International audienceSummaryBackground Neuraminidase inhibitors were widely used during the 2009–10 influenza A H1N1 pandemic, but evidence for their effectiveness in reducing mortality is uncertain. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to investigate the association between use of neuraminidase inhibitors and mortality in patients admitted to hospital with pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. Methods We assembled data for patients (all ages) admitted to hospital worldwide with laboratory confirmed or clinically diagnosed pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. We identified potential data contributors from an earlier systematic review of reported studies addressing the same research question. In our systematic review, eligible studies were done between March 1, 2009 (Mexico), or April 1, 2009 (rest of the world), until the WHO declaration of the end of the pandemic (Aug 10, 2010); however, we continued to receive data up to March 14, 2011, from ongoing studies. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to assess the association between neuraminidase inhibitor treatment and mortality (primary outcome), adjusting for both treatment propensity and potential confounders, using generalised linear mixed modelling. We assessed the association with time to treatment using time-dependent Cox regression shared frailty modelling. Findings We included data for 29 234 patients from 78 studies of patients admitted to hospital between Jan 2, 2009, and March 14, 2011. Compared with no treatment, neuraminidase inhibitor treatment (irrespective of timing) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·81; 95% CI 0·70–0·93; p=0·0024). Compared with later treatment, early treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted OR 0·48; 95% CI 0·41–0·56; p<0·0001). Early treatment versus no treatment was also associated with a reduction in mortality (adjusted OR 0·50; 95% CI 0·37–0·67; p<0·0001). These associations with reduced mortality risk were less pronounced and not significant in children. There was an increase in the mortality hazard rate with each day's delay in initiation of treatment up to day 5 as compared with treatment initiated within 2 days of symptom onset (adjusted hazard ratio [HR 1·23] [95% CI 1·18–1·28]; p<0·0001 for the increasing HR with each day's delay). Interpretation We advocate early instigation of neuraminidase inhibitor treatment in adults admitted to hospital with suspected or proven influenza infection. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche
Background: More severe cases of COVID-19 are more likely to be hospitalized and around one-fifth, needing ICU admission. Understanding the common laboratory features of COVID-19 in more severe cases versus non-severe patients could be quite useful for clinicians and might help to predict the model of disease progression. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the laboratory test findings in severe vs. non-severe confirmed infected cases of COVID-19. Methods: Electronic databases were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from the beginning of 2019 to 3rd of March 2020. Heterogeneity across included studies was determined using Cochrane's Q test and the I 2 statistic. We used the fixed or random-effect models to pool the weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Findings: Out of a total of 3009 citations, 17 articles (22 studies, 21 from China and one study from Singapore) with 3396 ranging from 12 to1099 patients were included. Our meta-analyses showed a significant decrease in lymphocyte, monocyte, and eosinophil, hemoglobin, platelet, albumin, serum sodium, lymphocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LCR), leukocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LeCR), leukocyte to IL-6 ratio (LeIR), and an increase in the neutrophil, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine (Cr), erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), Procalcitonin (PCT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), fibrinogen, prothrombin time (PT), D-dimer, glucose level, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in the severe group compared with the non-severe group. No significant changes in white blood cells (WBC), Creatine Kinase (CK), troponin I, myoglobin, IL-6 and K between the two groups were observed. Interpretation: This meta-analysis provides evidence for the differentiation of severe cases of COVID-19 based on laboratory test results at the time of ICU admission. Future well-methodologically designed studies from other populations are strongly recommended.
Aims This study aimed to make a comparison between the clinical laboratory-related factors, complete blood count (CBC) indices, cytokines, and lymphocyte subsets in order to distinguish severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases from the non-severe ones. Materials and methods Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases until March 31, 2020. Cochrane's Q test and the I 2 statistic were used to determine heterogeneity. We used the random-effect models to pool the weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Key findings Out of a total of 8557 initial records, 44 articles (50 studies) with 7865 patients (ranging from 13 to 1582), were included. Our meta-analyses with random-effect models showed a significant decrease in lymphocytes, monocyte, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, CD3 cells, CD19 cells, and natural killer (NK) cells and an increase in the white blood cell (WBC), neutrophils, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), C-reactive protein (CRP)/hs-CRP, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), ferritin, procalcitonin (PCT), and serum amyloid A (SAA), interleukin-2 (IL-2), IL-2R, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), and interferon-gamma (INF-γ) in the severe group compared to the non-severe group. However, no significant differences were found in IL-1β, IL-17, and CD4/CD8 T cell ratio between the two groups. Significance Decrease in total lymphocytes and lymphocyte subsets as well as the elevation of CRP, ESR, SAA, PCT, ferritin, and cytokines, but not IL-1β and IL-17, were closely associated with COVID-19 severity, implying reliable indicators of severe COVID-19.
Objectives To determine peoples' knowledge, attitudes, risk perceptions, and practices to provide policymakers pieces of field-based evidence and help them in the management of the COVID-19 epidemic. Methods This population-based survey was conducted using multi-stage stratified and cluster sampling in Shiraz, Iran. A total of 1331 persons were interviewed. The questionnaires were completed by face-to-face interviews. Univariable and multivariable (linear regression) data analyses were done using SPSS. Results The participants answered 63% of questions regarding knowledge, and 78% of questions regarding practice correctly. Only, 4.8% knew about common symptoms of COVID-19 and 7.3% about warning signs that require referral to hospitals. Males, lower educated people, and elders had a lower level of knowledge and poorer practices. Knowledge was also lower in the marginalized (socially deprived) people. Knowledge and practices' correlation was 37%. Overall, 43.6% considered themselves at high risk of COVID-19, and 50% considered it as a severe disease. This disease had negative effects on most participants' routine activities (69.1%). The participants preferred to follow the news from the national TV/ Radio, social networks, and foreign satellite channels, respectively. Conclusions Encouragement of people to observe preventive measures and decreasing social stress, especially among males, lower educated people, elders, and marginalized groups, are highly recommended.
BackgroundThe synanthropic house fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), is a mechanical vector of pathogens (bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites), some of which cause serious diseases in humans and domestic animals. In the present study, a systematic review was done on the types and prevalence of human pathogens carried by the house fly.MethodsMajor health-related electronic databases including PubMed, PubMed Central, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were searched (Last update 31/11/2017) for relevant literature on pathogens that have been isolated from the house fly.ResultsOf the 1718 titles produced by bibliographic search, 99 were included in the review. Among the titles included, 69, 15, 3, 4, 1 and 7 described bacterial, fungi, bacteria+fungi, parasites, parasite+bacteria, and viral pathogens, respectively. Most of the house flies were captured in/around human habitation and animal farms. Pathogens were frequently isolated from body surfaces of the flies. Over 130 pathogens, predominantly bacteria (including some serious and life-threatening species) were identified from the house flies. Numerous publications also reported antimicrobial resistant bacteria and fungi isolated from house flies.ConclusionsThis review showed that house flies carry a large number of pathogens which can cause serious infections in humans and animals. More studies are needed to identify new pathogens carried by the house fly.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5934-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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.