Prevalence of COVID-19 in prison population: a meta-analysis of 35 studies.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Considering the restricted and enclosed nature of prisons and closed environments and the prolonged and close contact between individuals, COVID-19 is more likely to have a higher incidence in these settings. This study aims to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 among prisoners. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Papers published in English from 2019 to July 7, 2023, were identified using relevant keywords such as prevalence, COVID-19 and prisoner in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Google Scholar. For the meta-analysis of the prevalence, Cochrane's Q statistics were calculated. A random effect model was used due to the heterogeneity in COVID-19 prevalence across included studies in the meta-analysis. All analyses were performed in STATA-13. FINDINGS: The pooled data presented a COVID-19 prevalence of 20% [95%CI: 0.13, 0.26] and 24% [95%CI: 0.07, 0.41], respectively, in studies that used PCR and antibody tests. Furthermore, two study designs, cross-sectional and cohort, were used. The results of the meta-analysis showed studies with cross-sectional and cohort designs reported 20% [95%CI: 0.11, 0.29] and 25% [95%CI: 0.13, 0.38], respectively. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Through more meticulous planning, it is feasible to reduce the number of individuals in prison cells, thereby preventing the further spread of COVID-19.

Safety and Effectiveness of High-Intensity Statins Versus Low/Moderate-Intensity Statins Plus Ezetimibe in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease for Reaching LDL-C Goals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether adding ezetimibe to low/moderate-intensity statins has a more beneficial impact on the treatment efficacy and safety of patients with existing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) compared to high-intensity statin regimens. HYPOTHESIS: A combination of low/moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe might be more effective and safer than high-intensity statin monotherapy. METHODS: We searched databases for randomized controlled trials comparing lipid profile alterations, drug-related adverse events, and MACE components between high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy. Pooled risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Our comprehensive search resulted in 32 studies comprising 6162 patients treated with monotherapy against 5880 patients on combination therapy. Combination therapy was more effective in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels compared to monotherapy (MD = -6.6, 95% CI: -10.6 to -2.5); however, no significant differences were observed in other lipid parameters. Furthermore, the combination therapy group experienced a lower risk of myalgia (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.57) and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.51-0.74). The occurrence of MACE was similar between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adding ezetimibe to low/moderate-intensity statins resulted in a greater reduction in LDL-C levels, a lower rate of myalgia, and less drug discontinuation compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with existing cardiovascular disease. However, according to our meta-analysis, the observed reduction in LDL-C levels in the combination group did not correlate with a reduction in MACE compared to the high-intensity statin group.