Background: Diabetes is one of the most prevalent diseases in Saudi Arabia to the extent that the country is ranked 4th in terms of incidence rate. Diabetes poses multiple health threats not only to patients but also to society and the healthcare system. Thus, numerous measures have been adapted to contain diabetes risk. One of these is the recommendation of vaccination sets for diabetic patients.Aim: This study aims to measure the coverage of hepatitis B virus (HBV), influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines in diabetic patients.Methods: Using a retrospective chart review, data were collected from 385 diabetic patients. An approved data collection sheet was used. Phone calls were utilized for subjective-based questions. The sample size was calculated via Raosoft@. Descriptive or inferential statistical analysis was performed using SPSS.Results: Type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients represented 44.2% and 55.8%, respectively. Only 15.2% of patients received influenza vaccination in the last 12 months. Approximately 14.2% of diabetic patients received the pneumococcal vaccine, while the HBV vaccination rate was 12.9%. Hospital admission within the last 12 months of influenza-vaccinated patients was 22.8%, while the unvaccinated patients recorded 77.8%. Diabetic patients reported that physicians’ recommendation rates of vaccines were 25.8% for influenza vaccine, 15.5% for pneumococcal vaccine, and 10.8% for HBV vaccine.Conclusions: Measuring vaccination rates of 12.9%, 14.2% and 15.2%, respectively, concludes that compliance with the medical recommendations of vaccinating diabetic patients is suboptimal. Healthcare institutions must collaborate with primary care physicians to integrate more efficient and adherent vaccination programs.
Background Dry eye disease (DED) is a disease caused by a reduced volume or deficient quality of tears and is treated mainly with tear supplementation. There is emerging evidence that nicotinic nasal sprays are effective for DED. Our systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of varenicline nasal spray (OC-01) for DED treatment utilizing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Methods Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of OC-01 versus placebo were included. The mean change in the Schirmer test score from baseline on day 28 was the efficacy endpoint. Serious adverse events (SAEs), nonserious adverse events (NSAEs), and the rate of mortality were the safety endpoints. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used for continuous outcomes, while the risk ratio (RR) was used to demonstrate dichotomous variables. Data pooling was performed using the inverse variance weighting technique. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. Results Three RCTs (n = 1063) met the eligibility criteria. All RCTs had a low risk of bias. Meta-analysis found a statistically significant increase in the mean STS change from baseline on day 28 (SMD = 5.70, 95% CI 3.40 − 7.99 P < 0.00001, I2 = 99%). The pooled analysis found no significant difference between OC-01 and placebo in the frequency of SAEs (RR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.49–2.00, P = 0.98, I2 = 8%) or mortality (RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.16–7.16, P = 0.96, I2 = 0%). However, OC-01 had a significant effect on developing NSAEs (RR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.51–2.34, P < 0.00001, I2 = 75%). Conclusion OC-01 had a highly significant increase in the efficacy endpoints but caused an increased frequency of NSAEs. OC-01 did not correlate with either SAEs or mortality. The RCTs included in our study had a low risk of bias assessment. Nevertheless, they were downgraded in multiple domains upon GRADE assessment.
BackgroundAtopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronically relapsing disease. Few biologics are approved for moderate-to-severe AD, and novel interventions are emerging. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lebrikizumab, an IL-13 immunomodulator, as monotherapy vs. placebo in treating moderate-to-severe AD.MethodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry (CT.gov) databases were systematically searched. We evaluated lebrikizumab vs. placebo and measured efficacy using Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Body Surface Area (BSA), and Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) change from baseline to week 16. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), non-serious adverse events (NSAEs), and mortality. The risk of bias was investigated using the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool.ResultsThree RCTs (n = 1,149) included 543 (47.25%) men vs. 606 (52.75%) women. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant improvement in EASI, IGA, and BSA. EASI75 at week 16 for all regimens was (RR = 2.62, 95% CI [2.06, 3.34], p < 0.00001) with the first regimen (500 mg loading dose then 200 mg every 2 weeks) showing the most significant improvement (RR = 3.02, 95% CI [2.39, 3.82], p < 0.00001). The pooled analysis of safety outcomes concluded that lebrikizumab did not correlate significantly with the incidence of SAEs, NSAEs, and mortality.ConclusionOverall, lebrikizumab showed a significant improvement in all efficacy outcomes. Additionally, it did not contribute to any significant incidence of SAEs, NSAEs, or mortality. The risk of bias in included RCTs was minor except in the randomization domain. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment of the outcomes ranged from low to high, but predominantly high certainty of evidence.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022362438.
Vitiligo is a dermatological autoimmune disease that has been linked with numerous risk factors. There is an elevated level of evidence suggesting a linkage between vitiligo disease and zinc, vitamin D (Vit-D), thyroid hormones, and thyroid antibody levels. MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients of all age groups of both sexes. Patients were investigated for demographics, vitiligo characteristics, and laboratory tests, including zinc, Vit-D, T3 (triiodothyronine), T4 (thyroxine), thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPOAb), and thyroglobulin antibody (TGAb). ResultsTwo hundred and ninety-seven patients were retrospectively assessed; they averaged 29 years for segmental vitiligo (SV) and 31 years for nonsegmental vitiligo (NSV). Gender-wise, our study included more females (57.5%) than males (42.5%). Females comprised approximately 51.8% of NSV patients, while males constituted 36.7%. Patients' T3, T4, and TPOAb levels correlated significantly with age (p=0.001, p <0.01, p=0.14), and elevated BMI recorded high TPOAb levels (p<0.001). An increase in TGAb was associated with extensive involvement in the depigmentation of body surface area (BSA). The segmental type had the lowest TGAb and TPOAb titers. The universal subtype of vitiligo recorded the highest TSH, T3, and TGAb levels. However, differences in laboratory test levels were insignificant for the sex, the type of vitiligo, or the subtype of vitiligo. ConclusionIn conclusion, neither Vit-D nor zinc had a significant linkage with any of vitiligo's characteristics or treatments. Nonetheless, TGAb had a significant correlation to the BSA involved with vitiligo while T4 and TPOAb had a significant association with age, BMI, and BSA overall. Statistically, T3 was linked with age and BSA overall only. More studies with a higher level of evidence are required to establish the association of Vit-D, zinc, thyroid biomarkers, and thyroid antibodies.
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.