METHODS: The study was based on data from 7035 fully vaccinated respondents to the online COVAD questionnaire with SLE (N = 852), rAIDs (N = 3098), or nrAIDs (N = 414), and HCs (N = 2671). BI was defined as COVID-19 infection occurring in individuals vaccinated with ≥ 2 doses (or 1 dose of J&J) ≥ 14 days after vaccination and not after 6 months since the last vaccine dose. Data were analysed using linear and logistic regression models.
RESULTS: A total of 91/852 (10.7%) SLE patients reported at least one BI. The frequency of BIs in SLE patients was comparable to that among HCs (277/2671; p = 0.847) and patients with nrAID (39/414; p = 0.552) but higher than that among patients with other rAIDs (235/3098; p = 0.005). No demographic factors or treatments were associated with BIs in SLE patients (p ≥ 0.05 for all). Joint pain was more frequent in SLE patients than in HCs (odds ratio [OR]: 3.38; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.89-6.04; p
METHODS: A systematic literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed to identify all relevant studies evaluating outcomes of MICS CABG among patients with multivessel CAD and including at least 15 patients with no restriction on the publication date.
RESULTS: A total of 881 studies were identified, of which 26 studies met the eligibility criteria. The studies included a total of 7,556 patients. The average patient age was 63.3 years (range 49.5 to 69.0 years), male patients were an average of 77.8% (54.0% to 89.8%), and body mass index was 29.8 kg/m2 (24.5 to 30.1 kg/m2). Early mortality and stroke were on average 0.6% (range 0% to 2.0%) and 0.4% (range 0% to 1.3%), respectively. The average number of grafts was 2.8 (range 2.1 to 3.7). The average length of hospital stay was 5.6 days (range 3.1 to 9.3 days).
CONCLUSIONS: MICS CABG appears to be a safe method in well-selected patients with multivessel CAD. This approach is concentrated at dedicated centers, and there is no widespread application, although it has potential to be widely applicable as an alternative for surgical revascularization. However, large randomized controlled studies with longer follow-up are still required to compare the outcomes with conventional CABG and other revascularization strategies.
METHODS: Plasma and CSF NfL levels were measured and compared between groups, adjusting for age, sex, and weight.
RESULTS: A total of 337 participants were included: 136 ND, 77 PPD, and 124 Controls. Plasma NfL was 2.5-fold elevated in ND compared to PPD and had strong diagnostic performance (area under the curve, [AUC]: 0.86, 81%/85% specificity/sensitivity) that was comparable to CSF NfL (2-fold elevated, AUC: 0.89, 95%/71% specificity/sensitivity). Diagnostic performance was especially strong in younger people (40-
AIM: We aimed to map the global telestroke landscape and characterize existing networks.
METHODS: We employed a four-tiered approach to comprehensively identify telestroke networks, primarily involving engagement with national stroke experts, stroke societies, and international stroke authorities. A carefully designed questionnaire was then distributed to the leaders of all identified networks to assess these networks' structures, processes, and outcomes.
RESULTS: We identified 254 telestroke networks distributed across 67 countries. High-income countries (HICs) concentrated 175 (69%) of the networks. No evidence of telestroke services was found in 58 (30%) countries. From the identified networks, 88 (34%) completed the survey, being 61 (71%) located in HICs. Network setup was highly heterogeneous, ranging from 17 (22%) networks with more than 20 affiliated hospitals, providing thousands of annual consultations using purpose-built highly specialized technology, to 11 (13%) networks with fewer than 120 consultations annually using generic videoconferencing equipment. Real-time video and image transfer was employed in 64 (75%) networks, while 62 (74%) conducting quality monitoring. Most networks established in the past 3 years were located in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
CONCLUSION: This comprehensive global survey of telestroke networks found significant variation in network coverage, setup, and technology use. Most services are in HICs, and a few services are in LMICs, although an emerging trend of new networks in these regions marks a pivotal moment in global telestroke care. The wide variation in quality monitoring practices across networks, with many failing to report key performance metrics, underscores the urgent need for standardized, resource-appropriate, quality assurance measures that can be adapted to diverse settings.
OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate the pattern and associated factors to COVID-19 knowledge, attitude, and practice among individuals with comorbidities.
METHODOLOGY: The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies assessing the KAP of comorbid patients were retrieved by carefully searching the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. The appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies was used to determine the quality of the included studies and the risk of biases.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The pooled sample size of the included studies was 9,104. Different comorbidities reported in the studies include hypertension, diabetes, psychological disorders, and cancer. Pooled analysis showed that 65% of patients showed good knowledge, 57% of patients showed a positive attitude and 51% of patients followed good practices to manage the COVID-19 in presence of their comorbid condition. Significant factors impacting knowledge, attitude and practice in COVID-19 comorbid patients were ethnicity OR 1.78 [95% CI 1.35-2.32]; educational status 3.2 [2.79-3.58]; urban residence 2.43 [1.65-3.02]; employment Status 1.67[1.34-2.12]; financial Status 4.02[3.66-4.38]; occupation 3.65[3.31-4.25]; information Source 2.64[2.19-3.26]; comorbidity 3.28[2.78-3.61]; and duration of chronic illness 1.59[1.31-2.04].
CONCLUSION: Comorbid COVID-19 patients showed good knowledge, positive attitude and good practice towards the management of the disease.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effects, including adverse effects, of galantamine in people with probable or possible Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment, and to investigate potential moderators of effect.
SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 14 December 2022 using the term 'galantamine'. The Register contains records of clinical trials identified from major electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase), trial registries, grey literature sources, and conference proceedings. We manually searched reference lists and collected information from US Food and Drug Administration documents and unpublished trial reports. We imposed no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included double-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trials comparing oral galantamine with placebo for a treatment duration exceeding four weeks in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease or with mild cognitive impairment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Working independently, two review authors selected studies for inclusion, assessed their quality, and extracted data. Outcomes of interest included cognitive function, change in global function, activities of daily living, functional disability, behavioural function, and adverse events. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analytic synthesis, and presented results as Peto odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals. We used Cochrane's original risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies with a total of 10,990 participants. The average age of participants was 74 years, and 37% were male. The studies' durations ranged from eight weeks to two years, with 24 weeks being the most common duration. One newly included study assessed the effects of galantamine at two years, and another newly included study involved participants with severe Alzheimer's disease. Nineteen studies with 10,497 participants contributed data to the meta-analysis. All studies had low to unclear risk of bias for randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding. We judged four studies to be at high risk of bias due to attrition and two due to selective outcome reporting. Galantamine for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease We summarise only the results for galantamine given at 8 to 12 mg twice daily (total galantamine 16 mg to 24 mg/day), assessed at six months. See the full review for results of other dosing regimens and assessment time points. There is high-certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, galantamine improves: cognitive function, as assessed with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog) (MD-2.86, 95% CI -3.29 to -2.43; 6 studies, 3049 participants; minimum clinically important effect (MCID) = 2.6- to 4-point change); functional disability, as assessed with the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD) scale (MD 2.12, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.49; 3 studies, 1275 participants); and behavioural function, as assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (MD -1.63, 95% CI -3.07 to -0.20; 2 studies, 1043 participants) at six months. Galantamine may improve global function at six months, as assessed with the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change plus Caregiver Input (CIBIC-plus) (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.84; 6 studies, 3002 participants; low-certainty evidence). Participants who received galantamine were more likely than placebo-treated participants to discontinue prematurely (22.7% versus 17.2%) (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.68; 6 studies, 3336 participants; high-certainty evidence), and experience nausea (20.9% versus 8.4%) (OR 2.89, 95% CI 2.40 to 3.49; 7 studies, 3616 participants; high-certainty evidence) during the studies. Galantamine