Prevalence and Trajectories of Post-COVID-19 Neurological Manifestations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the prevalence of thirteen neurological manifestations in people affected by COVID-19 during the acute phase and at 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up time points. METHODS: The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022325505). MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Library were used as information sources. Eligible studies included original articles of cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and case series with ≥5 subjects that reported the prevalence and type of neurological manifestations, with a minimum follow-up of 3 months after the acute phase of COVID-19 disease. Two independent reviewers screened studies from January 1, 2020, to June 16, 2022. The following manifestations were assessed: neuromuscular disorders, encephalopathy/altered mental status/delirium, movement disorders, dysautonomia, cerebrovascular disorders, cognitive impairment/dementia, sleep disorders, seizures, syncope/transient loss of consciousness, fatigue, gait disturbances, anosmia/hyposmia, and headache. The pooled prevalence and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the six pre-specified times. RESULTS: 126 of 6,565 screened studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, accounting for 1,542,300 subjects with COVID-19 disease. Of these, four studies only reported data on neurological conditions other than the 13 selected. The neurological disorders with the highest pooled prevalence estimates (per 100 subjects) during the acute phase of COVID-19 were anosmia/hyposmia, fatigue, headache, encephalopathy, cognitive impairment, and cerebrovascular disease. At 3-month follow-up, the pooled prevalence of fatigue, cognitive impairment, and sleep disorders was still 20% and higher. At six- and 9-month follow-up, there was a tendency for fatigue, cognitive impairment, sleep disorders, anosmia/hyposmia, and headache to further increase in prevalence. At 12-month follow-up, prevalence estimates decreased but remained high for some disorders, such as fatigue and anosmia/hyposmia. Other neurological disorders had a more fluctuating occurrence. DISCUSSION: Neurological manifestations were prevalent during the acute phase of COVID-19 and over the 1-year follow-up period, with the highest overall prevalence estimates for fatigue, cognitive impairment, sleep disorders, anosmia/hyposmia, and headache. There was a downward trend over time, suggesting that neurological manifestations in the early post-COVID-19 phase may be long-lasting but not permanent. However, especially for the 12-month follow-up time point, more robust data are needed to confirm this trend.

Virus related acute pancreatitis and virus superinfection in the 'Dual disease' model of acute pancreatitis and SARS-Co-V2 infection: A multicentre prospective study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 can cause acute pancreatitis (AP) and SARS-CoV-2 superinfection can occur in patients with AP during prolonged hospitalisation. Our objective was to characterize SARS-CoV-2 related AP and study the impact of SARS-CoV-2 superinfection on outcomes in AP. METHODS: In this multicentre prospective study, all patients with AP and SARS-CoV-2 infection between August 2020 and February 2021 were divided into two groups: SARS-CoV-2-related AP and superadded SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with AP. The two groups were compared with each other and the whole cohort was compared with a non-COVID AP cohort. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and AP (SARS-CoV-2-related AP; n = 18 and AP with SARS-CoV-2 superadded infection; n = 67) were included during the study period. They had a higher mortality [28 (32.9%) vs. 44 (19.1%), aOR 2.8 (95% CI, 1.5-5.3)] than 230 propensity matched non-COVID AP patients. Mortality in SARS-CoV-2 and AP patients was due to critical COVID. SARS-CoV-2-related- AP (n = 18) had a higher but statistically insignificant mortality than SARS-CoV-2 superinfection in AP [8/18 (44.4%) vs 20/67 (29.8%), p = 0.24]. On multivariable analysis, infection with SARS-CoV-2 (aHR 2.3; 95% CI, 1.43.7) was a predictor of in-hospital mortality in addition to organ failure (OF) in patients with AP. CONCLUSION: Patients with AP and SARS-CoV-2 infection had a higher mortality than matched non-COVID AP patients which was largely attributable to the severity of COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 related AP had higher OF and in-hospital mortality.

