MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-arm prospective cohort study was conducted among adult patients with COVID-19 categories 2 and 3 treated with Paxlovid® and a matched control group. A standard risk-stratified scoring system was used to establish Paxlovid® eligibility. All patients who were prescribed Paxlovid® and took at least one dose of Paxlovid® were included in the study. The control patients were selected from a centralised COVID-19 patient registry and matched based on age, gender and COVID-19 stage severity.
RESULTS: A total of 552 subjects were included in the study and evenly allocated to the treatment and control groups. There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day hospitalisation after diagnosis [Paxlovid®: 26 (9.4%), Control: 34 (12.3%), OR: 0.74; 95%CI, 0.43-1.27; p=0.274] or all-cause death [Paxlovid®: 2 (0.7%), Control: 3 (1.1%), OR 1.51; 95%CI, 0.25-9.09; p=0.999]. There was no significant reduction in hospitalisation duration, intensive care unit admission events or supplementary oxygen requirement in the treatment arm. Ethnicity, COVID-19 severity at diagnosis, comorbidities and vaccination status were predictors of hospitalisation events.
CONCLUSION: In this two-arm study, Paxlovid® did not significantly lower the incidence of hospitalisation, all-cause death and the need for supplemental oxygen. Adverse effects were frequent but not severe. Paxlovid® efficacy varied across settings and populations, warranting further real-world investigations.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019.
EVIDENCE REVIEW: The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).
FINDINGS: In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomised control study with a two-group, single-blind design and baseline evaluation was selected. Social media sites were used to advertise for participants, who were then admitted after meeting the requirements. Participants who met the eligibility requirements were randomly split into two groups. Each group received a total of three sessions of online therapy (MT or CT), once every two weeks, as well as one phone call per week as reinforcement. At the beginning and end of the intervention, participants completed questionnaires (1st week and 5th week). Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) statistical analysis was used to analyse all the variables.
RESULTS: The MT group experienced a statistically significant decrease in cigarette consumption (β: -3.50, 95% Wald CI: - 4.62, -2.39) compared to the CT group over time. Furthermore, the MT group demonstrated significant improvements in their scores for the AAQ-2, anxiety, stress, depression and mindfulness compared to the CT group.
CONCLUSION: Online MT is more successful at assisting smokers in lowering their daily cigarette intake and supporting their mental health during the smoking cessation process. Further longitudinal comparisons of the effectiveness of online MT should be undertaken using online platforms in future studies.