METHODS: We searched CINAHL, Medline, Global Health, Embase, and WHO COVID-19 in October 2023 for studies reporting the SARS-CoV-2 reinfection incidence during the Omicron period. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the incidence, and requirement of hospitalisation of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections. Symptomatic severity of reinfections and case fatality rates were analysed narratively.
RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included. The reinfection cumulative incidence during the Omicron period was 3.35% (95% CI = 1.95-5.72%) based on data from 28 studies. The cumulative incidence was higher in 18-59-year-old adults (6.62% (95% CI = 3.22-13.12%)) compared to other age groups and in health care workers (9.88% (95% CI = 5.18-18.03%)) compared to the general population (2.48% (95% CI = 1.34-4.54%)). We estimated about 1.81% (95% CI = 0.18-15.87%) of the reinfected cases required hospitalisation based on limited and highly variable data.
CONCLUSIONS: There was an increased risk of reinfections during the Omicron period compared to the pre-Omicron period. The incidence was higher in 18-59-year-old adults and health care workers and generally less severe during the Omicron period. However, data were limited on disease severity and long-term outcomes.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42023482598.
METHODS: A literature search was performed on six databases using the terms "malnutrition", "hospitalised elderly", "nutritional assessment", "Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA)", "Geriatric Nutrition Risk Index (GNRI)", and "Subjective Global Assessment (SGA)".
RESULTS: According to the previous studies, the prevalence of malnutrition among hospitalized elderly shows an increasing trend not only locally but also across the world. Under-recognition of malnutrition causes the number of malnourished hospitalized elderly to remain high throughout the years. Thus, the development of nutritional screening and assessment tools has been widely studied, and these tools are readily available nowadays. SGA, MNA, and GNRI are the nutritional assessment tools developed specifically for the elderly and are well validated in most countries. However, to date, there is no single tool that can be considered as the universal gold standard for the diagnosis of nutritional status in hospitalized patients.
CONCLUSION: It is important to identify which nutritional assessment tool is suitable to be used in this group to ensure that a structured assessment and documentation of nutritional status can be established. An early and accurate identification of the appropriate treatment of malnutrition can be done as soon as possible, and thus, the malnutrition rate among this group can be minimized in the future.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The Shewhart method and Endemic Channel were used to identify alarm variables that may predict dengue outbreaks. Five country datasets were compiled by epidemiological week over the years 2007-2013. These data were split between the years 2007-2011 (historic period) and 2012-2013 (evaluation period). Associations between alarm/ outbreak variables were analysed using logistic regression during the historic period while alarm and outbreak signals were captured during the evaluation period. These signals were combined to form alarm/ outbreak periods, where 2 signals were equal to 1 period. Alarm periods were quantified and used to predict subsequent outbreak periods. Across Mexico and Dominican Republic, an increase in probable cases predicted outbreaks of hospitalised cases with sensitivities and positive predictive values (PPV) of 93%/ 83% and 97%/ 86% respectively, at a lag of 1-12 weeks. An increase in mean temperature ably predicted outbreaks of hospitalised cases in Mexico and Brazil, with sensitivities and PPVs of 79%/ 73% and 81%/ 46% respectively, also at a lag of 1-12 weeks. Mean age was predictive of hospitalised cases at sensitivities and PPVs of 72%/ 74% and 96%/ 45% in Mexico and Malaysia respectively, at a lag of 4-16 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: An increase in probable cases was predictive of outbreaks, while meteorological variables, particularly mean temperature, demonstrated predictive potential in some countries, but not all. While it is difficult to define uniform variables applicable in every country context, the use of probable cases and meteorological variables in tailored early warning systems could be used to highlight the occurrence of dengue outbreaks or indicate increased risk of dengue transmission.
METHODS: A validated patient self-reporting e-survey was circulated by the COVAD study group to collect data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination in 2022. BIs were defined as COVID-19 occurring ≥14 days after two vaccine doses. We compared BI characteristics and severity among patients with IIMs, patients with other autoimmune rheumatic and non-rheumatic diseases (AIRD, nrAID), and healthy controls (HCs). Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the risk factors for BI, severe BI ,and hospitalizations among patients with IIMs.