Early Versus Delayed Cholecystectomy for Acute Biliary Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations regarding the timing of cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) require a systematic summary of current evidence to guide clinical practice. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early cholecystectomy (EC) versus delayed cholecystectomy (DC) in patients with ABP. METHODS: We searched databases Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials addressing this question. Pairs of reviewers abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was done to study the effect of the timing of cholecystectomy on outcomes of interest in patients with ABP. GRADE methodology was used to rate the quality in the body of evidence for each outcome as high, moderate, low, or very low. RESULTS: 11 randomized trials (1176 participants) were included. High-quality evidence from seven RCTs (867 participants) showed a statistically significant reduction in the risk for recurrent biliary events in favour of early cholecystectomy (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.19, I2 = 0%). High-quality evidence from five trials was in favour of early cholecystectomy with a significant reduction in the risk 7of recurrent pancreatitis (RAP) in comparison to delayed cholecystectomy (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.51, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: This review showed that EC has definite advantages over DC in terms of reducing recurrent pancreaticobiliary events and LOS following mild ABP. However, more RCTs are required to study the role of EC in patients with moderately-severe and severe ABP. Trial Registration Protocol registered on Prospero (CRD42020192823).

Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no effective therapy for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) have been used for its treatment but their safety and efficacy remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to synthesize the available data on the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: Two reviewers searched for published and pre-published relevant articles between December 2019 and 8 June 2020. The data from the selected studies were abstracted and analyzed for efficacy and safety outcomes. Critical appraisal of the evidence was done by Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The quality of evidence was graded as per the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We reviewed 12 observational and 3 randomized trials which included 10,659 patients of whom 5713 received CQ/HCQ and 4966 received only standard of care. The efficacy of CQ/HCQ for COVID-19 was inconsistent across the studies. Meta-analysis of included studies revealed no significant reduction in mortality with HCQ use [RR 0.98 95% CI 0.66-1.46], time to fever resolution (mean difference - 0.54 days (- 1.19-011)) or clinical deterioration/development of ARDS with HCQ [RR 0.90 95% CI 0.47-1.71]. There was a higher risk of ECG abnormalities/arrhythmia with HCQ/CQ [RR 1.46 95% CI 1.04 to 2.06]. The quality of evidence was graded as very low for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that CQ or HCQ does not improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19. Well-designed randomized trials are required for assessing the efficacy and safety of HCQ and CQ for COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in COVID-19 based on evidence for COVID-19, other coronavirus infections, influenza, community-acquired pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Very little direct evidence exists on use of corticosteroids in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Indirect evidence from related conditions must therefore inform inferences regarding benefits and harms. To support a guideline for managing COVID-19, we conducted systematic reviews examining the impact of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and related severe acute respiratory illnesses. METHODS: We searched standard international and Chinese biomedical literature databases and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). For acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), influenza and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), we updated the most recent rigorous systematic review. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool relative risks and then used baseline risk in patients with COVID-19 to generate absolute effects. RESULTS: In ARDS, according to 1 small cohort study in patients with COVID-19 and 7 RCTs in non-COVID-19 populations (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.93, mean difference 17.3% fewer; low-quality evidence), corticosteroids may reduce mortality. In patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, direct evidence from 2 observational studies provided very low-quality evidence of an increase in mortality with corticosteroids (hazard ratio [HR] 2.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.29, mean difference 11.9% more), as did observational data from influenza studies. Observational data from SARS and MERS studies provided very low-quality evidence of a small or no reduction in mortality. Randomized controlled trials in CAP suggest that corticosteroids may reduce mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98, 3.1% lower; very low-quality evidence), and may increase hyperglycemia. INTERPRETATION: Corticosteroids may reduce mortality for patients with COVID-19 and ARDS. For patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, evidence regarding benefit from different bodies of evidence is inconsistent and of very low quality.

