METHODS: Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Google Scholar, were systematically searched from the initiation of the database until 12 December 2020. All relevant studies about smoking and COVID-19 were screened using a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of eligible articles. Random meta-analyses were conducted to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs). Publication bias was assessed using the funnel plot, Begg's test and Egger's test.
RESULTS: A total of 1248 studies were retrieved and reviewed. A total of 40 studies were finally included for meta-analysis. Both current smoking and former smoking significantly increase the risk of disease severity (OR=1.58; 95% CI: 1.16-2.15, p=0.004; and OR=2.48; 95% CI: 1.64-3.77, p<0.001; respectively) with moderate appearance of heterogeneity. Similarly, current smoking and former smoking also significantly increase the risk of death (OR=1.35; 95% CI: 1.12-1.62, p=0.002; and OR=2.58; 95% CI: 2.15-3.09, p<0.001; respectively) with moderate appearance of heterogeneity. There was no evidence of publication bias, which was tested by the funnel plot, Begg's test and Egger's test.
CONCLUSIONS: Smoking, even current smoking or former smoking, significantly increases the risk of COVID-19 severity and death. Further causational studies on this association and ascertianing the underlying mechanisms of this relation is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the effects of telemedicine on asthma control and the quality of life in adults.
METHODS: An electronic search was performed from the inception to March 2018 on the following databases: Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, PubMed, and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of telemedicine in adults with asthma were included in this analysis, and the outcomes of interest were levels of asthma control and quality of life. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 22 studies (10,281 participants) were included. Each of 11 studies investigated the effects of single-telemedicine and combined-telemedicine (combinations of telemedicine approaches), and the meta-analyses showed that combined tele-case management could significantly improve asthma control compared with usual care (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56, 1.01). Combined tele-case management and tele-consultation (SMD = 0.52 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.91]) and combined tele-consultation (SMD = 0.28 [95% CI: 0.13, 0.44]) also significantly improved asthma outcomes, but to a lesser degree. In addition, combined tele-case management (SMD = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.31, 0.88]) was the most effective telemedicine for improving quality of life, followed by combined tele-case management and tele-consultation (SMD = 0.31 [95% CI: 0.03, 0.59]), tele-case management (SMD = 0.30 [95% CI: 0.05, 0.55]), and combined tele-consultation (SMD = 0.27 [95% CI: 0.11, 0.43]), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined-telemedicine involving tele-case management or tele-consultation appear to be effective telemedicine interventions to improve asthma control and quality of life in adults. Our findings are expected to provide health care professionals with current evidence of the effects of telemedicine on asthma control and patients' quality of life.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane register of trials systematically for studies that examined treatment options for patients with MDR- and XDR-AB infections until April 2016. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI from both direct and indirect evidence. Primary outcomes were clinical cure and microbiological cure. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and nephrotoxic and non-nephrotoxic adverse events.
Results: A total of 29 studies with 2529 patients (median age 60 years; 65% male; median APACHE II score 19.0) were included. Although there were no statistically significant differences between treatment options, triple therapy with colistin, sulbactam and tigecycline had the highest clinical cure rate. Colistin in combination with sulbactam was associated with a significantly higher microbiological cure rate compared with colistin in combination with tigecycline (RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.03-1.47) and colistin monotherapy (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.06-1.38). No significant differences in all-cause mortality were noted between treatment options. Tigecycline-based therapy also appeared less effective for achieving a microbiological cure and is not appropriate for treating bloodstream MDR- and XDR-AB infections.
Conclusions: Combination therapy of colistin with sulbactam demonstrates superiority in terms of microbiological cure with a safety profile similar to that of colistin monotherapy. Thus, our findings support the use of this combination as a treatment for MDR- and XDR-AB infections.
METHODS: We searched nine databases from inception to 8 February 2018 for randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacological interventions and clinical outcomes in adult bacterial meningitis. An updated search from 9 February to 9 March 2020 was performed, and no new studies met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used for quality of evidences evaluation. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the risk ratio with 95% confidence interval for both direct and indirect comparisons on the primary outcomes of all-cause mortality, neurologic sequelae and any hearing loss. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018108062).
RESULTS: Nine RCTs were included in systematic review, involving 1,002 participants with a mean age ranging between 25.3 to 50.56 years. Six RCTs were finally included in the network-meta analysis. No significant difference between treatment was noted in meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis suggests that corticosteroids in combination with antibiotic therapy was more effective in reducing the risk of any hearing loss compared to mono antibiotic therapy (RR 0.64; 95%CI, 0.45 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). Numerical lower risk of mortality and neurological complications was also shown for adjunctive corticosteroids in combination with antibiotic therapy versus mono antibiotic therapy (RR 0.65; 95%CI, 0.42 to 1.02, 6 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence; RR 0.75; 95%CI, 0.47 to 1.18, 6 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). No differences were noted in the adverse events between different therapies. The overall certainty of evidence was moderate to very low for all primary outcomes examined.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest that corticosteroids therapy in combination with antibiotic is more effective than mono antibiotic therapy in reducing the risk of any hearing loss in adult patients with acute bacterial meningitis. More well-design RCTs to investigate relative effective treatments in acute bacterial meningitis particularly in adult population should be mandated to aid clinicians in treatment recommendations.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to provide a critical summary of EEs of PCVs and identify key drivers of EE findings in LMICs.
