Vaccination it is considered a vital strategy in order to mitigate monkeypox by protecting from severe disease and helping in reduction of hospitalisations. In this sense, this study aims to estimate the global prevalence of vaccination acceptance against monkeypox. We conducted a systematic review with a comprehensive search strategy for the following databases: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. A random-effect model meta-analysis was carried out using observational studies assessing the intention of vaccines against monkeypox from multiple continents. The quality assessment was developed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. In addition, a subgroup analysis by study location and population and a sensitivity analysis was developed.Eleven cross-sectional studies were included. A total of 8045 participants were included. The pooled prevalence of monkeypox vaccination acceptance in all participants was 56.0% (95%CI: 42.0–70.0%). In the subgroup analysis of monkeypox vaccine acceptance according to continents, the prevalence of vaccine acceptance was 50.0% (95%CI: 24.0–76.0%) in Asian countries and 70.0% (95%CI: 55.0–84.0%) in European countries. The prevalence of vaccine acceptance was 43.0% (95%CI: 35.0–50.0%) in the general population, 63.0% (95%CI: 42.0–70.0%) in healthcare workers, and 84.0% (95%CI: 83.0–86.0%) in the LGBTI community. Despite the high prevalence of monkeypox vaccination acceptance in the LGBTI community found in our study, vaccination acceptance from healthcare workers and the general population are lower. Governments could use these results for planning, developing or promoting vaccination strategies and public health policies focused on these populations.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute respiratory infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. [1][2][3] On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the epidemic as a public health emergency of international interest. 4 After more than 20 000 cases and 1000 deaths in the European Region, the WHO classified the disease as a pandemic. 5 To date (14 May 2021), more than 162 million cases and 3.37 million deaths have already been reported across the world. 6 According to recent studies, the basic reproduction number (R0) is 3.38, suggesting high transmissibility. 7 Besides the significant human losses, the quarantine and social distancing have had a great impact on the global economy. 8 However, despite the implementation of these strategies, the incidence of cases has been increasing in some countries, and nowadays, some nations are experiencing a second wave.Sociodemographic and clinical factors, such as older age, male sex, hypertension and diabetes mellitus, increase the mortality rate

No abstract

Background and Aims. Biomarkers are necessary to stratify the risk of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between the lipid profile and apolipoproteins with the risk of DFU. Methods. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science among adult patients. Cohort and case-control studies were included. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses, and the effects were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated publication bias through Egger’s test and funnel plot. Results. A total of 12 cohort studies and 26 case-control studies were included, with 17076 patients. We found that the higher values of total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), triglycerides, and lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) were associated with a higher risk of developing DFU (OR: 1.47, OR: 1.47, OR: 1.5, OR: 1.85, respectively). Otherwise, the lower values of HDL were associated with a higher risk of developing DFU (OR: 0.49). Publication bias was not found for associations between TC, HDL, LDL, or TG and the risk of DFU. Conclusions. The high values of LDL, TC, TG, and Lp(a) and low values of HDL are associated with a higher risk of developing DFU. Furthermore, we did not find a significant association for VLDL, ApoA1, ApoB, and ApoB/ApoA1 ratio.

No abstract

Background: Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is an accessible and widely used biomarker. NLR may be used as an early marker of poor prognosis in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Observational studies that reported the association between baseline NLR values (i.e. at hospital admission) and severity or all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Random effects models and inverse variance method were used for meta-analyses. The effects were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Small study effects were assessed with the Egger’s test. Results: Twenty studies, 19 cohorts and one case-control were included. An increase of one unit of NLR was associated with a higher odds of COVID-19 severity (OR 6.6, 95% CI: 4.71 - 7.19; p<0.001) and higher odds of all-cause mortality (OR 12.7, 95% CI: 1.32, 123.36; p=0.025). No differences were found in subgroup analyses by study design. The subgroup analysis of the studies, by country of origin, showed that the strength of the association between NLR and mortality was greater in Chinese studies (OR 31.1; 95%CI 19.57 to 49.3; p<0.0001) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 =43%). In our sensitivity analysis, we found that 7 studies with low risk of bias maintained strong association between both outcomes and the NLR values (severity: OR 4.7; 95% CI 3.5 to 6.34; p < 0.001 vs mortality: OR 31.1; 95% CI 19.57 to 49.3; p <0.0001), with low (I2 = 37%) and moderate (I2 = 43%) heterogeneity for severity and mortality outcomes, respectively. No publication bias was found for studies that evaluated effects for the severity of disease. Conclusions: Higher values of NLR were associated with severity and all-cause mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

No abstract

No abstract