Prevalence and intensity of persistent post-surgical pain following breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and intensity of persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP) after breast cancer surgery are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to further elucidate this issue. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception to November 2018, for observational studies reporting persistent pain (≥3 months) after breast cancer surgery. We used random-effects meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to rate quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 187 observational studies with 297 612 breast cancer patients. The prevalence of PPSP ranged from 2% to 78%, median 37% (inter-quartile range: 22-48%); the pooled prevalence was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32-39%). The pooled pain intensity was 3.9 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (95% CI: 3.6-4.2 cm). Moderate-quality evidence supported the subgroup effects of PPSP prevalence for localized pain vs any pain (29% vs 44%), moderate or greater vs any pain (26% vs 44%), clinician-assessed vs patient-reported pain (23% vs 36%), and whether patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy vs axillary lymph node dissection (26% vs 43%). The adjusted analysis found that the prevalence of patient-reported PPSP (any severity/location) was 46% (95% CI: 36-56%), and the prevalence of patient-reported moderate-to-severe PPSP at any location was 27% (95% CI: 10-43%). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence suggests that almost half of all women undergoing breast cancer surgery develop persistent post-surgical pain, and about one in four develop moderate-to-severe persistent post-surgical pain; the higher prevalence was associated with axillary lymph node dissection. Future studies should explore whether nerve sparing for axillary procedures reduces persistent post-surgical pain after breast cancer surgery.

Efficacy and safety of antivirals for Covid-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has led to a severe medical, social and economic crisis globally. Use of antivirals has given inconsistent results; thus systematic summaries of available evidence are required for any recommendations for treatment. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of antivirals for Covid-19. Methods: The databases we searched were-Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Medrxiv. Title/abstract screening, full-text screening and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate by two researchers. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method of random effects for meta-analysis. Results: Twenty studies were found eligible for inclusion: 6 randomized controlled trials, 9 cohort studies and 5 case series. Moderate-quality evidence suggests a likely clinical benefit from the use of remdesivir in improving the number of recoveries (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.07-1.31; I2 = 0%) and time to recovery in days (median -3.02; 95% CI -4.98 to -1.07; I2 = 97%). A possibility of lower mortality is suggested by low-quality evidence with remdesivir (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37, I2 = 58%). Moderate-quality evidence suggests no certain benefit of using lopinavir/ritonavir for Covid-19 compared to arbidol, lopinavir/ritonavir combined with arbidol or other medications used as controls. Conclusion: Further evidence from randomized controlled trials is required for all antivirals to treat Covid-19. At present, remdesivir seems more promising than other antivirals.

Acute Psychological Stress is a Trigger for Stroke: A Case-Crossover Study.

BACKGROUND: Conventional risk factors for stroke that have been identified are mostly chronic diseases that explain much of the variation as to who develops stroke. However, these risk factors do not equip us with the means to predict when an event like stroke will occur. It has been observed that acute events like stroke and coronary heart disease are preceded by episodes of acute stress. The present study was undertaken to determine whether acute psychological stress is a potential triggering factor for the occurrence of stroke. METHODS: In accordance with the case-crossover study design, patients or Legally Authorized Representative (LAR) were asked to report psychological stress during the two-hour hazard period before the event and during the control period, which was the same 2-hour time period the day before the event. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare each person's exposure during the hazard period to their exposure during the control period. RESULTS: A total of 151 stroke patients were interviewed. Acute psychological stress was associated with transient increased odds of stroke in the subsequent 2 hours that was 3.4 times higher than the odds during periods with no exposure to these triggers (95% confidence interval 1.55-7.50). CONCLUSIONS: Acute psychological stress is a potential independent triggering factor for the occurrence of stroke. Further confirmatory studies are required to help corroborate these findings and elucidate the mechanisms underlying this short-term increase in risk.

Use of spectacles for distance vision: coverage, unmet needs and barriers in a rural area of North India.

BACKGROUND: Uncorrected refractive errors contribute enormously to the burden of avoidable visual impairment worldwide. There is a huge disparity in different parts of the globe in context to spectacle coverage for distance vision. This study was undertaken with objectives of determining prevalence of spectacle coverage, unmet needs and associated factors among adults in a rural community of north India. METHODS: A community-based cross-sectional study was carried out within selected clusters of Jhajjar district of Haryana. All participants aged > 15 years underwent visual acuity assessment by LogMAR "E" screening chart. Participants with presenting visual acuity < 6/12 in any eye and all current spectacle users underwent detailed ophthalmic examination and refraction. Additional details about spectacles, barriers for their use and willingness to pay for them were collected. Participants with met and unmet need for spectacle use at visual acuity > 6/12 was computed. These are reported as proportions with 95% confidence intervals. Associated factors with unmet need were determined using bivariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 6910 participants were examined. The current spectacle use was 7.5% (95% Confidence Interval CI: 6.5, 8.7). The spectacle coverage was found in 33.3% (95% CI: 30.0, 36.7) participants among those in need. The unmet need was found in 10.8% of participants (95% CI: 10.1, 11.6). On multivariable analysis, odds of unmet need was associated with age, gender, level of education and marriage status. The most common barrier for refractive correction was lack of perceived need for refraction and its correction. CONCLUSION: There is substantial unmet need for distance vision spectacles in this population. It is imperative that multi-component intervention be implemented to improve spectacle coverage in this rural north Indian setting.

