Cholera rages in Africa and the Middle East: A narrative review on challenges and solutions.

Background and Aim: Cholera is a life-threatening infectious disease that is still one of the most common acute watery diarrheal diseases in the world today. Acute diarrhea and severe dehydration brought on by cholera can cause hypovolemic shock, which can be fatal in minutes. Without competent clinical therapy, the rate of case fatality surpasses 50%. The purpose of this review was to highlight cholera challenges in Africa and the Middle East and explain the reasons for why this region is currently a fertile environment for cholera. We investigated cholera serology, epidemiology, and the geographical distribution of cholera in Africa and the Middle East in 2022 and 2023. We reviewed detection methods, such as rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), and treatments, such as antibiotics and phage therapy. Finally, this review explored oral cholera vaccines (OCVs), and the vaccine shortage crisis. Methods: We carried out a systematic search in multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, MEDLINE, and Embase, for studies on cholera using the following keywords: ((Cholera) OR (Vibrio cholera) and (Coronavirus) OR (COVID-19) OR (SARS-CoV2) OR (The Middle East) OR (Africa)). Results and Conclusions: Cholera outbreaks have increased dramatically, mainly in Africa and many Middle Eastern countries. The COVID-19 pandemic has reduced the attention devoted to cholera and disrupted diagnosis and treatment services, as well as vaccination initiatives. Most of the cholera cases in Africa and the Middle East were reported in Malawi and Syria, respectively, in 2022. RDTs are effective in the early detection of cholera epidemics, especially with limited advanced resources, which is the case in much of Africa. By offering both direct and indirect protection, expanding the use of OCV will significantly reduce the burden of current cholera outbreaks in Africa and the Middle East.

Mpox vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Mpox is a zoonotic viral disease that emerged in May 2022 and has since shown a high prevalence in non-mpox-endemic areas, resulting in an outbreak that caused more than 84,000 cases in 110 countries around the globe. Several vaccines are available to prevent the disease, and multiple studies have been conducted to assess the attitudes of different populations toward receiving the mpox vaccine. This study systematically reviews all the studies conducted on mpox vaccine acceptance/hesitancy among healthcare workers. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted through four electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, up to March 2023. Studies that described mpox vaccine acceptance/hesitancy among healthcare workers were included, and the data were extracted using a uniform extraction sheet. Following the extraction, the meta-analysis included ten studies with 7322 healthcare workers. Three researchers independently assessed the risk of bias in the included study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the review. This review indicates that the prevalence of mpox vaccine acceptance was 58.5%, and the prevalence of mpox vaccine hesitancy was 41.5%. There was a higher prevalence of acceptance in countries located in Asian and African areas compared to those in North America and Europe, estimated at 68% and 44.3%, respectively. Among the studies conducted solely among physicians, there was a high prevalence of mpox vaccine acceptance, at 77.1%, compared to 49% in studies that included all healthcare workers. CONCLUSION: There is a significant variation in the prevalence of mpox vaccine acceptance among different populations. Further research is needed to identify the factors that contribute to this variation and to develop interventions to increase vaccine acceptance. In addition, it is important to promote research on mpox vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among healthcare workers in countries where data is limited. This research will help policymakers develop effective policies to increase acceptance and reduce the disease burden.

A meta analysis on the utility of Anakinra in severe COVID-19 disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The most important presentation of COVID-19 is hyper inflammatory condition and cytokine storm that occurs due to excessive increase of the inflammatory mediators specially, pro-inflammatory interleukins such as IL-1ß, IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor-α which have an important role in the cytokine storm pathway. Up till now there is not a definitive treatment for COVID-19 disease, but according to the pathophysiology of the disease, Anakinra (Interleukin- 1 inhibitor) is an adjuvant treatment option in patients with severe COVID-19 by blocking the effect of IL-1. So, we aimed to summarize the studies that evaluated the safety and efficacy of Anakinra in patients diagnosed with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS) databases from inception till 7 Jan 2022. Additionally, we searched randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, cohort, case series, case control, case report more than 3 patients which contain confirmed cases of COVID-19 who received Anakinra (Interleukin- 1 inhibitor) for the management of hyper-inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 disease. A meta-analysis was conducted using review manager 5.4. RESULTS: We included 44 articles in the systematic review. Ultimately, 23 studies were incorporated in the meta-analysis with a total number of 3179 patients. Our analysis showed statistically significant difference in the following outcomes: duration of ICU stays [MD = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.09, -0.03), p = 0.04], the number of patients who needed invasive mechanical ventilation [RR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.39, 0.84), p = 0.004], and number of deaths [RR = 0.80, 95% CI (0.66, 0.99), p = 0.04]. Our analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the following outcomes: length of hospital stays [MD = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42, 0.11), p = 0.26], oxygen-free days [MD = -0.81, 95% CI (-3.81, 2.20), p = 0.60], and the number of patients who needed non-invasive mechanical ventilation [RR = 1.09, 95% CI (0.47, 2.52), p = 0.84]. CONCLUSION: Anakinra showed some promising results in important outcomes related to COVID-19 as it significantly reduced the rate of mortality and the need of invasive mechanical ventilation. It should be used in severe cases more than mild and moderate cases to avoid possible immunosuppression complications. Anakinra use is safe in cases of COVID-19 at dose less than 100 mg. Another important outcome was significant reduction is the D-dimer level. Anakinra may be effective in the treatment of specific immunocompromised cases, but it should be used cautiously.

Can the current monkeypox affect the heart? A systematic review of case series and case report.

BACKGROUND: Monkeypox is a zoonotic viral infection first reported in May 2022. Monkeypox cases present with prodromal symptoms, rash, and/or systemic complications. This study systematically reviews the monkeypox cases presented with any cardiac complications. METHODS: A systematic literature search was done to locate papers that discuss any cardiac complications associated with monkeypox; then, data were analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: Nine articles, including the 13 cases that reported cardiac complications of the disease, were included in the review. Five cases previously had sex with men, and two cases had unprotected intercourse, which reveals the importance of the sexual route in disease transmission. All cases have a wide spectrum of cardiac complications, such as acute myocarditis, pericarditis, pericardial effusion, and myopericarditis. CONCLUSION: This study clarifies the potential for cardiac complications in monkeypox cases and provides avenues for future research to determine the underlying mechanism. Also, we found that the cases with pericarditis were treated with colchicine, and those with myocarditis were treated with supportive care or cardioprotective treatment (Bisoprolol and Ramipril). Furthermore, Tecovirimat is used as an antiviral drug for 14 days.

Risks and Preventions for Pregnant Women and Their Preterm Infants in a World with COVID-19: A Narrative Review.

(1) Background and Aim: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is linked to increasing cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) around the world. COVID-19 infections have an important impact on pregnancy, preterm birth (PTB) and delivery. Although several complications have been reported in infected pregnant women, the effect of infection on PTB is controversial. The purpose of this study was to summarize the existing literature on the effects and complications of COVID-19 on the health of pregnant women and preterm babies and its impact on the incidence of PTB. We also discuss the effect of current COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. (2) Methods: We carried out a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed for studies on preterm births associated with COVID-19. (3) Results and Conclusions: We discovered contradictory results regarding the prevalence of PTB during the pandemic compared to earlier years. While most studies indicated an increase in PTBs with COVID-19, some indicated a decline in the preterm delivery rate during this time. During pregnancy, COVID-19 infection can increase the incidence of cesarean section, stillbirth, ICU admission, preeclampsia/eclampsia, and mortality rates. In the treatment of pregnant women with severe COVID-19, methylprednisolone was favored over prednisolone, and a brief course of dexamethasone is advised for pregnant women with anticipated PTB to accelerate the development of the fetal lung. Generally, vaccination for COVID-19 in pregnant and lactating women stimulates anti-SARS-CoV2 immune responses, and it does not result in any noteworthy negative reactions or outcomes for the mother or baby.

Preoperative Misoprostol to Reduce Blood Loss and Related Morbidities During Abdominal Hysterectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 10 Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.

The objective of this study is to perform a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that surveyed the efficacy and safety of preoperative misoprostol versus placebo during abdominal hysterectomy. Six databases were screened from inception until 3 August 2022. The eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. The outcomes were summarized as mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a random-effects model. Ten RCTs with 1076 patients (misoprostol = 537, placebo = 539 patients) were analyzed. Six and four RCTs had an overall low and high risk of bias (single-blinded), respectively. The mean intraoperative blood loss (n = 10 RCTs, MD = - 78.97 ml, 95% [- 130.89, - 27.06], p = 0.003), mean difference in hemoglobin drop (n = 10 RCTs, MD = - 0.42 g/dl, 95% CI [- 0.69, - 0.14], p = 0.003), and mean length of hospital stay (n = 5 RCTs, MD = - 0.2 d, 95% CI [- 0.24, - 0.16], p < 0.001) were significantly reduced in favor of the misoprostol group compared with the placebo group. However, there were no significant differences between both groups regarding the mean operative time (n = 8 RCTs, MD = - 0.63 min, 95% CI [- 5.07, 3.81], p = 0.78), rate of perioperative blood transfusion (n = 7 RCTs, RR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.53, 1.3], p = 0.42), and rate of drug-related adverse events (i.e., nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, chills, and fever). Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses revealed stability for all endpoints, except hospitalization stay. There was no publication bias for all endpoints, except perioperative blood transfusion. Among patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy, preoperative administration of misoprostol was largely safe and linked to substantial decrease in blood loss-related morbidities.

Efficacy of lidocaine local anesthesia on pain perception during amniocentesis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

To evaluate the efficacy of lidocaine local analgesia on maternal pain reduction during amniocentesis. Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases were screened from inception and updated in July 2022. The included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated for the risk of bias via the Cochrane tool. The primary outcome was pain perception using the 10 cm visual analog scale, and was summarized as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the mode of administration. Meta-analysis was done via Review Manager software. We included five RCTs totaling 1004 women (lidocaine arm n=502 patients and control arm n=502 patients). Overall, there was no significant difference between both arms [MD=-0.21, 95% CI (-0.48, 0.07), p=0.80]. The pooled analysis showed homogeneity (p=0.13, I2=43%). Subgroup analysis according to the mode of administration showed that pain perception did not significantly differ between both arms when lidocaine was employed as injection [n=3 RCTs, MD=-0.26, 95% CI (-0.76, 0.23), p=0.29] or non-injection [n=2 RCTs, MD=-0.18, 95% CI (-0.55, 0.18), p=0.33]. The pooled analyses showed heterogeneity (p=0.05, I2=66%) and homogeneity (p=0.27, I2=19%), respectively. There was no noteworthy change concerning maternal pain perception between the lidocaine and control arms. Most women reported just minimal discomfort during amniocentesis. Counseling should educate patients that the pain they might experience during amniocentesis is comparable to venous blood sampling.

Maternal and neonatal safety outcomes after SAR-CoV-2 vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: More than five million individuals died because of problems connected to COVID-19. SARS-Cov-2 poses a particular challenge to expectant mothers, who comprise one of the most vulnerable segments of the population. Our aim is to demonstrate the maternal and neonatal safety of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), Embase, Ovid, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv databases from inception till December 2021 and then updated it in April 2022. Additionally, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Research Square and grey literature. Cohort, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials detecting the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy were included. We used the Cochrane tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias of the included studies and the GRADE scale to assess the quality of evidence. A meta-analysis was conducted using review manager 5.4. RESULTS: We included 13 studies with a total number of 56,428 patients. Our analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the following outcomes: miscarriage (1.56% vs 0.3%. RR 1.23; 95%CI 0.54 to 2.78); length of maternal hospitalization (MD 0.00; 95%CI -0.08 to 0.08); puerperal fever (1.71% vs 1.1%. RR 1.04; 95%CI 0.67 to 1.61); postpartum hemorrhage (4.27% vs 3.52%. RR 0.84; 95%CI 0.65 to 1.09); instrumental or vacuum-assisted delivery (4.16% vs 4.54%. RR 0.94; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.56); incidence of Apgar score ≤ 7 at 5 min (1.47% vs 1.48%. RR 0.86; 95%CI 0.54 to 1.37); and birthweight (MD -7.14; 95%CI -34.26 to 19.99). CONCLUSION: In pregnancy, the current meta-analysis shows no effect of SAR-CoV-2 vaccination on the risk of miscarriage, length of stay in the hospital, puerperal fever, postpartum hemorrhage, birth weight, or the incidence of an Apgar score of ≤ 7 at 5 min.

