Methods: We used a single-blind, randomized controlled crossover equivalence design to compare the efficacy on N.A. regulation of W.A.R.A. versus Distraction in 101 patients with different neuropsychiatric disorders.
Results: The results showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) in response to W.A.R.A. vs. Distraction, with W.A.R.A. being significantly more effective in regulating N.A., with a large effect size (dRMpooled = 2.38) and a high probability (95%) of success.
Limitations: The heterogeneity of the study population makes generalization and clear recommendations for specific patient groups difficult. The Numeric Rating Scale might have prevented detection of increased N.A. when the baseline scores were high. More in-depth research is needed to explore the W.A.R.A. technique and the extent of confounding variables such as the placebo effect.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that W.A.R.A. may be an effective, accessible, and brief intervention reducing negative affect. Although premature, these first results are encouraging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pre-post study (interventional study design) was conducted on paramedic students. Our study period was 6 months which was divided into Phases I, II, and III. For administrative purpose, we included all paramedical students, and our sample size was 119. The baseline assessment of knowledge and attitude of paramedic students was done by a pretested questionnaire (Observation 1) with having a baseline scoring. After that, intervention Phase 1 was implemented, and later, end line observation (Observation 2) was made. Changes in knowledge and attitude were observed by the score difference (Observation 2-Observation 1). Descriptive statistics were calculated, and the mean of cumulative score was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. We applied Mann-Whitney U-test for finding associations between dependent variables with an independent variable using SPSS version 22 (IBM, Chicago, USA) software.
RESULTS: Our baseline results showed that most of our participants had average knowledge (54.6%), followed by poor knowledge (24.4%). Approximately one-fifth (21.0%) of the participants had good knowledge regarding disaster preparedness. A significant improvement was observed in cumulative score (P < 0.005). A significant difference was observed in knowledge and attitude with respect to age and courses (P < 0.05). Forty percent of the students responded that they would like to get trained by that mock drill, and 26.1% were interested in disaster preparedness workshops in the future.
CONCLUSION: Our present study results indicate that the overall knowledge and attitude level of the students was average and required improvement. A similar result was reported in some studies conducted globally for the same purpose. All of our students perceived that training for disaster preparedness is necessary for all health facilities, and it is important to have an emergency plan and disaster management committee. Regarding training methods, most of our students liked our interactive audiovisual method. However, their preferred methods were mock drill and workshops. It can be arranged in the future for them.
METHODS: Genetic diversity was assessed using 20 SSR markers, and the parental lines were grouped into five clusters based on the Unweighted Pair Group Method of Arithmetic Means (UPGMA). Heterosis was examined through yield and yield-related traits among parents and hybrids.
RESULTS: Polymorphisms were detected in eight out of the twenty SSR markers across the parental lines. Notably, a high genetic distance was observed between some parents. The analysis of yield and yield-related traits demonstrated significant heterosis over mid, superior, and standard parents, particularly in fruit yield per plant. Two crosses (RKML-26 X PPC and RKML1 X PPC) displayed substantial heterosis over mid and better parents, respectively. However, the positive correlation between genetic distance and heterosis was only up to a certain threshold; moderate genetic distance often resulted in higher heterosis compared to very high genetic distance.
DISCUSSION: These findings emphasize the critical role of parental selection in hybrid breeding programs. The results contribute to the understanding of the relationship between genetic distance and heterosis, and it is suggested that future research should delve into the genetic mechanisms that drive heterosis and the effect of genetic distance variance on heterosis. The insights drawn from this study can be harnessed to enhance crop yield and economic value in breeding programs.
Methods: A total of 126 patients were randomised into two groups. The patients in Group A underwent mesotherapy (n = 66) and those in Group B underwent surgery (n = 60). The patients in Group A group received six sessions of mesotherapy treatment at 2-week intervals. Both groups were followed up for 12 weeks, during which they were assessed for complications arising from treatment, reduction of the size of the lipoma and cosmetic outcomes.
Results: The overall mean age of the patients was 32.93 (± 10.1) years old and the mean volume of the lipomas was 2.29 (± 3.8) mL. A 55.86% (P = 0.0032) mean reduction in the volume of lipomas was noted in the patients who received mesotherapy, while one patient showed a gain of 16% by volume. The patients in Group A (cosmetic score ≥ 4: 63%) were happier with the treatment than those in Group B (cosmetic score ≥ 4: 21%).
Conclusion: Our findings indicate that mesotherapy modestly reduces the volume of lipomas with very few and minor complications and excellent cosmetic outcomes.
METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study was done at 26 sites (primarily secondary or tertiary centres) in 12 countries. Men, boys, and young adults aged 12 years or older with severe haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors previously treated with on-demand bypassing agents were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive once-a-month 80 mg subcutaneous fitusiran prophylaxis (fitusiran prophylaxis group) or to continue with bypassing agents on-demand (bypassing agents on-demand group) for 9 months. The primary endpoint was mean annualised bleeding rate during the efficacy period in the intention-to-treat population estimated by negative binomial model. Safety was assessed as a secondary endpoint in the safety population. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03417102.
FINDINGS: Between Feb 14, 2018, and June 23, 2021, 85 participants were screened for inclusion, of whom 57 (67%; 57 [100%] men; median age 27·0 years [IQR 19·5-33·5]) were randomly assigned: 19 (33%) participants to the bypassing agent on-demand group and 38 (67%) participants to the fitusiran prophylaxis. Negative binomial model-based mean annualised bleeding rate was significantly lower in the fitusiran prophylaxis group (1·7 [95% CI 1·0-2·7]) than in the bypassing agents on-demand group (18·1 [10·6-30·8]), corresponding to a 90·8% (95% CI 80·8-95·6) reduction in annualised bleeding rate in favour of fitusiran prophylaxis (p<0·0001). 25 (66%) participants had zero treated bleeds in the fitusiran prophylaxis group versus one (5%) in the bypassing agents on-demand group. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event in the fitusiran prophylaxis group was increased alanine aminotransferase in 13 (32%) of 41 participants in the safety population; there were no increased alanine aminotransferase treatment-emergent adverse events in the bypassing agents on-demand group. Suspected or confirmed thromboembolic events were reported in two (5%) participants in the fitusiran prophylaxis group. No deaths were reported.
INTERPRETATION: Subcutaneous fitusiran prophylaxis resulted in statistically significant reductions in annualised bleeding rate in participants with haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors, with two-thirds of participants having zero bleeds. Fitusiran prophylaxis might show haemostatic efficacy in participants with haemophilia A or haemophilia B with inhibitors; therefore, the therapeutic might have the potential to improve the management of people with haemophilia.
FUNDING: Sanofi.
METHODS: We searched five global databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, WHO COVID-19) on 12 May 2022 and 28 July 2023 and three Chinese databases (CNKI, Wanfang, CQvip) on 16 October 2022 for articles reporting incidence and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection before the period of Omicron (B.1.1.529) predominance. We assessed risk of bias using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools and conducted meta-analyses with random effects models to estimate the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection among initially infected cases and hospitalisation and mortality proportions among reinfected ones.
RESULTS: We identified 7593 studies and extracted data from 64 included ones representing 21 countries. The proportion of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was 1.16% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01-1.33) based on 11 639 247 initially infected cases, with ≥45 days between the two infections. Healthcare providers (2.28%; 95% CI = 1.37-3.40) had a significantly higher risk of reinfection than the general population (1.00%; 95% CI = 0.81-1.20), while young adults aged 18 to 35 years (1.01%; 95% CI = 0.8-1.25) had a higher reinfection burden than other age groups (children <18 years old: 0.57%; 95% CI = 0.39-0.79, older adults aged 36-65 years old: 0.53%; 95% CI = 0.41-0.65, elderly >65 years old: 0.37%; 95% CI = 0.15-0.66). Among the reinfected cases, 8.12% (95% CI = 5.30-11.39) were hospitalised, 1.31% (95% CI = 0.29-2.83) were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 0.71% (95% CI = 0.02-2.01) died.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest a relatively low risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in the pre-Omicron era, but the risk of hospitalisation was relatively high among the reinfected cases. Considering the possibility of underdiagnosis, the reinfection burden may be underestimated.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42023449712.
RESULTS: We included 237 studies, each reporting at least one of the study outcomes. Based on data from 117 studies, the pooled SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate was 9.30% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 7.15-11.73). Having a comorbidity was identified as a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk ratio (RR) = 1.33; 95% CI = 1.04-1.71) based on data from 49 studies. Most cases in this review presented with mild disease (n = 50; 52.47% (95% CI = 44.03-60.84)). However, 20.70% of paediatric SARS-CoV-2 infections were hospitalised (67 studies), 7.19% required oxygen support (57 studies), 4.26% required intensive care (93 studies), and 2.92% required assisted ventilation (63 studies). The case fatality ratio (n = 119) was 0.87% (95% CI = 0.54-1.28), which included in-hospital and out-of-hospital deaths.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that children were at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infections and severe outcomes in the pre-Omicron era. These findings underscore the need for effective vaccination strategies for the paediatric population to protect against the acute and long-term sequelae of COVID-19.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42022327680.