Prevalence of blindness in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The National Programme for Control of Blindness and Visual Impairment modified the definition of blindness in 2017 in line with the internationally accepted definition. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to compute pooled estimate of blindness in India among adults aged 50 years and above by using recent and old definitions of blindness. Methods: We retrieved population-based studies/surveys reporting the prevalence of blindness using recent (presenting vision <3/60 better eye) and previous (presenting vision <6/ 60 better eye) definitions in India during 1990-2017 from key search engines and grey literature. Two authors did an independent literature search and extracted relevant information. Pooled prevalence estimates were computed using Stata 12.0 by using the random effects model. Forest and funnel plots were generated. Stratification of results was also performed using two time periods: 1995-2005 and 2006-17. Results: A total of 18 published articles/reports were included for recent and 20 for previous definitions of blindness, involving 211 502 participants. The pooled prevalence (95% confidence interval [CI]) obtained for recent and previous definitions of blindness in India was found to be 6.11% (5.07%-7.14%) and 9.91% (8.57%-11.25%), respectively. The stratified pooled prevalence (95% CI) from rapid surveys was 4.81% (3.26%-6.35%) and 4.68% (2.91%-6.46%) for studies published during 1995-2005 and 2006-17, respectively, using the new definition. The corresponding figures for comprehensive surveys were 9.22% (95% CI 6.48%-11.96%) for the period 1995-2005 and 3.81% (95% CI 2.76%-4.84%) for the period 2006-17. Conclusion: There is a decrease in the prevalence of blindness in India using recent and previous definitions and a declining trend over time. High quantum of blindness remains an unfinished public health agenda for implementing programmes in larger populations to reduce its burden.

Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes.

Mobile phones emit electromagnetic radiations that are classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Evidence for increased risk for brain tumours accumulated in parallel by epidemiologic investigations remains controversial. This paper aims to investigate whether methodological quality of studies and source of funding can explain the variation in results. PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL searches were conducted from 1966 to December 2016, which was supplemented with relevant articles identified in the references. Twenty-two case control studies were included for systematic review. Meta-analysis of 14 case-control studies showed practically no increase in risk of brain tumour [OR 1.03 (95% CI 0.92-1.14)]. However, for mobile phone use of 10 years or longer (or >1640 h), the overall result of the meta-analysis showed a significant 1.33 times increase in risk. The summary estimate of government funded as well as phone industry funded studies showed 1.07 times increase in odds which was not significant, while mixed funded studies did not show any increase in risk of brain tumour. Metaregression analysis indicated that the association was significantly associated with methodological study quality (p < 0.019, 95% CI 0.009-0.09). Relationship between source of funding and log OR for each study was not statistically significant (p < 0.32, 95% CI 0.036-0.010). We found evidence linking mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours especially in long-term users (≥10 years). Studies with higher quality showed a trend towards high risk of brain tumour, while lower quality showed a trend towards lower risk/protection.