reduced death rates at six months: 1.3% of participants in the galantamine groups had died compared to 2.3% in the placebo groups (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.96; 6 studies, 3493 participants; high-certainty evidence). Galantamine for mild cognitive impairment We summarise results, assessed at two years, from two studies that gave participants galantamine at 8 to 12 mg twice daily (total galantamine 16 mg to 24 mg/day). Compared to placebo, galantamine may not improve cognitive function, as assessed with the expanded ADAS-cog for mild cognitive impairment (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.37; 2 studies, 1901 participants; low-certainty evidence) or activities of daily living, assessed with the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Activities of Daily Living scale for mild cognitive impairment (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1901 participants; low-certainty evidence). Participants who received galantamine were probably more likely to discontinue prematurely than placebo-treated participants (40.7% versus 28.6%) (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.05; 2 studies, 2057 participants) and to experience nausea (29.4% versus 10.7%) (OR 3.49, 95% CI 2.75 to 4.44; 2 studies, 2057 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. Galantamine may not reduce death rates at 24 months compared to placebo (0.5% versus 0.1%) (OR 5.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 29.10; 2 studies, 2057 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results from subgroup analysis and meta-regression suggest that an imbalance in discontinuation rates between galantamine and placebo groups, together with the use of the 'last observation carried forward' approach to outcome assessment, may potentially bias cognitive outcomes in favour of galantamine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, galantamine (when given at a total dose of 16 mg to 24 mg/day) slows the decline in cognitive function, functional ability, and behaviour at six months in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. Galantamine probably also slows declines in global function at six months. The changes observed in cognition, assessed with the ADAS-cog scale, were clinically meaningful. Gastrointestinal-related adverse events are the primary concerns associated with galantamine use in people with dementia, which may limit its tolerability. Although death rates were generally low, participants in the galantamine groups had a reduced risk of death compared to those in the placebo groups. There is no evidence to support the use of galantamine in people with mild cognitive impairment.
IMPORTANCE: Our study revealed that the components of DNA virus could be packaged and transmitted through the exosomes of lower invertebrates, which strongly demonstrated the diversity of exosome-mediated viral immunity and its universality in animals. Furthermore, we elucidated the mechanism of apoptotic signal transduction between cells from the perspective of exosomes and revealed a novel strategy for the host to cope with viral infection.
METHODS: The development of the insulin PDA implementation intervention was divided into two phases, incorporating step 3 and 4 of the Action Cycle in the Knowledge to Action framework. In Phase 1, barriers to the insulin PDA implementation was explored through qualitative interviews using an interview guide developed based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. In Phase 2, prioritisation of the barriers was conducted using the multivoting technique. Next, potential strategies that can address the barriers were identified based on understanding the clinic context, and evidence from literature. Then, the selected strategies were operationalised by providing full descriptions in terms of its actor, action, action target, temporality, dose, implementation outcome affected, before they were embedded into the patient care pathway in the clinic. The implementation intervention was finalised through a clinic stakeholders meeting.
RESULTS: In Phase 1, a total of 15 focus group discussions and 37 in-depth individual interviews were conducted with: healthcare policymakers (n = 11), doctors (n = 22), diabetes educators (n = 8), staff nurses (n = 6), pharmacists (n = 6), and patients (n = 31). A total of 26 barriers and 11 facilitators emerged and they were categorised into HCP, patient, organisational, and innovation factors. The multivoting exercise resulted in the prioritisation of 13 barriers, and subsequently, a total of 11 strategies were identified to address those barriers. The strategies were mandate change, training workshop, involve patients' family members or caretakers, framing/reframing, inform healthcare providers on the advantages of the insulin PDA use, define roles and responsibilities, place the insulin PDA in the consultation room, provide feedback, systematic documentation, to engage patients in treatment discussions, and juxtapose PDA in preferred language with patient's PDA in their preferred language to help with translation.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights main barriers to PDA implementation, and strategies that can be adopted for implementation. The steps for intervention development in this study can be compared with other intervention development methods to advance the field of implementation of evidence-based innovations.