-
Reviews in Medical Virology Jul 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) in treating coronavirus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The researchers conducted searches on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until January 2024. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilised to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and data analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Thirteen studies, including 4949 patients, were analysed. The meta-analysis results showed no significant difference between the azvudine and Paxlovid groups in terms of mortality rate (odds rate [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.21), negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference [SMD] = 1.52, 95% CI: -1.07-4.11), and hospital stay (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -1.12-0.33). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23-0.75) and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44-0.86) in favour of azvudine. The incidence of adverse events in the azvudine group was significantly lower (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). The certainty of evidence was rated as low and moderate. Azvudine and Paxlovid demonstrated similar effectiveness in reducing mortality rates, negative PCR conversion time and hospital stay. However, azvudine showed better effectiveness in improving other outcomes. Regarding the level of certainty of evidence, further research is needed to validate or challenge these results.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Antiviral Agents; SARS-CoV-2; Ritonavir; Drug Combinations; COVID-19; Lopinavir; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38849982
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2551 -
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 -
Cardiology in ReviewSeveral vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-have been developed since...
Several vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-have been developed since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Of these, 7 have been approved in the World Health Organization's Emergency Use Listing. However, these vaccines have been reported to have rare or serious adverse cardiovascular effects. This review presents updated information on the adverse cardiovascular effects of the approved COVID-19 vaccines-including inactivated vaccines, protein subunit vaccines, virus-like particles, nucleic acid vaccines, and viral vector vaccines-and the underlying mechanisms.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Vaccines; COVID-19; Cardiovascular Diseases; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 38848534
DOI: 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000508 -
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 -
Medicine Jun 2024Previous findings on the effect of general versus spinal anesthesia on postoperative delirium in elderly people with hip fractures are somewhat controversial. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Previous findings on the effect of general versus spinal anesthesia on postoperative delirium in elderly people with hip fractures are somewhat controversial. This article included the latest randomized controlled study for meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of general anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) on delirium after hip fracture surgery in the elderly, so as to guide the clinical.
METHODS
Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web Of Science, and Embase were searched from inception up to January 16, 2024. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) was included to evaluate the postoperative results of GA and SA in elderly patients (≥50 years old) undergoing hip fracture surgery. Two researchers independently screened for inclusion in the study and extracted data. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I²and Chi-square tests, and P < .1 or I² ≥ 50% indicated marked heterogeneity among studies. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to estimate the combined relative risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for the binary variables.
RESULTS
Nine randomized controlled trials were included. There was no significant difference (RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.774-1.111, P > .05) in the incidence of postoperative delirium between the GA group and the SA group. In intraoperative blood transfusion (RR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.77-1.28, Z = 0.04, P = .971), pulmonary embolism (RR = 0.795, 95% CI = 0.332-1.904, Z = 0.59, P = .606), pneumonia (RR = 1.47, 95% CI = 0.75-2.87, P = .675), myocardial infarction (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.24-3.86, Z = 0.05, P = .961), heart failure (RR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.26-2.42, Z = 0.40, P = .961), urinary retention (RR = 1.42, 95% CI = 0.77-2.61, Z = 1.11, P = .267) were similar between the 2 anesthetic techniques.
CONCLUSION
There is no significant difference in the effect of GA and SA on postoperative delirium in elderly patients with hip fracture, and their effects on postoperative complications are similar.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Male; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Spinal; Delirium; Emergence Delirium; Hip Fractures; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Middle Aged
PubMed: 38847680
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038418 -
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 -
BMJ Paediatrics Open Jun 2024Knowledge about multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is evolving, and evidence-based standardised diagnostic and management protocols are lacking. Our...
BACKGROUND
Knowledge about multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is evolving, and evidence-based standardised diagnostic and management protocols are lacking. Our review aims to summarise the clinical and diagnostic features, management strategies and outcomes of MIS-C and evaluate the variances in disease parameters and outcomes between high-income countries (HIC) and middle-income countries (MIC).
METHODS
We searched four databases from December 2019 to March 2023. Observational studies with a sample size of 10 or more patients were included. Mean and prevalence ratios for various variables were pooled by random effects model using R. A mixed generalised linear model was employed to account for the heterogeneity, and publication bias was assessed via funnel and Doi plots. The primary outcome was pooled mean mortality among patients with MIS-C. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the income status of the country of study.
RESULTS
A total of 120 studies (20 881 cases) were included in the review. The most common clinical presentations were fever (99%; 95% CI 99.6% to 100%), gastrointestinal symptoms (76.7%; 95% CI 73.1% to 79.9%) and dermatological symptoms (63.3%; 95% CI 58.7% to 67.7%). Laboratory investigations suggested raised inflammatory, coagulation and cardiac markers. The most common management strategies were intravenous immunoglobulins (87.5%; 95% CI 82.9% to 91%) and steroids (74.7%; 95% CI 68.7% to 79.9%). Around 53.1% (95% CI 47.3% to 58.9%) required paediatric intensive care unit admissions, and overall mortality was 3.9% (95% CI 2.7% to 5.6%). Patients in MIC were younger, had a higher frequency of respiratory distress and evidence of cardiac dysfunction, with a longer hospital and intensive care unit stay and had a higher mortality rate than patients in HIC.