Longer- Versus Shorter-Duration Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) placement remains controversial. PURPOSE: To summarize data on clinical outcomes with longer- versus shorter-duration DAPT after DES placement in adults with coronary artery disease. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE, 1996 to 27 March 2015, and manual screening of references. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials comparing longer- versus shorter-duration DAPT after DES placement. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers screened potentially eligible articles; extracted data on populations, interventions, and outcomes; assessed risk of bias; and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines to rate overall confidence in effect estimates. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among 1010 articles identified, 9 trials including 29,531 patients were eligible; data were complete for 28,808 patients. Moderate-quality evidence showed that longer-duration DAPT decreased risk for myocardial infarction (risk ratio [RR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92]) and increased mortality (RR, 1.19 [CI, 1.04 to 1.36]). High-quality evidence showed that DAPT increased risk for major bleeding (RR, 1.63 [CI, 1.34 to 1.99]). LIMITATION: Confidence in estimates were decreased owing to imprecision for most outcomes (particularly myocardial infarction), risk of bias from limited blinding in 7 of 9 studies, indirectness due to variability in use of first- and second-generation stents, and off-protocol use of DAPT in some studies. CONCLUSION: Extended DAPT is associated with approximately 8 fewer myocardial infarctions per 1000 treated patients per year but 6 more major bleeding events than shorter-duration DAPT. Because absolute effects are very small and closely balanced, decisions regarding the duration of DAPT therapy must take into account patients' values and preference. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Corticosteroid Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is common and often severe. PURPOSE: To examine the effect of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy on mortality, morbidity, and duration of hospitalization in patients with CAP. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through 24 May 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of systemic corticosteroids in hospitalized adults with CAP. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system by consensus among the authors. DATA SYNTHESIS: The median age was typically in the 60s, and approximately 60% of patients were male. Adjunctive corticosteroids were associated with possible reductions in all-cause mortality (12 trials; 1974 patients; risk ratio [RR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45 to 1.01]; risk difference [RD], 2.8%; moderate certainty), need for mechanical ventilation (5 trials; 1060 patients; RR, 0.45 [CI, 0.26 to 0.79]; RD, 5.0%; moderate certainty), and the acute respiratory distress syndrome (4 trials; 945 patients; RR, 0.24 [CI, 0.10 to 0.56]; RD, 6.2%; moderate certainty). They also decreased time to clinical stability (5 trials; 1180 patients; mean difference, -1.22 days [CI, -2.08 to -0.35 days]; high certainty) and duration of hospitalization (6 trials; 1499 patients; mean difference, -1.00 day [CI, -1.79 to -0.21 days]; high certainty). Adjunctive corticosteroids increased frequency of hyperglycemia requiring treatment (6 trials; 1534 patients; RR, 1.49 [CI, 1.01 to 2.19]; RD, 3.5%; high certainty) but did not increase frequency of gastrointestinal hemorrhage. LIMITATIONS: There were few events and trials for many outcomes. Trials often excluded patients at high risk for adverse events. CONCLUSION: For hospitalized adults with CAP, systemic corticosteroid therapy may reduce mortality by approximately 3%, need for mechanical ventilation by approximately 5%, and hospital stay by approximately 1 day. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Genetics of ischemic stroke: An Indian scenario.

Stroke, a heterogeneous multifactorial disorder, is known to be a major cause of death and adult disability within both the developed and developing countries. Approximately 85% of stroke cases are ischemic, whereas the remaining 15% are hemorrhagic. It is caused by multiple genetic factors, environmental factors, and interactions among these factors. Several candidate genes have been found to be associated with ischemic stroke. The most extensively studied genes include those involved in hemostasis, inflammation, nitric oxide production, homocysteine and lipid metabolism, and rennin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Combined linkage/association studies have demonstrated that genes encoding phosphodiesterase 4D (PDE4D) and arachidonate 5-lipoxygenase-activating protein (ALOX5AP) confer risk for stroke. Even though there is substantial evidence for the genetic basis of stroke as provided by the epidemiological data from twin- and family-based studies, the contribution of genetic factors identified till now is either not enough or very less to explain the entire spectrum of encountered phenomena associated with ischemic stroke. Till date, no genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been carried out in India. We aim to extensively review the studies on candidate genes that may have potential applications in the early diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of ischemic stroke in the Indian population. This article further emphasizes the role of GWAS in ischemic stroke and the need for an extensive GWAS in the Indian population.