METHODS: We searched Scopus, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central from their inception to 30 September 2015 and limited the search to LMICs. The search was undertaken using the search strings 'pneumococc* AND conjugat* AND (vaccin* OR immun*)' AND 'economic OR cost-effectiveness OR cost-benefit OR cost-utility OR cost-effectiveness OR cost-benefit OR cost-utility' in the abstract, title or keyword fields. To be included, each study had to be a full EE of a PCV and conducted for an LMIC. Studies were extracted and reviewed by two authors. The review involved standard extraction of the study overview or the characteristics of the study, key drivers or parameters of the EE, assumptions behind the analyses and major areas of uncertainty.
RESULTS: Out of 134 records identified, 22 articles were included. Seven studies used a Markov model for analysis, while 15 studies used a decision-tree analytic model. Eighteen studies performed a cost-utility analysis (CUA), with disability-adjusted life-years, quality-adjusted life-years or life-years gained as a measure of health outcome, while four studies focused only on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Both CEA and CUA findings were provided by eight studies. Herd effects and serotype replacement were considered in 10 and 13 studies, respectively. The current evidence shows that both the 10-valent and 13-valent PCVs are probably cost effective in comparison with the 7-valent PCV or no vaccination. The most influential parameters were vaccine efficacy and coverage (in 16 of 22 studies), vaccine price (in 13 of 22 studies), disease incidence (in 11 of 22 studies), mortality from IPD and pneumonia (in 8 of 22 studies) and herd effects (in 4 of 22 studies). The findings were found to be supportive of the products owned by the manufacturers.
CONCLUSION: Our review demonstrated that an infant PCV programme was a cost-effective intervention in most LMICs (in 20 of 22 studies included). The results were sensitive to vaccine efficacy, price, burden of disease and sponsorship. Decision makers should consider EE findings and affordability before adoption of PCVs.
METHODS: We searched for RCTs published up until September 2016. Retrieved trials were evaluated using risk of bias. We performed both pairwise analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) of RCTs to compare the effects of CPAs on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas (primary outcome). Using NMA, we ranked CPAs based on efficacy.
RESULTS: We identified 20 eligible RCTs enrolling 12,625 participants with a history of colorectal cancer or adenomas who were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo or one of 12 interventions. NMA using all trials demonstrated that celecoxib 800 mg/day (relative risk [RR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.83), celecoxib 400 mg/day (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55-0.87), low-dose aspirin (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.96) and calcium (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.96) were significantly associated with a reduction in the recurrence of any adenomas. NMA results were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analysis. The evidence indicated a high (celecoxib), moderate (low-dose aspirin) and low (calcium) Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality. NMA ranking showed that celecoxib 800 mg/day and celecoxib 400 mg/day were the best CPAs, followed by low-dose aspirin and calcium. Considering advanced adenoma recurrence, only celecoxib 800 mg/day and celecoxib 400 mg/day were demonstrated to have a protective effect (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27-0.52 vs RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.38-0.60, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The available evidence from NMA suggests that celecoxib is more effective in reducing the risk of recurrence of colorectal adenomas, followed by low-dose aspirin and calcium. Since cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (eg, celecoxib) are associated with important cardiovascular events and gastrointestinal harms, more attention is warranted toward CPAs with a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio, such as low-dose aspirin and calcium.
METHODS: The study comprised a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched for RCTs published up until September 2016. Retrieved trials were evaluated using risk of bias. Primary outcome measures were the incidences of any recurrent adenomas and of advanced adenomas. Meta-analytic estimates were calculated with the random-effects model and random errors were evaluated with trial sequential analyses (TSAs).
RESULTS: Five randomized trials (2234 patients with a history of adenomas) were included. Two of the 5 trials showed either unclear or high risks of bias in most criteria. Meta-analysis of good quality RCTs suggest a moderate protective effect of calcium supplementation on recurrence of adenomas (relative risk [RR], 0.88 [95% CI 0.79-0.99]); however, its effects on advanced adenomas did not show statistical significance (RR, 1.02 [95% CI 0.67-1.55]). Subgroup analyses demonstrated a greater protective effect on recurrence of adenomas with elemental calcium dose ≥1600 mg/day (RR, 0.74 [95% CI 0.56-0.97]) compared to ≤1200 mg/day (RR, 0.84 [95% CI 0.73-0.97]). No major serious adverse events were associated with the use of calcium, but there was an increase in the incidence of hypercalcemia (P = .0095). TSA indicated a lack of firm evidence for a beneficial effect. Concerns with directness and imprecision rated down the quality of the evidence to "low."
CONCLUSION: The available good quality RCTs suggests a possible beneficial effect of calcium supplementation on the recurrence of adenomas; however, TSA indicated that the accumulated evidence is still inconclusive. Using GRADE-methodology, we conclude that the quality of evidence is low. Large well-designed randomized trials with low risk of bias are needed.