-
Metabolites Sep 2020Globally, lung cancer is the most prevalent cancer type. However, screening and early detection is challenging. Previous studies have identified metabolites as promising... (Review)
Review
Globally, lung cancer is the most prevalent cancer type. However, screening and early detection is challenging. Previous studies have identified metabolites as promising lung cancer biomarkers. This systematic literature review and meta-analysis aimed to identify metabolites associated with lung cancer risk in observational studies. The literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE databases, up to 31 December 2019, for observational studies on the association between metabolites and lung cancer risk. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic and Cochran's Q test. Meta-analyses were performed using either a fixed-effects or random-effects model, depending on study heterogeneity. Fifty-three studies with 297 metabolites were included. Most identified metabolites (252 metabolites) were reported in individual studies. Meta-analyses were conducted on 45 metabolites. Five metabolites (cotinine, creatinine riboside, N-acetylneuraminic acid, proline and r-1,t-2,3,c-4-tetrahydroxy-1,2,3,4-tetrahydrophenanthrene) and five metabolite groups (total 3-hydroxycotinine, total cotinine, total nicotine, total 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (sum of concentrations of the metabolite and its glucuronides), and total nicotine equivalent (sum of total 3-hydroxycotinine, total cotinine and total nicotine)) were associated with higher lung cancer risk, while three others (folate, methionine and tryptophan) were associated with lower lung cancer risk. Significant heterogeneity was detected across most studies. These significant metabolites should be further evaluated as potential biomarkers for lung cancer.
PubMed: 32899527
DOI: 10.3390/metabo10090362 -
Critical Care (London, England) Apr 2024The relationship between smoking and the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been recognized, but the conclusions have been inconsistent. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The relationship between smoking and the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been recognized, but the conclusions have been inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the association between smoking and ARDS risk in adults.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible studies published from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2023. We enrolled adult patients exhibiting clinical risk factors for ARDS and smoking condition. Outcomes were quantified using odds ratios (ORs) for binary variables and mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables, with a standard 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 26 observational studies involving 36,995 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed a significant association between smoking and an increased risk of ARDS (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.33-2.08; P < 0.001). Further analysis revealed that the associations between patient-reported smoking history and ARDS occurrence were generally similar to the results of all the studies (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.38-2.28; P < 0.001). In contrast, patients identified through the detection of tobacco metabolites (cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine, and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL), a metabolite of tobacco products) showed no significant difference in ARDS risk (OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.69-2.05; P = 0.53). The smoking group was younger than the control group (MD - 7.15; 95% CI - 11.58 to - 2.72; P = 0.002). Subgroup analysis revealed that smoking notably elevated the incidence of ARDS with extrapulmonary etiologies (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.43-2.38; P < 0.001). Publication bias did not affect the integrity of our conclusions. Sensitivity analysis further reinforced the reliability of our aggregated outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a strong association between smoking and elevated ARDS risk. This emphasizes the need for thorough assessment of patients' smoking status, urging healthcare providers to vigilantly monitor individuals with a history of smoking, especially those with additional extrapulmonary risk factors for ARDS.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Smoking; Risk Factors; 1-Butanol; Respiratory Distress Syndrome
PubMed: 38616271
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-024-04902-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Ear wax (cerumen) is a normal bodily secretion that can become a problem when it obstructs the ear canal. Symptoms attributed to wax (such as deafness and pain) are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ear wax (cerumen) is a normal bodily secretion that can become a problem when it obstructs the ear canal. Symptoms attributed to wax (such as deafness and pain) are among the commonest reasons for patients to present to primary care with ear trouble.Wax is part of the ear's self-cleaning mechanism and is usually naturally expelled from the ear canal without causing problems. When this mechanism fails, wax is retained in the canal and may become impacted; interventions to encourage its removal may then be needed. Application of ear drops is one of these methods. Liquids used to remove and soften wax are of several kinds: oil-based compounds (e.g. olive or almond oil); water-based compounds (e.g. sodium bicarbonate or water itself); a combination of the above or non-water, non-oil-based solutions, such as carbamide peroxide (a hydrogen peroxide-urea compound) and glycerol.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of ear drops (or sprays) to remove or aid the removal of ear wax in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Register of Studies; PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 23 March 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which a 'cerumenolytic' was compared with no treatment, water or saline, an alternative liquid treatment (oil or almond oil) or another 'cerumenolytic' in adults or children with obstructing or impacted ear wax.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear wax and 2) adverse effects (discomfort, irritation or pain). Secondary outcomes were: extent of wax clearance; proportion of people (or ears) with relief of symptoms due to wax; proportion of people (or ears) requiring further intervention to remove wax; success of mechanical removal of residual wax following treatment; any other adverse effects recorded and cost. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies, with 623 participants (900 ears). Interventions included: oil-based treatments (triethanolamine polypeptide, almond oil, benzocaine, chlorobutanol), water-based treatments (docusate sodium, carbamide peroxide, phenazone, choline salicylate, urea peroxide, potassium carbonate), other active comparators (e.g. saline or water alone) and no treatment. Nine of the studies were more than 15 years old.The overall risk of bias across the 10 included studies was low or unclear.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear waxSix studies (360 participants; 491 ears) contributed quantitative data and were included in our meta-analyses.Active treatment versus no treatmentOnly one study addressed this comparison. The proportion of ears with complete clearance of ear wax was higher in the active treatment group (22%) compared with the no treatment group (5%) after five days of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 4.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 16.80); one study; 117 ears; NNTB = 8) (low-quality evidence).Active treatment versus water or salineWe found no evidence of a difference in the proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear wax when the active treatment group was compared to the water or saline group (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.75; three studies; 213 participants; 257 ears) (low-quality evidence). Two studies applied drops for five days, but one study only applied the drops for 15 minutes. When we excluded this study in a sensitivity analysis it did not change the result.Water or saline versus no treatmentThis comparison was only addressed in the single study cited above (active versus no treatment) and there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of ears with complete wax clearance when comparing water or saline with no treatment after five days of treatment (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 17.62; one study; 76 ears) (low-quality evidence).Active treatment A versus active treatment BSeveral single studies evaluated 'head-to-head' comparisons between two active treatments. We found no evidence to show that one was superior to any other.Subgroup analysis of oil-based active treatments versus non-oil based active treatmentsWe found no evidence of a difference in this outcome when oil-based treatments were compared with non-oil-based active treatments.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
adverse effects: discomfort, irritation or painOnly seven studies planned to measure and did report this outcome. Only two (141 participants;176 ears) provided useable data. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the number of adverse effects between the types of ear drops in these two studies. We summarised the remaining five studies narratively. All events were mild and reported in fewer than 30 participants across the seven studies (low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesThree studies reported 'other' adverse effects (how many studies planned to report these is unclear). The available information was limited and included occasional reports of dizziness, unpleasant smell, tinnitus and hearing loss. No significant differences between groups were reported. There were no emergencies or serious adverse effects reported in any of the 10 studies.There was very limited or no information available on our remaining secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although a number of studies aimed to evaluate whether or not one type of cerumenolytic is more effective than another, there is no high-quality evidence to allow a firm conclusion to be drawn and the answer remains uncertain.A single study suggests that applying ear drops for five days may result in a greater likelihood of complete wax clearance than no treatment at all. However, we cannot conclude whether one type of active treatment is more effective than another and there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between oil-based and water-based active treatments.There is no evidence to show that using saline or water alone is better or worse than commercially produced cerumenolytics. Equally, there is also no evidence to show that using saline or water alone is better than no treatment.
Topics: Adult; Antipyrine; Benzocaine; Carbamide Peroxide; Carbonates; Cerumen; Child; Chlorobutanol; Choline; Dioctyl Sulfosuccinic Acid; Drug Combinations; Ear Canal; Ethanolamines; Humans; Hygiene; Peroxides; Pharmaceutical Solutions; Plant Oils; Potassium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salicylates; Sodium Chloride; Surface-Active Agents; Urea; Water
PubMed: 30043448
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012171.pub2 -
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Jun 2020Olfactory dysfunction (OD) has been reported in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there are knowledge gaps about the severity, prevalence, etiology, and...
BACKGROUND
Olfactory dysfunction (OD) has been reported in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there are knowledge gaps about the severity, prevalence, etiology, and duration of OD in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
Olfactory function was assessed in all participants using questionnaires and the butanol threshold test (BTT). Patients with COVID-19 and abnormal olfaction were further evaluated using the smell identification test (SIT), sinus imaging, and nasoendoscopy. Selected patients received nasal biopsies. Systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed items from January 1, 2020 to April 23, 2020 were searched. Studies that reported clinical data on olfactory disturbances in COVID-19 patients were analyzed.
RESULTS
We included 18 COVID-19 patients and 18 controls. Among COVID-19 patients, 12 of 18 (67%) reported olfactory symptoms and OD was confirmed in 6 patients by BTT and SIT. Olfactory dysfunction was the only symptom in 2 patients. Mean BTT score of patients was worse than controls ( = .004, difference in means = 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-2.9). Sinusitis and olfactory cleft obstruction were absent in most patients. Immunohistochemical analysis of nasal biopsy revealed the presence of infiltrative CD68 macrophages harboring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen in the stroma. Olfactory dysfunction persisted in 2 patients despite clinical recovery. Systematic review showed that the prevalence of olfactory disturbances in COVID-19 ranged from 5% to 98%. Most studies did not assess olfaction quantitatively.
CONCLUSIONS
Olfactory dysfunction is common in COVID-19 and may be the only symptom. Coronavirus disease 2019-related OD can be severe and prolonged. Mucosal infiltration by CD68 macrophages expressing SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen may contribute to COVID-19-related OD.
PubMed: 32548209
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa199