Epidemiological studies and clinical observations show evidence of sexual dimorphism in infectious diseases. Women are at less risk than men when it comes to developing most infectious diseases. However, understanding these observations requires a gender approach that takes into account an analysis of both biological and social factors. The host’s response to infection differs in males and females because sex differences have an impact on hormonal and chromosomal control of immunity. Estradiol appears to confer protective immunity, while progesterone and testosterone suppress anti-infectious responses. In addition, genetic factors, including those associated with sex chromosomes, also affect susceptibility to infections. Finally, differences in occupational activities, lifestyle, and comorbidities play major roles in exposure to pathogens and management of diseases. Hence, considering sexual dimorphism as a critical variable for infectious diseases should be one of the steps taken toward developing personalized therapeutic approaches.

Background Epidemiological differences between men and women have been reported with regards to sepsis, influenza and severe coronavirus infections including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Aim To systematically review the literature relating to men versus women on SARS-CoV-2 in order to seek differences in disease characteristics (e.g. infectivity, severity) and outcomes (e.g. mortality). Methods We searched 3 electronic databases up or observational studies reporting differences between men and women in the SARS-CoV-2 disease characteristics stated. We identified and included 47 studies, reporting data for 21,454 patients mainly from China. Results The unadjusted mortality rates of men were higher than those of women, with a mortality OR 0.51 [0.42, 0.61] (p<0.001) for women. The proportion of men presenting with severe disease and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) was also higher than that of women (OR 0.75 [0.60–0.93] p<0.001 and OR 0.45 [0.40–0.52] p<0.001 respectively). Adjusted analyses could not be conducted due to lack of data. Conclusion COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes in males than in females. However, until more detailed data are provided in further studies enabling adjusted analysis, this remains an unproven assumption.

BACKGROUNDNo international data are available on the night working conditions and workload of anaesthesiologists and their opinions about associated risks.OBJECTIVEThe aim of this international survey was to describe the peri-operative night working conditions of anaesthesiologists and their perception of the impact these conditions have on patient outcomes and their own quality of life.DESIGNCross-sectional survey.SETTINGNot applicable.PARTICIPANTSAnaesthesiologists providing peri-operative care during night shifts responded to an online survey promoted by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC).INTERVENTIONSNone.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURETwenty-eight closed questions.RESULTSOverall 5292 complete responses were analysed. Of these, 920 were from trainees. The median reported monthly number of night shifts was 4 [IQR 3–6]. An irregular weekly night shift schedule was most common (51%). Almost all the respondents (98%) declared that their centres have no relevant institutional programmes to monitor stress or fatigue. Most respondents (90%) had received no training or information regarding performance improvement methods for night work. Most respondents were of the opinion that sleep deprivation affects their professional performance (71%) and that their fatigue during night work may increase the peri-operative risk for their patients (74%). Furthermore, 81% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that night work represents an additional risk per se for patient safety, and 77% stated that their night work affects the quality of their daily life significantly or extremely.CONCLUSIONAnaesthesiologists commonly perform perioperative night work without appropriate training, education or support on this specific condition. They perceive current practice as adversely affecting their professional performance and the safety of their patients. They also report significant effects on their own quality of life. Adequate training and education for night work may ally some of these concerns and programmes to monitor workers’ stress and fatigue should be mandated to assess whether these concerns are justified.TRIAL REGISTRATIONNot applicable.

Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) is a component of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) aimed to reduce exposure to broad-spectrum antimicrobials. In the intensive care unit, ADE is a strong recommendation that is moderately applied in clinical practice. Following a systematic review of the literature, we assessed the studies identified on the topic which included one randomized controlled trial and 20 observational studies. The literature shows a low level of evidence, although observational studies suggested that this procedure is safe. The effects of ADE on the level of resistance of ecological systems and especially on the microbiota are unclear. The reviewers recommend de-escalating antimicrobial treatment in patients requiring long-term antibiotic therapy and considering de-escalation in short-term treatments.

