Background and objective: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the most prevalent chronic respiratory disease. This study investigated the global, regional and country burden of COPD based on gender, age and socio-demographic indices (SDIs) in the last 30-year period from 1990 to 2019. Methods: The COPD data, including incidence, mortality and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), were obtained from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Study. If agestandardized incidence rate (ASIR) or death rate (ASDR) remains almost constant or decreases, the number of cases will still increase as the global population increases substantially. Estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) was calculated to assess incidence, mortality and DALY trends.

Background Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease caused by Treponema pallidum, and the infection source is syphilis patients. This study aimed to estimate the incidence, mortality rate, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) of syphilis to improve the understanding of the current global situation of syphilis. Methods This study collected data on syphilis incidence, mortality, and DALYs from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease database. Results The global number of incident cases and age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) increased from 8,845,220 (95% UI: 6,562,510–11,588,860) in 1990 to 14,114,110 (95% UI: 10,648,490–18,415,970) in 2019 and 160.03/100,000 persons (95% UI: 120.66–208.1) to 178.48/100,000 persons (95% UI: 134.94–232.34), respectively. The estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) in the ASIR was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07–0.26). The EAPC in the ASIR associated with high and high-middle sociodemographic indices increased. The ASIR increased among males but decreased among females, and the incidence peaked among males and females between the ages of 20 and 30 years. The EAPCs in the age-standardized death rate and age-standardized DALY rate decreased. Conclusions The incidence and ASIR of syphilis increased worldwide from 1990 to 2019. Only the regions with high and high-middle sociodemographic indices showed an increase in the ASIR. Moreover, the ASIR increased among males but decreased among females. The age-standardized death rate and DALY rate both declined worldwide. The increase in the global ASIR of syphilis is a challenge.

No abstract

Background: Even 3 years into the COVID-19 pandemic, questions remain about how to safely and effectively vaccinate vulnerable populations. A systematic analysis of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine in at-risk groups has not been conducted to date.Methods: This study involved a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Controlled Trial Registry data through 12 July 2022. Post-vaccination outcomes included the number of humoral and cellular immune responders in vulnerable and healthy populations, antibody levels in humoral immune responders, and adverse events.Results: A total of 23 articles assessing 32 studies, were included. The levels of IgG (SMD = −1.82, 95% CI [−2.28, −1.35]), IgA (SMD = −0.37, 95% CI [−0.70, −0.03]), IgM (SMD = −0.94, 95% CI [−1.38, −0.51]), neutralizing antibodies (SMD = −1.37, 95% CI [−2.62, −0.11]), and T cells (SMD = −1.98, 95% CI [−3.44, −0.53]) were significantly lower in vulnerable than in healthy populations. The positive detection rates of IgG (OR = 0.05, 95% CI [0.02, 0.14]) and IgA (OR = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.11]) antibodies and the cellular immune response rates (OR = 0.20, 95% CI [0.09, 0.45]) were also lower in the vulnerable populations. There were no statistically significant differences in fever (OR = 2.53, 95% CI [0.11, 60.86]), chills (OR = 2.03, 95% CI [0.08, 53.85]), myalgia (OR = 10.31, 95% CI [0.56, 191.08]), local pain at the injection site (OR = 17.83, 95% CI [0.32, 989.06]), headache (OR = 53.57, 95% CI [3.21, 892.79]), tenderness (OR = 2.68, 95% CI [0.49, 14.73]), and fatigue (OR = 22.89, 95% CI [0.45, 1164.22]) between the vulnerable and healthy populations.Conclusion: Seroconversion rates after COVID-19 vaccination were generally worse in the vulnerable than healthy populations, but there was no difference in adverse events. Patients with hematological cancers had the lowest IgG antibody levels of all the vulnerable populations, so closer attention to these patients is recommended. Subjects who received the combined vaccine had higher antibody levels than those who received the single vaccine.

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy of different pharmacologic treatment for severe hypertension during pregnancy.Methods: Two reviewers searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMbase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized clinical trials from the establishment of the database to 15 July 2021 that were eligible for inclusion and analyzed the pharmaceuticals used for severe hypertension in pregnancy.Results: 29 relevant trials with 2,521 participants were involved. Compared with diazoxide in rate of achieving target blood pressure, other pharmaceuticals, including epoprostenol (RR:1.58, 95%CI:1.01–2.47), hydralazine\dihydralazine (RR:1.57, 95%CI:1.07–2.31), ketanserin (RR:1.67, 95%CI:1.09–2.55), labetalol (RR:1.54, 95%CI:1.04–2.28), nifedipine (RR:1.54, 95%CI:1.04–2.29), and urapidil (RR:1.57, 95%CI:1.00–2.47), were statistically significant in the rate of achieving target blood pressure. According to the SUCRA, diazoxide showed the best therapeutic effect, followed by nicardipine, nifedipine, labetalol, and nitroglycerine. The three pharmaceuticals with the worst therapeutic effect were ketanserin, hydralazine, and urapidil. It is worth noting that the high ranking of the top two pharmaceuticals, including diazoxide and nicardipine, comes from extremely low sample sizes. Other outcomes were reported in the main text.Conclusion: This comprehensive network meta-analysis demonstrated that the nifedipine should be recommended as a strategy for blood pressure management in pregnant women with severe hypertension. Moreover, the conventional pharmaceuticals, including labetalol and hydralazine, showed limited efficacy. However, it was important to note that the instability of hydralazine reducing blood pressure and the high benefit of labetalol with high dosages intakes should also be of concern to clinicians.

No abstract