The authors report no conflict of interest.No financial support was received for this study.Data sharing: On publication of this article, the full data set and the script for analyzing the data will be freely available at https://osf.io/8zbu3/.
Background
Little is known about the persistence and impact of non-rheumatic symptoms after acute chikungunya disease. We have studied the clinical presentation and long-term impact of rheumatic and non-rheumatic symptoms on health related quality of life (QoL) 2.5 years after disease onset. Additionally, the validity of the Curaçao Long-Term Chikungunya Sequelae (CLTCS) score in classifying disease severity over time was evaluated.
Methodology/Principal findings
This prospective cohort study followed 248 chikungunya patients. Symptoms and SF-36 QoL were evaluated during baseline and follow-up at 2.5 years using questionnaires. Chikungunya disease status was classified using the CLTCS-score. At 2.5 years after disease onset patients were classified as being recovered (43%), mildly (35%) or highly (22%) affected. In comparison to mildly affected, highly affected patients reported the highest prevalence of ongoing rheumatic and non-rheumatic/psychological symptoms, with increased prevalence of arthralgia in the lower extremities (p = .01) and fatigue (p = .049) over time, and higher pain intensity (p < .001). Compared to mildly affected, being highly affected was associated with weakness in the lower extremities (OR: 1.90; CI: 1.29–2.80, p = .001) and worsened physical and mental QoL impairment.
Conclusions
Patients are both physically and psychologically affected by rheumatic and non-rheumatic symptoms of long-term chikungunya disease.
The CLTCS-score is an easy to use instrument for classifying long-term chikungunya disease severity and impact and can facilitate health care providers in identifying highly affected patients who are prone to develop severe QoL impairment. Highly affected patients are recommended to be treated in a multidisciplinary setting to improve physical and psychological functioning, and QoL.
Background
Observational studies suggest that hormonal contraceptive use may increase depressive symptoms in women, but it is unclear whether the effect is causal.
Aims
To quantitatively examine the evidence from randomised clinical trials for the link between hormonal contraceptive use and depressive symptoms.
Method
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing women randomised to any form of a hormonal contraceptive with women randomised to any other form of a (non-)hormonal contraceptive or placebo. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, EMCare and EMBASE, from inception to 1 May 2020. Certainty of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A random-effect Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, with change in depressive symptoms between baseline and three cycles as outcome.
Results
This review identified 3492 records, of which 14 trials were eligible and 12 could be included in the network meta-analysis. These trials included 5833 participants (mean age per study range: 16.8–32.4 years) and compared 10 different interventions. Compared with placebo, hormonal contraceptive use did not cause worsening of depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference: median, −0.04; range, −0.17 [95% credible interval −0.46 to 0.13] to 0.13 [95% credible interval −0.28 to 0.56]).
Conclusions
This study suggests that hormonal contraceptive use does not lead to an increase in depressive symptoms in adult women. Future studies should include first-time users, to confirm the results in young women.
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.