CONCLUSION
MIS-C is a severe multisystem disease with better mortality outcomes in HIC as compared with MIC. The findings emphasise the need for standardised protocols and further research to optimise patient care and address disparities between HIC and MIC.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020195823.
Topics: Humans; Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome; Child; COVID-19
PubMed: 38844384
DOI: 10.1136/bmjpo-2023-002344 -
Scientific Reports Jun 2024Accurate prognostic tools for mortality in patients with healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) are needed to provide appropriate medical care, but the efficacy for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Accurate prognostic tools for mortality in patients with healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) are needed to provide appropriate medical care, but the efficacy for mortality prediction of tools like PSI, A-DROP, I-ROAD, and CURB-65, widely used for predicting mortality in community-acquired and hospital-acquired pneumonia cases, remains controversial. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using PubMed, Cochrane Library (trials), and Ichushi web database (accessed on August 22, 2022). We identified articles evaluating either PSI, A-DROP, I-ROAD, or CURB-65 and the mortality outcome in patients with HCAP, and calculated the pooled sensitivities, specificities, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the summary area under the curves (AUCs) for mortality prediction. Additionally, the differences in predicting prognosis among these four assessment tools were evaluated using overall AUCs pooled from AUC values reported in included studies. Eventually, 21 articles were included and these quality assessments were evaluated by QUADAS-2. Using a cut-off value of moderate in patients with HCAP, the range of pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were found to be 0.91-0.97, 0.15-0.44, 1.14-1.66, 0.18-0.33, and 3.86-9.32, respectively. Upon using a cut-off value of severe in those patients, the range of pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.63-0.70, 0.54-0.66, 1.50-2.03, 0.47-0.58, and 2.66-4.32, respectively. Overall AUCs were 0.70 (0.68-0.72), 0.70 (0.63-0.76), 0.68 (0.64-0.73), and 0.67 (0.63-0.71), respectively, for PSI, A-DROP, I-ROAD, and CURB-65 (p = 0.66). In conclusion, these severity assessment tools do not have enough ability to predict mortality in HCAP patients. Furthermore, there are no significant differences in predictive performance among these four severity assessment tools.
Topics: Humans; Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia; Severity of Illness Index; Prognosis; Area Under Curve
PubMed: 38839837
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-63618-3 -
BMJ Global Health Jun 2024During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities faced tough decisions about infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing, face...
BACKGROUND
During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities faced tough decisions about infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing, face masks and travel. Judgements underlying those decisions require democratic input, as well as expert input. The aim of this review is to inform decisions about how best to achieve public participation in decisions about public health and social interventions in the context of a pandemic or other public health emergencies.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review examples of public participation in decisions by governments and health authorities about how to control the COVID-19 pandemic.
DESIGN
We searched Participedia and relevant databases in August 2022. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts and one author screened publications promoted to full text. One author extracted data from included reports using a standard data-extraction form. A second author checked 10% of the extraction forms. We conducted a structured synthesis using framework analysis.
RESULTS
We included 24 reports (18 from Participedia). Most took place in high-income countries (n=23), involved 'consulting' the public (n=17) and involved public meetings (usually online). Two initiatives reported explicit support for critical thinking. 11 initiatives were formally evaluated (only three reported impacts). Many initiatives did not contribute to a decision, and 17 initiatives did not include any explicit decision-making criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
Decisions about how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly everyone. While public participation in those decisions had the potential to improve the quality of the judgements and decisions that were made, build trust, improve adherence and help ensure transparency and accountability, few examples of such initiatives have been reported and most of those have not been formally evaluated. Identified initiatives did point out potential good practices related to online engagement, crowdsourcing and addressing potential power imbalance. Future research should address improved reporting of initiatives, explicit decision-making criteria, support for critical thinking, engagement of marginalised groups and decision-makers and communication with the public.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
358991.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Community Participation; Decision Making; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics; Public Health
PubMed: 38830748
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014404 -
Journal of Addictions NursingNursing professionals are vitally involved in the cascade of care for opioid use disorders (OUDs). The global spread of COVID-19 has had complex effects on public health...
BACKGROUND
Nursing professionals are vitally involved in the cascade of care for opioid use disorders (OUDs). The global spread of COVID-19 has had complex effects on public health aspects of major diseases, including OUDs. There are limited data on the major ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the functions of nursing professionals in the care of OUDs.
METHOD
This systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and examined published data for trends in OUD care during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on nursing functions. The National Library of Medicine PubMed database and the EMBASE database were examined for peer-reviewed studies with primary data published between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021.
REVIEW FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Rapid changes were observed in numerous aspects of OUDs during the early pandemic stage, as well as its care by nursing and other health professionals. These changes include increased overdoses (primarily from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl) and emergency department visits. These trends varied considerably across U.S. jurisdictions, underscoring the importance of region-specific examinations for public health policy and intervention. Out of necessity, healthcare systems and nursing professionals adapted to the challenges of OUD care in the pandemic. These adaptations included increases in telehealth services, increases in take-home doses of methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone, and expansion of layperson training in the use of naloxone for overdose reversal. It is likely that some of these adaptations will result in long-term changes in standards of care practices for OUDs by nursing professionals.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Opioid-Related Disorders; Nurse's Role; Opiate Substitution Treatment; United States; Analgesics, Opioid; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 38830000
DOI: 10.1097/JAN.0000000000000573