METHODS: This is a systematic review and a meta-analysis evaluating the evidence from clinical trials on the effect of colchicine and corticosteroids against COVID-19. In this review, we have systematically searched five databases [(PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, CINAHL (EBSCO)]. Cochrane's data extraction sheet was used to collect the required information, and RevMan-5.4.1 was used to conduct the meta-analysis and to assess the risk of bias. The review was registered in Prospero (CRD42022299718).
RESULTS: The total number of included studies was 17, with 18,956 participants; the majority were male 12,001. Out of which, 8772 participants were on colchicine, 569 took methylprednisolone, and 64 patients received prednisolone. The meta-analysis has shown that colchicine had no significant effect on reducing the mortality rate among COVID-19 patients [OR 0.98(95% CI 0.90-1.08), p = .70), I2:1%)], corticosteroids have significantly reduced the mortality rates [OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.33-0.91), p = .02, I2:40]. Colchicine did not reduce the incidence of ICU admissions [OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.39-1.40), p = .35, I2:0%], while steroidal drugs significantly reduced the ICU admissions [OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.23-0.78), p = .005, I2:0%]. Unlike steroidal drugs [OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.30-0.95), p = .03, I2:61%], colchicine failed to reduce the need for mechanical ventilation [OR 0.73 (95% CI 0.48-1.10), p = .13, I2:76%]. Steroidal drugs significantly reduced the duration of hospitalization among COVID-19 patients [OR -0.50 (95% CI -0.79-0.21), p = .0007, I2:36%].
CONCLUSIONS: The use of colchicine did not significantly reduce the mortality rate, ICU admissions, and mechanical ventilation among COVID-19 patients. Conversely, corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate, ICU admissions, mechanical ventilation, and hospitalization duration among COVID-19 patients.
DESIGN: Systematic review and Meta-analysis.
METHODS: We are systematically searching five databases [PubMed, Embase, CT.gov, ICTRP, CINAHL (EBSCO)]. We are following the PRISMA statement and the EPOC guidelines. The meta-analysis will be conducted using Revman-5.4.1 from Cochrane collaboration, UK. This review's protocol was also registered in PROSPERO, University of York, UK (CRD42022299718).
RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, we plan to give a conclusive overview of the available evidence on the efficacy of the medications used to manage gout in reducing COVID-19 mortality, ICU admission, ventilation rate and hospitalization duration. If the results were positive, these drugs would greatly add to the scarce treatment options against COVID-19. Furthermore, these drugs might provide an excellent alternative to inconvenient and expensive drugs. Additionally, most of these drugs have a well-established safety profile for use during nursing, making them a much safer option for nursing mothers with COVID-19.
Materials and Methods: The bark was extracted using different solvents, for example, dichloromethane, ethyl acetate, methanol, and aqueous for obtaining the organic fractions. These organic fractions were then evaluated for their cytotoxic and antimicrobial activity compared with the standard. Cefixime was used as the standard for antibacterial assay, whereas clotrimazole was used as the standard for antifungal activities. Bacterial strains used were Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), whereas for antifungal activities Candida albicans, Candida parapsilosis, and Candida krusei strains were used.
Results: The organic fractions obtained were evaluated for their cytotoxic and antimicrobial activities. In cytotoxic assay (Brine shrimp lethality assay), dichloromethane fraction was the most potent with LD50 of 47.63, whereas aqueous, methanol, and ethyl acetate fractions showed LD50 of 121.74, 422.2, and 201.96, respectively. Similarly, for antibacterial assay, dichloromethane fraction showed 32.2mm zone of inhibition against MRSA in comparison with standard cefixime (zone of inhibition, 30.5mm). A minimal zone of inhibition with crude saponins (13.1 and 12.2mm) was observed against C. albicans in comparison to standard (cefixime) with a zone of inhibition of 28.5mm. No prominent results were observed against C. parapsilosis and C. krusei strains.
Conclusion: The study was based on the plant from Indo-Pak origin, and it has shown some prominent cytotoxic and antibacterial activities. Although the results of this study have provided a basic idea about the efficacy of plant extract, still more explanatory and high-scale studies can be beneficial for elaborating the cytotoxic and antimicrobial activities of this plant.
