PURPOSE: This review article aims to recapitulate the therapeutic potential of berberine and its mechanism of action in treating musculoskeletal disorders.
METHODS: A wide range of literature illustrating the effects of berberine in ameliorating musculoskeletal disorders was retrieved from online electronic databases (PubMed and Medline) and reviewed.
RESULTS: Berberine may potentially retard the progression of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Limited studies reported the effects of berberine in suppressing the proliferation of osteosarcoma cells. These beneficial properties of berberine are mediated in part through its ability to target multiple signaling pathways, including PKA, p38 MAPK, Wnt/β-catenin, AMPK, RANK/RANKL/OPG, PI3K/Akt, NFAT, NF-κB, Hedgehog, and oxidative stress signaling. In addition, berberine exhibited anti-apoptotic, anti-inflammatory, and immunosuppressive properties.
CONCLUSION: The current evidence indicates that berberine may be effective in preventing musculoskeletal disorders. However, findings from in vitro and in vivo investigations await further validation from human clinical trial.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of methods used during dental treatment procedures to minimize aerosol production and reduce or neutralize contamination in aerosols.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases on 17 September 2020: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946); Embase Ovid (from 1980); the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) performed by dental healthcare providers that evaluated methods to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics (excluding preprocedural mouthrinses). The primary outcomes were incidence of infection in dental staff or patients, and reduction in volume and level of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment. The secondary outcomes were cost, accessibility and feasibility.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from the included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies, and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data. We assessed heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies with 425 participants aged 5 to 69 years. Eight studies had high risk of bias; eight had unclear risk of bias. No studies measured infection. All studies measured bacterial contamination using the surrogate outcome of colony-forming units (CFU). Two studies measured contamination per volume of air sampled at different distances from the patient's mouth, and 14 studies sampled particles on agar plates at specific distances from the patient's mouth. The results presented below should be interpreted with caution as the evidence is very low certainty due to heterogeneity, risk of bias, small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. Moreover, we do not know the 'minimal clinically important difference' in CFU. High-volume evacuator Use of a high-volume evacuator (HVE) may reduce bacterial contamination in aerosols less than one foot (~ 30 cm) from a patient's mouth (MD -47.41, 95% CI -92.76 to -2.06; 3 RCTs, 122 participants (two studies had split-mouth design); very high heterogeneity I² = 95%), but not at longer distances (MD -1.00, -2.56 to 0.56; 1 RCT, 80 participants). One split-mouth RCT (six participants) found that HVE may not be more effective than conventional dental suction (saliva ejector or low-volume evacuator) at 40 cm (MD CFU -2.30, 95% CI -5.32 to 0.72) or 150 cm (MD -2.20, 95% CI -14.01 to 9.61). Dental isolation combination system One RCT (50 participants) found that there may be no difference in CFU between a combination system (Isolite) and a saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) during AGPs (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.20) or after AGPs (MD -0.35, -0.99 to 0.29). However, an 'n of 1' design study showed that the combination system may reduce CFU compared with rubber dam plus HVE (MD -125.20, 95% CI -174.02 to -76.38) or HVE (MD -109.30, 95% CI -153.01 to -65.59). Rubber dam One split-mouth RCT (10 participants) receiving dental treatment, found that there may be a reduction in CFU with rubber dam at one-metre (MD -16.20, 95% CI -19.36 to -13.04) and two-metre distance (MD -11.70, 95% CI -15.82 to -7.58). One RCT of 47 dental students found use of rubber dam may make no difference in CFU at the forehead (MD 0.98, 95% CI -0.73 to 2.70) and occipital region of the operator (MD 0.77, 95% CI -0.46 to 2.00). One split-mouth RCT (21 participants) found that rubber dam plus HVE may reduce CFU more than cotton roll plus HVE on the patient's chest (MD -251.00, 95% CI -267.95 to -234.05) and dental unit light (MD -12.70, 95% CI -12.85 to -12.55). Air cleaning systems One split-mouth CCT (two participants) used a local stand-alone air cleaning system (ACS), which may reduce aerosol contamination during cavity preparation (MD -66.70 CFU, 95% CI -120.15 to -13.25 per cubic metre) or ultrasonic scaling (MD -32.40, 95% CI - 51.55 to -13.25). Another CCT (50 participants) found that laminar flow in the dental clinic combined with a HEPA filter may reduce contamination approximately 76 cm from the floor (MD -483.56 CFU, 95% CI -550.02 to -417.10 per cubic feet per minute per patient) and 20 cm to 30 cm from the patient's mouth (MD -319.14 CFU, 95% CI - 385.60 to -252.68). Disinfectants ‒ antimicrobial coolants Two RCTs evaluated use of antimicrobial coolants during ultrasonic scaling. Compared with distilled water, coolant containing chlorhexidine (CHX), cinnamon extract coolant or povidone iodine may reduce CFU: CHX (MD -124.00, 95% CI -135.78 to -112.22; 20 participants), povidone iodine (MD -656.45, 95% CI -672.74 to -640.16; 40 participants), cinnamon (MD -644.55, 95% CI -668.70 to -620.40; 40 participants). CHX coolant may reduce CFU more than povidone iodine (MD -59.30, 95% CI -64.16 to -54.44; 20 participants), but not more than cinnamon extract (MD -11.90, 95% CI -35.88 to 12.08; 40 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no studies that evaluated disease transmission via aerosols in a dental setting; and no evidence about viral contamination in aerosols. All of the included studies measured bacterial contamination using colony-forming units. There appeared to be some benefit from the interventions evaluated but the available evidence is very low certainty so we are unable to draw reliable conclusions. We did not find any studies on methods such as ventilation, ionization, ozonisation, UV light and fogging. Studies are needed that measure contamination in aerosols, size distribution of aerosols and infection transmission risk for respiratory diseases such as COVID-19 in dental patients and staff.
