Objectives The widespread intestinal carriage of ESBL-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL E. coli) among both patients and healthy individuals is alarming. However, the global prevalence and trend of this MDR bacterium in healthcare settings remains undetermined. To address this knowledge gap, we performed a comparative meta-analysis of the prevalence in community and healthcare settings. Methods Our systematic review included 133 articles published between 1 January 2000 and 22 April 2021 and indexed in PubMed, EMBASE or Google Scholar. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to obtain the global pooled prevalence (community and healthcare settings). Subgroup meta-analyses were performed by grouping studies using the WHO regions and 5 year intervals of the study period. Results We found that 21.1% (95% CI, 19.1%–23.2%) of inpatients in healthcare settings and 17.6% (95% CI, 15.3%–19.8%) of healthy individuals worldwide carried ESBL E. coli in their intestine. The global carriage rate in healthcare settings increased 3-fold from 7% (95% CI, 3.7%–10.3%) in 2001–05 to 25.7% (95% CI, 19.5%–32.0%) in 2016–20, whereas in community settings it increased 10-fold from 2.6% (95% CI, 1.2%–4.0%) to 26.4% (95% CI, 17.0%–35.9%) over the same period. Conclusions The global and regional human intestinal ESBL E. coli carriage is increasing in both community and healthcare settings. Carriage rates were generally higher in healthcare than in community settings. Key relevant health organizations should perform surveillance and implement preventive measures to address the spread of ESBL E. coli in both settings.
Introduction: The effects of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) have been conflicting in different studies. This meta-analysis was undertaken to provide more conclusive evidence. Methods: A systematic search for published articles was performed in PubMed and EMBASE from January 5 2020 till May 5 2020. Studies that reported the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19, stratified by the class of concomitant antihypertensive drug therapy, were included. The Mantel-Haenszel random effects model was used to estimate pooled odds ratio (OR). Results: A total of 6,997 patients with COVID-19 were included, and all of them had hypertension. The overall risk of poor patient outcomes (severe COVID-19 or death) was lower in patients taking RAAS inhibitors (OR=0.84, 95% CI: [0.73, 0.96]; P=0.017) compared with those receiving non-RAAS inhibitor antihypertensives. Patients taking angiotensin-I-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) were less likely to experience poor clinical outcomes (OR=0.73, 95% CI: [0.58-0.92]; P=0.01) compared with those receiving angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs). In addition, comparison of ACEIs to the rest of non-ACEI antihypertensives gave a consistently decreased risk of poor COVID-19 outcome (OR=0.77, 95% CI: [0.63-0.93]; P=0.002). However, ARBs did not decrease the risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes compared to all other non-ARB antihypertensives (OR=1.13, 95% CI: [0.95-1.35]). Conclusion: The risk of developing severe illness or death from COVID-19 was lower in patients who received RAAS inhibitors compared with those who took non-RAAS inhibitors. ACEIs might be better in decreasing the severity and mortality of COVID-19 than ARBs.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an enveloped virus that may be sensitive to heat. We assessed whether the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) correlates with air temperature. We also studied whether additional climate, geographical, and population variables were correlated. The total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and mortality rates reported in each country between 1st Jan and 31st Mar 2020 were compared with the country's three-month average atmospheric air temperature, precipitation and latitude. Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs) was used to identify significant correlations. Our analysis included a total of 748,555 confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide. The total number of patients with COVID-19 decreased with increasing atmospheric air temperature (rs = -0.54, 95%CI: [-0.64, -0.42]; P <0.001) and increased with an increasing latitude (rs =0.60, 95%CI: [0.48, 0.70]; P <0.001). Our findings justify further studies to examine the effect of air temperature on infectivity of SAR-CoV-2.
Background Reports on the effects of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) have been conflicting. We performed this meta-analysis to find conclusive evidence. Methods We searched published articles through PubMed, EMBASE and medRxiv from 5 January 2020 to 3 August 2020. Studies that reported clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19, stratified by the class of antihypertensives, were included. Random and fixed-effects models were used to estimate pooled odds ratio (OR). Results A total 36 studies involving 30,795 patients with COVID-19 were included. The overall risk of poor patient outcomes (severe COVID-19 or death) was lower in patients taking RAAS inhibitors (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: [0.67, 0.95]) compared with those receiving non-RAAS inhibitor antihypertensives. However, further sub-meta-analysis showed that specific RAAS inhibitors did not show a reduction of poor COVID-19 outcomes when compared with any class of antihypertensive except beta-blockers (BBs). For example, compared to calcium channel blockers (CCBs), neither angiotensin-I-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: [0.67, 1.23]) nor angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs) (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: [0.62, 1.33]) showed a reduction of poor COVID-19 outcomes. When compared with BBs, however, both ACEIs (OR = 0.85, 95% CI: [0.73, 0.99) and ARBs (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: [0.55, 0.94]) showed an apparent decrease in poor COVID-19 outcomes. Conclusions RAAS inhibitors did not increase the risk of mortality or severity of COVID-19. Differences in COVID-19 clinical outcomes between different class of antihypertensive drugs were likely due to the underlying comorbidities for which the antihypertensive drugs were prescribed, although adverse effects of drugs such as BBs could not be excluded.
Background: Reports on the effects of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) have been conflicting. We performed this meta-analysis to find conclusive evidence. Methods: We searched published articles through PubMed, EMBASE and medRxiv from 5 January 2020 to 3 August 2020. Studies that reported clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19, stratified by the class of antihypertensives, were included. Random and fixed-effects models were used to estimate pooled odds ratio (OR). Results: A total 36 studies involving 30,795 patients with COVID-19 were included. The overall risk of poor patient outcomes (severe COVID-19 or death) was lower in patients taking RAAS inhibitors (OR=0.79, 95% CI: [0.67, 0.95]) compared with those receiving non-RAAS inhibitor antihypertensives. However, further sub-meta-analysis showed that specific RAAS inhibitors did not show a reduction of poor COVID-19 outcomes when compared with any class of antihypertensive except beta-blockers (BBs). For example, compared to calcium channel blockers (CCBs), neither angiotensin-I-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (OR=0.91, 95% CI: [0.67, 1.23]) nor angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs) (OR=0.90, 95% CI: [0.62, 1.33]) showed a reduction of poor COVID-19 outcomes. When compared with BBs, however, both ACEIs (OR=0.85, 95% CI: [0.73, 0.99) and ARBs (OR=0.72, 95% CI: [0.55, 0.94]) showed an apparent decrease in poor COVID-19 outcomes. Conclusions: RAAS inhibitors did not increase the risk of mortality or severity of COVID-19. Differences in COVID-19 clinical outcomes between different class of antihypertensive drugs were likely due to the underlying comorbidities for which the antihypertensive drugs were prescribed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.