Efficacy of oxytocics on reducing intraoperative blood loss during abdominal myomectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of oxytocics administration (oxytocin and carbetocin) on reducing intraoperative bleeding during abdominal myomectomy. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception until March 2021. Only randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) were considered. The included RCTs were evaluated for risk of bias. The main outcome measures were mean intraoperative blood loss (ml), mean duration of hospital stay (day), mean operation time (min), mean difference of postoperative hemoglobin (g/dl), mean difference of postoperative hematocrit (%), and rate of blood transfusion (%). Pooled outcomes were summarized as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria (n=758 patients; 329 patients per group). Compared with control group, oxytocin and carbetocin resulted in a significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (MD=-281.08 ml, 95% CI [-400.63, -161.53], p<0.001), hospital stay (MD=-0.21 days, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.10], p<0.001), and need for blood transfusion (RR=0.32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.46], p<0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that oxytocin, but not carbetocin, correlated with a reduced mean difference of postoperative hemoglobin (MD=0.60 g/dl, 95% CI [0.24 to 0.96], p=0.001), postoperative hematocrit (MD=2.29%, 95% CI [1.06, 3.52], p<0.001), and operation time (MD=-14.66 min, 95% CI [-21.04, -8.25], p<0.001) compared with control group. CONCLUSION: Among women undergoing abdominal myomectomy, administration of oxytocin and carbetocin correlated with several beneficial clinical outcomes, such as reduced intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and blood transfusion requirement.

"Anosmia" the mysterious collateral damage of COVID-19.

COVID-19 pandemic spreads worldwide, with more than 100 million positive cases and more than 2 million deaths. From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, several otolaryngologists described many cases of a sudden loss of smell (anosmia) associated with the disease with or without additional symptoms. Anosmia is often the first and sometimes the only sign in the asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19. Still, this disorder is underestimated, and it is not life-threatening. However, it significantly decreases the quality of life. This olfactory dysfunction continues in several cases even after the nasopharyngeal swab was negative. The occurrence of anosmia can be used as a screening tool for COVID-19 patients and can be used to identify these patients to accomplish the isolation and tracking procedures. In this review, we highlighted the possible mechanisms of anosmia in COVID-19 patients, major pathologies and features of anosmia, implications of anosmia in early diagnosis of COVID-19, evaluation of the smell function during COVID-19, and management and treatment options of COVID-19 anosmia.

Determinants of Obtaining COVID-19 Vaccination among Health Care Workers with Access to Free COVID-19 Vaccination: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite global efforts to contain the illness, COVID-19 continues to have severe health, life, and economic repercussions; thus, maintaining vaccine development is mandatory. Different directions concerning COVID-19 vaccines have emerged as a result of the vaccine's unpredictability. AIMS: To study the determinants of the attitudes of healthcare workers (HCWs) to receiving or refusing to receive the vaccine. METHODS: The current study adopted an interviewed questionnaire between June and August 2021. A total of 341 HCWs currently working at Assiut University hospitals offered to receive the vaccine were included. RESULTS: Only half of the HCWs (42%) accepted the COVID-19 vaccine. The most common reason that motivated the HCWs was being more susceptible than others to infection (71.8%). On other hand, the common reasons for refusing included: previously contracted the virus (64.8%); did not have time (58.8%); warned by a doctor not to take it (53.8%). Nearly one-third of nonaccepting HCWs depended on television, the Internet, and friends who refused the vaccine for information (p < 0.05). In the final multivariate regression model, there were six significant predictors: sex, job category, chronic disease, being vaccinated for influenza, and using Assiut University hospital staff and the Ministry of Health as sources of information (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Misinformation and negative conceptions are still barriers against achieving the desired rate of vaccination, especially for vulnerable groups such as HCWs.