RESULTS: Compared with the unvaccinated group, leukocyte, lymphocytes, monocytes, granulocytes counts in vaccinated groups were significantly (P
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from 3 to 12 April 2020. The health belief model (HBM) was used to assess predictors of the intent to receive the vaccine and the WTP.
RESULTS: A total of 1,159 complete responses was received. The majority reported a definite intent to receive the vaccine (48.2%), followed by a probable intent (29.8%) and a possible intent (16.3%). Both items under the perceived benefits construct in the HBM, namely believe the vaccination decreases the chance of infection (OR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.19-5.26) and the vaccination makes them feel less worry (OR = 2.19, 95% CI 1.03-4.65), were found to have the highest significant odds of a definite intention to take the vaccine. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the amount that participants were willing to pay for a dose of COVID-19 vaccine was MYR$134.0 (SD±79.2) [US$30.66 ± 18.12]. Most of the participants were willing to pay an amount of MYR$100 [US$23] (28.9%) and MYR$50 [US$11.5] (27.2%) for the vaccine. The higher marginal WTP for the vaccine was influenced by no affordability barriers as well as by socio-economic factors, such as higher education levels, professional and managerial occupations and higher incomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate the utility of HBM constructs in understanding COVID-19 vaccination intention and WTP.
METHODS: A cross-sectional population survey using an online questionnaire commenced on 14 February 2020. The study participants were residents of Taiwan ages 20 to 70 years. The 6-item state version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) was used to assess anxiety symptoms. The questions about preventive measures asked participants about their personal protection, cough etiquette, contact precautions, voluntary quarantine, and prompt reporting. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the factors influencing an increase in the preventive measures scores.
RESULTS: Of a total of 3555 completed responses, a total of 52.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50.4-53.7) of the respondents reported moderate to severe levels of anxiety symptoms in the past week, whereas 48.8% (95%CI 47.2-50.5) reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms at the beginning of the outbreak. With a higher score indicating greater anxiety, the median scores for anxiety symptoms in the past week and at the beginning of the outbreak were 46.7 (IQR [interquartile range] 36.7-53.3) and 43.3 (IQR 36.7-53.3), respectively. The median scores for the preventive measures taken in the past week and at the beginning of the outbreak were 26.0 (IQR 21.0-30.0) and 24.0 (IQR 19.0-28.0), respectively, out of a maximum score of 36. In the multivariable analysis, an increased anxiety symptom score from the beginning of the outbreak to the past week (adjusted OR = 7.38, 95%CI 6.28-8.66) was a strongly significant determinant of an increased preventive measures score in the past week compared with the score at the beginning of the outbreak.
CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety and preventive measures scores were high and increased with the epidemic rate. Higher anxiety was associated with an increased use of preventive measures against COVID-19.
METHODS: Medical records of patients who underwent thoracic surgery from March 18, 2020 to May 17, 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. All patients undergoing thoracic surgery were tested for Covid-19 using the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction method. Patients with malignancy were observed for 10 to 14 days in the ward after testing negative. The healthcare workers donned personal protective equipment for all the cases, and the number of healthcare workers in the operating room was limited to the minimum required.
RESULTS: A total of 44 procedures were performed in 26 thoracic surgeries. All of these procedures were classified as aerosol generating, and the mean duration of the surgery was 130 ± 43 minutes. None of the healthcare workers involved in the surgery were exposed or infected by Covid-19.