Data on the relationship between antimicrobial resistance and mortality remain scarce, and this relationship needs to be investigated in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of this study was to compare the ICU mortality rates between patients with ICU-acquired pneumonia due to highly antimicrobial-resistant (HAMR) bacteria and those with ICU-acquired pneumonia due to non-HAMR bacteria. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study using the French National Surveillance Network for Healthcare Associated Infection in ICUs (“REA-Raisin”) database, gathering data from 200 ICUs from January 2007 to December 2016. We assessed all adult patients who were hospitalized for at least 48 h and presented with ICU-acquired pneumonia caused by S. aureus, Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa, or A. baumannii. The association between pneumonia caused by HAMR bacteria and ICU mortality was analyzed using the whole sample and using a 1:2 matched sample. Among the 18,497 patients with at least one documented case of ICU-acquired pneumonia caused by S. aureus, Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa, or A. baumannii, 3081 (16.4%) had HAMR bacteria. The HAMR group was associated with increased ICU mortality (40.3% vs. 30%, odds ratio (OR) 95%, CI 1.57 [1.45–1.70], P < 0.001). This association was confirmed in the matched sample (3006 HAMR and 5640 non-HAMR, OR 95%, CI 1.39 [1.27–1.52], P < 0.001) and after adjusting for confounding factors (OR ranged from 1.34 to 1.39, all P < 0.001). Our findings suggest that ICU-acquired pneumonia due to HAMR bacteria is associated with an increased ICU mortality rate, ICU length of stay, and mechanical ventilation duration.

No abstract

Background: Myopia is a global public health problem affecting quality of life and work productivity. Data is scarce regarding the effects of near work on myopia. Providing a larger meta-analysis with life-long perspective, including adults and occupational exposure seemed needed. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Science Direct for studies reporting myopia prevalence in near work. Myopia was defined as a mean spherical equivalent ≤ −0.50 diopter. We performed a meta-analysis using random-effects model on myopia prevalence, myopia progression per year, and odds ratio (OR) of myopia in near work, completed by subgroup analyses and meta-regressions on patients’ characteristics, type of work in adults, geographic zones, time and characteristics of near work. Results: We included 78 studies, representing a total of 254,037 participants, aged from 6 to 39 years. The global prevalence of myopia in near work was 35% (95% CI: 30 to 41%), with a prevalence of 31% (95% CI: 26 to 37%) in children and 46% (95% CI: 30 to 62%) in adults. Myopia progression was −0.39 diopters per year (−0.53 to −0.24 D/year), ranging from −0.44 (−0.57 to −0.31) in children to −0.25 D/year (−0.56 to 0.06) in adults. The odds of myopia in workers exposed vs. non-exposed to near work were increased by 26% (18 to 34%), by 31% (21 to 42%) in children and 21% (6 to 35%) in adults. Prevalence of myopia was higher in adults compared to children (Coefficient 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.27). Conclusions: Near work conditions, including occupational exposure in adults, could be associated with myopia. Targeted prevention should be implemented in the workplace.

Background The literature is unresolved on whether female receive advanced cardiac life support less than do male and on whether female have a survival advantage over male after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases (from inception to 23-April-2022) for papers reporting outcomes in adult male and female after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The main study outcome was the rate of adjusted survival to hospital discharge or 30 days. Secondary outcomes included unadjusted survival to hospital discharge and favourable neurological outcome. Results A total of 28 studies were included, involving 1,931,123 patients. Female were older than male, their cardiac arrests were less likely to be witnessed and less likely to present with a shockable rhythm. Unadjusted analysis showed that females had a lower likelihood of survival than males (OR 0.68 [0.62–0.74], I2 = 97%). After adjustment, no significant difference was identified between male and female in survival at hospital discharge/30 days (OR 1.01 [0.93–1.11], I2 = 87%). Data showed that male had a significantly higher likelihood of favorable neurological outcome in unadjusted analysis but this trend disappeared after adjustment. Both the primary outcome (adjusted for several variables) and the secondary outcomes were associated with substantial heterogeneity. The variables examined using meta-regression, subgroup and sensitivity analyses (i.e., study type, location, years, population, quality of adjustment, risk of bias) did not reduce heterogeneity. Conclusions The adjusted rate of survival to hospital discharge/30 days was similar for male and female despite an initial seeming survival advantage for male. The validity of this finding is limited by substantial heterogeneity despite in-depth investigation of its causes, which raises concerns regarding latent inequalities in some reports nonetheless. Further study on this topic may require inclusion of factors not reported in the Utstein template and in-depth analysis of decision-making processes.