RESULTS: Among the 9449 included responses, BIs occurred in 1447 respondents (15.3%). The median age was 44 years [interquartile range (IQR) 21], 77.4% were female, and 182 BIs (12.9%) occurred among the 1406 patients with IIMs. Multivariable Cox regression among the data for patients with IIMs showed increasing age to be a protective factor for BIs [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97-0.99], and HCQ and SSZ use were risk factors (HR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.24-2.64, and HR = 3.79, 95% CI = 1.69-8.42, respectively). Glucocorticoid use was a risk factor for a severe BI (HR = 3.61, 95% CI = 1.09-11.8). Non-white ethnicity (HR = 2.61, 95% CI = 1.03-6.59) was a risk factor for hospitalization. Compared with other groups, patients with IIMs required more supplemental oxygen therapy (IIMs = 6.0% vs AIRDs = 1.8%, nrAIDs = 2.2% and HCs = 0.9%), intensive care unit admission (IIMs = 2.2% vs AIRDs = 0.6%, nrAIDs and HCs = 0%), advanced treatment with antiviral or monoclonal antibodies (IIMs = 34.1% vs AIRDs = 25.8%, nrAIDs = 14.6% and HCs = 12.8%) and had more hospitalization (IIMs = 7.7% vs AIRDs = 4.6%, nrAIDs = 1.1% and HCs = 1.5%).
CONCLUSION: Patients with IIMs are susceptible to severe COVID-19 BIs. Age and immunosuppressive treatments were related to the risk of BIs.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.
METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a prior systematic review of costs of influenza and other respiratory illnesses in LMICs and contacted authors to obtain data on cost of illness (COI) for laboratory-confirmed influenza-like illness and acute respiratory infection. We calculated the COI by household income strata and calculated the out-of-pocket (OOP) cost as a proportion of household income.
RESULTS: We included 11 studies representing 11 LMICs. OOP expenses, as a proportion of annual household income, were highest among the lowest income quintile in 10 of 11 studies: in 4/4 studies among the general population, in 6/7 studies among children, 2/2 studies among older adults, and in the sole study for adults with chronic medical conditions. COI was generally higher for hospitalizations compared with outpatient illnesses; median OOP costs for hospitalizations exceeded 10% of annual household income among the general population and children in Kenya, as well as for older adults and adults with chronic medical conditions in China.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that influenza and acute respiratory infections pose a considerable economic burden, particularly from hospitalizations, on the lowest income households in LMICs. Future evaluations could investigate specific drivers of COI in low-income household and identify interventions that may address these, including exploring household coping mechanisms. Cost-effectiveness analyses could incorporate health inequity analyses, in pursuit of health equity.
METHODS: Between 2020 and 2023, adults hospitalized in the preceding 6-24 months with incident or recurrent CHD were sampled in 14 countries from all 6 World Health Organization regions and invited for a standardized interview and examination. Direct age and sex standardization was used for country-level prevalence estimation.
RESULTS: Overall, 4548 (21.1% female) CHD patients were interviewed a median of 1.05 (interquartile range .76-1.45) years after index hospitalization. Among all participants, 24.6% were obese (40.7% centrally). Only 38.6% achieved a blood pressure (BP) < 130/80 mmHg and 16.6% a LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) of <1.4 mmol/L. Of those smoking at hospitalization, 48% persisted at interview. Of those with known diabetes, 55.2% achieved glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of <7.0%. A further 9.8% had undetected diabetes and 26.9% impaired glucose tolerance. Females were less likely to achieve the targets: BP (females 36.8%, males 38.9%), LDL-C (females 12.0%, males 17.9%), and HbA1c in diabetes (females 47.7%, males 57.5%). Overall, just 9.0% (inter-country range 3.8%-20.0%) reported attending cardiac rehabilitation and 1.0% (inter-country range .0%-2.4%) achieved the study definition of optimal guideline adherence.
CONCLUSIONS: INTERASPIRE demonstrates inadequate and heterogeneous international implementation of guideline standards for secondary prevention in the first year after CHD hospitalization, with geographic and sex disparity. Investment aimed at reducing between-country and between-individual variability in secondary prevention will promote equity in global efforts to reduce the burden of CHD.
METHODS: We prospectively studied older patients (n = 301) admitted to three urban, public-funded hospitals. We scrutinized their medical records and used STOPP-START (Screening Tool to Alert Prescribers to Right Treatment) criteria to determine PIM and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) respectively- together these constitute IP. Prescriptions with PIM(s) were subjected to a pharmacist medication review, aimed at detecting cases of ADE(s). The vetted cases were further assessed by an expert consensus panel to ascertain: i) causality between the ADE and hospitalization, using, the World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre criteria, and, ii) whether the ADEs were avoidable (using Hallas criteria). Finally, percentages of PIM-associated ADEs that were both preventable and linked to hospitalization were calculated.