CONCLUSION: Covid-19 will be a threat for a long time and thoracic surgeons must continue to provide their services, despite having to deal with aerosol generating procedures, in the new normal. Covid-19 testing of all surgical candidates, using the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, donning full personal protective equipment for healthcare workers, and carefully planned procedures are among the measures suggested to prevent unnecessary Covid-19 exposure in thoracic surgery.
METHODS: Consecutive ACLF patients were monitored for the development of SIRS/sepsis and associated complications and followed till 90 days, liver transplant or death.
RESULTS: Of 561 patients, 201 (35.8%) had no SIRS and 360 (64.2%) had SIRS with or without infection. New onset SIRS and sepsis developed in 74.6% and 8% respectively in a median of 7 (range 4-15) days, at a rate of 11% per day. The cumulative incidence of new SIRS was 29%, 92.8%, and 100% by days 4, 7, and 15. Liver failure, that is, bilirubin > 12 mg/dL (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.05-6.19], P = 0.04) at days 0 and 4, and renal failure at day 4 (OR = 6.74 [95%CI = 1.50-13.29], P = 0.01), independently predicted new onset SIRS. Absence of SIRS in the first week was associated with reduced incidence of organ failure (20% vs 39.4%, P = 0.003), as was the 28-day (17.6% vs 36%, P = 0.02) and 90-day (27.5% vs 51%,P = 0.002) mortality. The 90-day mortality was 61.6% in the total cohort and that for those having no SIRS and SIRS at presentation were 42.8% and 65%, respectively (P
Methods: We searched for articles from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL plus. From 2002 to 2015, 31 articles meeting the inclusion criteria were identified in the literature. Risk of bias and heterogeneity were assessed. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed using random-effects modeling to obtain estimates for study outcomes. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. We then ranked the comparative effects of all regimens with the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.
Results: A total of 2,952 patients were included. We found that synbiotic therapy was the best regimen in reducing surgical site infection (SSI) (RR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64) in adult surgical patients. Synbiotic therapy was also the best intervention to reduce pneumonia (RR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.90), sepsis (RR = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.94), hospital stay (mean = 9.66 days, 95% CI, 7.60-11.72), and duration of antibiotic administration (mean = 5.61 days, 95% CI, 3.19-8.02). No regimen significantly reduced mortality.
Conclusions: This network meta-analysis suggests that synbiotic therapy is the first rank to reduce SSI, pneumonia, sepsis, hospital stay, and antibiotic use. Surgeons should consider the use of synbiotics as an adjunctive therapy to prevent POCs among adult surgical patients. Increasing use of synbiotics may help to reduce the use of antibiotics and multidrug resistance.
AREAS COVERED: This review covers issues pertinent to infection in the HSCT patient, including bacterial and viral infection; strategies to reduce GVHD; infection patterns; resistance and treatment options; adverse drug reactions to antimicrobials, problems of antimicrobial resistance; perturbation of the microbiome; the role of prebiotics, probiotics, and antimicrobial peptides. We highlight potential strategies to minimize the use of antimicrobials.
EXPERT OPINION: Measures to control infection and its transmission remain significant HSCT management policy and planning issues. Transplant centers need to consider carefully prophylactic use of antimicrobials for neutropenic patients. The judicious use of appropriate antimicrobials remains a crucial part of the treatment protocol. However, antimicrobials' adverse effects cause microbiome diversity and dysbiosis and have been shown to increase morbidity and mortality.
METHODS: Patients referred to the Endoscopic Unit for colonoscopy were recruited for the study. Stool samples were collected prior to bowel preparation, and tested for occult blood with both gFOBT and FIT. Dietary restriction was not imposed. To assess the validity of either tests or in combination to detect a neoplasm or cancer in the colon, their false positive rates, their sensitivity (true positive rate) and the specificity (true negative rate) were analyzed and compared.
RESULTS: One hundred and three patients were analysed. The sensitivity for picking up any neoplasia was 53% for FIT, 40% for gFOBT and 23.3% for the combination. The sensitivities for picking up only carcinoma were 77.8% , 66.7% and 55.5%, respectively. The specificity for excluding any neoplasia was 91.7% for FIT, 74% for gFOBT and 94.5% for a combination, whereas for excluding only carcinomas they were 84%, 73.4% and 93.6%. Of the 69 with normal colonoscopic findings, FOBT was positive in 4.3%, 23.2 %and 2.9% for FIT, gFOBT, or combination of tests respectively.
CONCLUSION: FIT is the recommended method if we are to dispense with dietary restriction in our patients because of its relatively low-false positivity and better sensitivity and specificity rates.