are assessed across the following variables: Exercise capacity using the 6-minute walk test, Dyspnea, fatigue, Pulmonary function, Maximum inspiratory pressure, and Quality of life.
CONCLUSION
Despite the absence of a specific treatment at present, it was evident from this review that a well-structured pulmonary rehabilitation program that incorporates both aerobic and muscular strength exercises along with techniques and inspiratory muscle exercises was the most effective form of treatment.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Breathing Exercises; Treatment Outcome; Respiratory Muscles; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Exercise Tolerance; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 38890699
DOI: 10.1186/s12931-024-02857-4 -
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 -
BMC Pulmonary Medicine Jun 2024Rapamycin has been extensively utilized for coating coronary artery stents to reduce the occurrence of restenosis, yet there has been limited research on the potential...
BACKGROUND
Rapamycin has been extensively utilized for coating coronary artery stents to reduce the occurrence of restenosis, yet there has been limited research on the potential harms of rapamycin-eluting stents. Herein, We report a case of eosinophilia and interstitial pneumonia caused by a cobalt-based alloy stent eluted with rapamycin.
CASE PRESENTATION
The patient was admitted due to fever, cough, and expectoration symptoms. Previously, the patient had undergone a procedure of percutaneous coronary stent implantation in our hospital's cardiology department, which led to a gradual rise in blood eosinophil count. This time, the eosinophil count was higher than the previous admission. A chest CT scan revealed multiple flocculent density increases in both lungs and bronchiectasis. The rapamycin-eluting stents may have caused eosinophilia and interstitial pneumonia, which improved after administering corticosteroids. A systematic review of relevant literature was conducted to summarize the characteristics of interstitial pneumonia caused by drug-eluting stents.
CONCLUSION
Paclitaxel, everolimus, zotarolimus, and rapamycin are the types of drugs that can lead to drug-eluting stents, and because of the rarity of their onset, clinical doctors must be precise and prompt in diagnosing suspected cases to avoid misdiagnosis and delayed treatment.
Topics: Humans; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Drug-Eluting Stents; Sirolimus; Eosinophilia; Male; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Aged
PubMed: 38886703
DOI: 10.1186/s12890-024-03101-x -
Acta Medica Philippina 2024To gather, summarize, and appraise the available evidence on: 1) the accuracy of chest CT scan in diagnosing COVID-19 among children, and 2) the characteristic chest CT...
OBJECTIVES
To gather, summarize, and appraise the available evidence on: 1) the accuracy of chest CT scan in diagnosing COVID-19 among children, and 2) the characteristic chest CT scan findings associated with COVID-19 pneumonia in children.
METHODS
We comprehensively searched databases (MEDLINE, COCHRANE), clinical trial registries, bibliographic lists of selected studies, and unpublished data for relevant studies. Guide questions from the Painless Evidence Based Medicine and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tools were used to assess study quality.
RESULTS
A poor quality study showed 86.0% (95% CI 73.8, 93.0) sensitivity and 75.9% (95% CI 67.1, 83.0) specificity of chest CT scan in diagnosing COVID-19 in children. Thirty-nine observational studies describing chest CT scan in children with COVID-19 showed abnormal findings in 717 of 1028 study subjects. Common chest CT scan findings in this population include: 1) ground glass opacities, patchy shadows, and consolidation, 2) lower lobe involvement, and 3) unilateral lung lesions.
CONCLUSION
Studies which investigate the accuracy of chest CT scan in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in children are limited by heterogeneous populations and small sample sizes. While chest CT scan findings such as patchy shadows, ground glass opacities, and consolidation are common in children with COVID-19, these may be similar to the imaging findings of other respiratory viral illnesses.
PubMed: 38882921
DOI: 10.47895/amp.v58i7.6385 -
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