Methods: This is a descriptive clinical study. A combination of self-reporting questionnaires and data extraction tools were used to collect information during baseline tests, interviews, and follow-ups. Patients' medical, clinical, and socioeconomic history were recorded. Participants were recruited using random sampling from multiple centers.
Results: Out of 1034 COPD patients, heroin smokers represented the vast majority of addiction cases (n = 133). Heroin smokers were leaner than non-addicts (19.78 ± 4.07 and 24.01 ± 5.6, respectively). The most common type of comorbidities among heroin smokers was emphysema (27%). Both the forced expiratory volume (FEV1)/forced vital capacity ratio and FEV1% predicted were lower among heroin smokers than non-addicts (52.79 ± 12.71 and 48.54 ± 14.38, respectively). The majority of heroin smokers (55%) had advanced COPD, and at least 15% of heroin smokers suffered from frequent respiratory failure. The mean ± SD for COPD onset age among heroin smokers was 44.23 ± 5.72, and it showed a statistically significant correlation (P < 0.001).
Conclusion: Heroin smoking might be linked to the onset of COPD. Heroin smokers showed a significantrespiratory impairment compared to tobacco smokers of the same age group.
METHODS: The Web of Science, SCOPUS, and PUBMED databases were searched to find eligible studies. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to evaluate the differences in NLR, MLR, and PLR levels between SAP and non-SAP patients. The meta-analysis was conducted using the software "Review Manager" (RevMan, version 5.4.1, September 2020). The random-effect model was used for the pooling analysis if there was substantial heterogeneity. Otherwise, the fixed-effect model was adopted.
RESULTS: Twelve studies comprising 6302 stroke patients were included. The pooled analyses revealed that patients with SAP had significantly higher levels of NLR, MLR, and PLR than the non-SAP group. The SMD, 95% CI, p-value, and I2 for them were respectively reported as (0.88, 0.70-1.07, .00001, 77%); (0.94, 0.43-1.46, .0003, 93%); and (0.61, 0.47-0.75, .001, 0%). Subgroup analysis of NLR studies showed no significant differences in the effect size index between the severity of the stroke, the sample size, and the period between the stroke onset and the blood sampling.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that an elevated NLR, MLR, and PLR were associated with SAP, indicating that they could be promising blood-based biomarkers for predicting SAP. Large-scale prospective studies from various ethnicities are recommended to validate this association before they can be applied in clinical practice.
METHODS: AI-based chatbots (ie, ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Bing AI, and Google Bard) were compared for their abilities to detect clinically relevant DDIs for 255 drug pairs. Descriptive statistics, such as specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV), were calculated for each tool.
RESULTS: When a subscription tool was used as a reference, the specificity ranged from a low of 0.372 (ChatGPT-3.5) to a high of 0.769 (Microsoft Bing AI). Also, Microsoft Bing AI had the highest performance with an accuracy score of 0.788, with ChatGPT-3.5 having the lowest accuracy rate of 0.469. There was an overall improvement in performance for all the programs when the reference tool switched to a free DDI source, but still, ChatGPT-3.5 had the lowest specificity (0.392) and accuracy (0.525), and Microsoft Bing AI demonstrated the highest specificity (0.892) and accuracy (0.890). When assessing the consistency of accuracy across two different drug classes, ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 showed the highest variability in accuracy. In addition, ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Bard exhibited the highest fluctuations in specificity when analyzing two medications belonging to the same drug class.
CONCLUSION: Bing AI had the highest accuracy and specificity, outperforming Google's Bard, ChatGPT-3.5, and ChatGPT-4. The findings highlight the significant potential these AI tools hold in transforming patient care. While the current AI platforms evaluated are not without limitations, their ability to quickly analyze potentially significant interactions with good sensitivity suggests a promising step towards improved patient safety.
METHODS: Healthcare workers (HCWs) from major healthcare facilities participated in this cross-sectional study. A self-administered questionnaire comprising of five main domains (demographics, knowledge, self-preparedness, counselling practice, perceived barriers) was distributed among HCWs after obtaining informed consent. A convenient sampling technique was used. Descriptive and inferential analyses were applied using SPSS software.