RESULTS: IP prevalence was 58.5% (n = 176). A majority (49.5%, n = 150) had moderate to severe degree of comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥ 3). Median age was 72 years. Median number of medications was 6 and 30.9% (n = 93) had ≥8 medications. PIM prevalence was 34.9% (117 PIMs, n = 105) and PPO 37.9% (191 PPOs, n = 114). Most PIMs and PPOs involved overuse of aspirin and underuse of both antiplatelets and statins respectively. With every increase in the number of medications prescribed, the likelihood of PIM occurrence increased by 20%, i.e.1.2 fold (OR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.1-1.3). Among the 105 patients with PIMs, 33 ADEs (n = 33); 31 ADEs (n = 31) considered "causal" or "contributory" to hospitalization; 27 ADEs (n = 27) deemed "avoidable" or "potentially avoidable"; and 25 PIM-associated ADEs, preventable, and that induced hospitalization (n = 25), were identified: these equated to prevalence of 31.4%, 29.5%, 25.7%, and 23.8% respectively. The most common ADEs were masked hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal bleed. With every additional PIM prescribed, the odds for ADE occurrence increased by 12 folds (OR 11.8, 95% CI 5.20-25.3).
CONCLUSION: The majority of the older patients who were admitted to secondary care for acute illnesses were potentially exposed to IP. Approximately a quarter of the patients were prescribed with PIMs, which were plausibly linked with preventable ADEs that directly caused or contributed to hospitalization.
METHODOLOGY: Patients' socio-demographic and epidemiological data, clinical features, laboratory findings and clinical outcomes were extracted using a data sheet.
RESULTS: The median patient age was 25 [interquartile range (IQR)] 20-44) years, and most of patients were male (68.7%) and of Malaysian nationality (88.4%). Almost half of the patients were from a case cluster related to a religious event (48.3%) and 12.9% had a history of overseas travel. A total of 33.3% of patients were not related to any case cluster, i.e. sporadic cases. Radiological investigation showed that 13.6% of the patients had chest X-ray changes and all laboratory parameters were within the normal ranges. Sixty-six patients (44.9%) experienced symptoms. The most common symptoms were rhinitis (66.7%), followed by fever (19.7%) and cough (15.2%). Age, gender, case cluster, comorbidity status, haemoglobin, albumin, total protein, bilirubin total and alkaline phosphatase level were associated with symptomatic status.
CONCLUSIONS: In this single-centre study, COVID-19 infection led not only to case clusters, but also to sporadic infections, with patients being either symptomatic or asymptomatic. These sporadic cases and asymptomatic patients may hamper effective contact tracing, leading to rapid human-to-human transmission in our population. Future studies on the prevalence and clinical significance of asymptomatic and presymptomatic COVID-19 patients would pre-emptively address issues on further containment of the pandemic.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical characteristics, culprit drugs and outcome of patients with AGEP.
METHODS: A retrospective note review of all AGEP patients seen from 2001-2015.
RESULTS: Among 21 AGEP patients, 76% were Malays, 9.5% Chinese, 9.5% Indians, and 5% Iban. Sixteen were females and 5 were males. Median age of patients was 40 years (IQR: 26). The main culprit drug was amoxicillin (10 cases), followed by cloxacillin (three cases), phenytoin (two cases) and one case each of carbamazepine, sulphasalazine, allopurinol, cephalexin, ceftriaxone, celecoxib and herbal product. The median time from drug initiation to onset of AGEP was 3 days (IQR: 5.5). Fever was documented in 52.4 %, mucosal involvement 9.5%, purpura 4.7% and blisters 4.7%. Neutrophilia was observed in 63.6% of patients and eosinophilia in 28.5%. While most patients required admission (67%), all achieved complete recovery within 15 days without any sequela.
CONCLUSIONS: AGEP predominantly affects Malay females in this study. The most common culprit drug was amoxicillin. Our patients exhibited the classic clinical manifestations of AGEP and confirmed the generally benign nature of this reaction upon drug withdrawal. Although the overall prognosis is good, prompt diagnosis of AGEP is important because drug withdrawal is the mainstay therapy.
METHODS: The choice of enteral tube access was determined by managing clinicians and patients/caregivers. Comparisons of tube feeding methods were made during a 4-month period, adjusting statistically for inherent confounders.
RESULTS: A total of 102 participants (NG: n = 52, gastrostomy: n = 50) were recruited over 2 years from 2013 to 2015. Subjects on long-term NG tube feeding were older (82.67 ± 7.15 years vs 76.88 ± 7.37 years; P < .001) but both groups had similar clinical indications (stroke: 63.5% NG vs 54% gastrostomy; P = .33). After adjustment for confounders, gastrostomy feeding was associated with fewer tube-related complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.06-0.60) and better complication-free survival rate (aOR = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.12-0.89) at 4-month follow-up. Anthropometric and biochemical nutrition parameters improved significantly in both groups at 4 months, but no significant differences were observed at the end of the study.
CONCLUSION: Gastrostomy feeding is associated with a greater 4-month complication-free survival and lower tube-related complications compared with long-term NG feeding in older Asians with dysphagia. However, no differences in nutrition outcomes were observed between NG and gastrostomy feeding at 4 months.