RESULTS: A total of 1000 participants were initially targeted to participate in the study with 514 (51.4%) responding, of which 55.3% were female. Physicians and nurses constituted the largest proportion of participants, with 39.5% and 33.3%, respectively. The median scores for knowledge, self-preparedness, and counselling practice were 8 (out of 9), 9 (out of 15), and 25 (out of 30), respectively. The physician group showed a statistically significant association with better knowledge compared to the nurse group only, P<0.001. Males had higher preparedness scores than females, p<0.001. Also, the intensive care unit (ICU) and emergency departments presented a statistically significant difference by which the participants from these departments were more prepared compared to the others (e.g. outpatients, paediatrics and surgery) with P < 0.0001. The lack of awareness among the general population about COVID-19 preventive measures was perceived as the most common barrier for the adequate prevention and control of COVID-19 in Yemen (89.1%).
CONCLUSION: The major highlight of this study is that HCWs have, overall, good knowledge, suboptimal preparedness, and adequate counselling practices prior to the outbreak of COVID-19 in Yemen, despite the high number of perceived barriers. However, urgent action and interventions are needed to improve the preparedness of HCWs to manage COVID-19. The perceived barriers also need to be fully addressed by the local healthcare authorities and international organisations working in Yemen for adequate prevention and control measures to be in place in managing COVID-19.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 300 elderly Malay participants (age ≥ 65 years) with CKD, attending the Hospital University Sains Malaysia were included in the study. Demographic data and history were also recorded. Serum creatinine was assayed by Chemistry Analyzer Model Architect-C8000 (Jaffe method). While serum cystatin C was examined by Human cystatin C ELISA kit (Sigma-Aldrich) using Thermo Scientific Varioskan Flash ELISA reader.
RESULTS: Out of 300 study participants, 169 (56.3%) were females. Mean age of patients was 67.6 ± 6.7 years. 64 male (64.6%) and 35 female (35.4%) patients were between 70 and 79 years. When estimated by MDRD equation, the prevalence of CKD stage 3 (defined as eGFR = 30 - 59 mL/min/1.73m2) was 27.7%, while based on CKD-EPIcr, CKD-EPIcys, and CKD-EPIcr-cys equations, it was 28%, 36.3%, and 36.3%, respectively. The prevalence of CKD stage 4 (defined as eGFR = 15 - 29 mL/min/1.73m2) when estimated by MDRD was 37.6%, whereas based on CKD-EPIcr, CKD-EPIcys, and CKD-EPIcr-cys equations, it was 36.3%, 46.4%, and 46.4%, respectively. CKD stage 5 (defined as eGFR < 15 mL/min/1.73m2) when estimated by the MDRD equation was 34.7%. While based on CKD-EPIcr, CKD-EPIcys, and CKD-EPIcr-cys equations, the prevalence of CKD stage 5 was 35.7%, 17.3%, and 17.3%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The staging of CKD is different between the creatinine- and cystatin C-based equations. Creatinine-based equations classify patients as having CKD stage 5 twice as often as cystatin C-based equations.
METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted in four major cities in Yemen. The constructed questionnaire consisted of four main sections (sociodemographic data, misinformation, perceptions (perceived susceptibility, severity, and worry), and vaccination acceptance evaluation). Subject recruitment and data collection were conducted online utilizing social websites and using the snowball sampling technique. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed using SPSS version 27.
RESULTS: The total number of respondents was 484. Over 60% of them were males and had a university education. More than half had less than 100$ monthly income and were khat chewers, while only 18% were smokers. Misinformation prevalence ranged from 8.9% to 38.9%, depending on the statement being asked. Men, university education, higher income, employment, and living in urban areas were associated with a lower misinformation level (p <0.05). Statistically significant association (p <0.05) between university education, living in urban areas, and being employed with perceived susceptibility were observed. The acceptance rate was 61.2% for free vaccines, but it decreased to 43% if they had to purchase it. Females, respondents with lower monthly income, and those who believed that pharmaceutical companies made the virus for financial gains were more likely to reject the vaccination (p <0.05).
CONCLUSION: The study revealed that the acceptance rate to take a vaccine was suboptimal and significantly affected by gender, misinformation, cost, and income. Furthermore, being female, non-university educated, low-income, and living in rural areas were associated with higher susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19. These findings show a clear link between misinformation susceptibility and willingness to vaccinate. Focused awareness campaigns to decrease misinformation and emphasize the vaccination's safety and efficacy might be fundamental before initiating any mass vaccination in Yemen.