Culprit vessel versus immediate complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment myocardial infarction-a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest percutaneous intervention (PCI) of only the culprit artery in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. However, recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest benefit to performing PCI of other stenotic vessels at the same time as culprit vessel PCI. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with complete case meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL from 1946 to March 2014; MEDLINE and EMBASE from March 2014 to March 2015; and scanning of literature for new studies until August 2015. All RCTs comparing multivessel versus culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI were eligible. The primary outcomes of interest were recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), recurrent revascularization, and mortality. We combined data from trials to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and associated 95% CIs using random-effects models. RESULTS: Five RCTs including 1,606 patients of whom 1,568 had complete data proved eligible. Multivessel revascularization was associated with decreased risk of repeat revascularization (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.27-0.49, risk difference 9.7% over 2 years) and recurrent nonfatal MI (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.93, risk difference 1.8% over 2 years), without increase in mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53-1.26) or other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled data provide moderate-certainty evidence that performance of multivessel PCI will provide an appreciable reduction in nonfatal MI and high-certainty evidence that it will reduce need for repeat revascularization. Patients are likely to place a high value on these benefits.

Low socioeconomic status is an independent risk factor for ischemic stroke: a case-control study in North Indian population.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a multifactorial disease and is influenced by complex environmental interactions. The contribution of various risk factors to the burden of stroke worldwide is not well known, particularly in developing countries. The present case-control study is aimed at exploring the association between a low socioeconomic status and the risk of ischemic stroke among the North Indian population. METHODS: The study design was a hospital-based, case-control study. Age- and sex-matched controls were included. The demographic characteristics and risk factor variables were documented by means of a personal interview through a standardized case record form. The household asset index for determining the socioeconomic status (HAISS) was used for the assessment of the socioeconomic status of the population. HAISS was validated with the widely used Kuppuswamy scale for measurement of socioeconomic status. The multivariable logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds ratio associated with stroke. RESULTS: In all, 224 ischemic stroke patients and 224 controls were recruited between February 2009 and February 2012. The mean age of cases and controls was 53.47 ± 14 and 52.92 ± 13.4, respectively. The low economic status was independently associated with the risk of ischemic stroke after adjustment for demographic and risk factor variables (OR 2.8; 95% CI 1.2-6.3). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that there is a significant association between a low socioeconomic status and the risk of ischemic stroke risk in North Indian population. Well-designed studies embedded with long-term prospective cohorts are required for confirming the results.

Efficacité et innocuité des corticostéroïdes dans le traitement de la COVID-19 selon des données pour la COVID-19, d'autres infections aux coronavirus, l'influenza, la pneumonie extrahospitalière et le syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë : revue systématique et méta-analyse.

CONTEXTE: Il existe très peu de données directes sur l'administration de corticostéroïdes aux patients atteints de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Les données indirectes sur des maladies associées devront donc guider les conclusions quant aux bénéfices et aux préjudices associés à cette pratique. Dans le but d'appuyer la rédaction d'une ligne directrice sur la prise en charge de la COVID-19, nous avons réalisé des revues systématiques sur les effets des corticostéroïdes dans le traitement de la COVID-19 et de maladies respiratoires aiguës sévères associées. MÉTHODES: Dans des bases de données biomédicales chinoises et internationales et des sources de prépublications, nous avons cherché les essais randomisés et contrôlés (ERC) et les études d'observation comparant des patients atteints de la COVID-19, du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS) ou du syndrome respiratoire du Moyen-Orient (SRMO) ayant reçu des corticostéroïdes à des patients semblables n'ayant pas reçu ce type de médicaments. Pour le syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë (SDRA), l'influenza et la pneumonie extrahospitalière (PEH), nous avons mis à jour les revues systématiques rigoureuses les plus récentes. Nous avons réalisé des méta-analyses à effets aléatoires pour cerner les risques relatifs, puis nous avons utilisé le risque de référence des patients atteints de la COVID-19 pour calculer les effets absolus. RÉSULTATS: Pour le SDRA, selon 1 petite étude de cohorte sur des patients atteints de la COVID-19 et 7 ERC sur des patients atteints d'une autre maladie (risque relatif : 0,72, intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 0,55­0,93, différence entre les moyennes [DM] 17,3 % plus faible, données de faible qualité), les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité. Chez les patients atteints d'une forme grave de COVID-19 sans SDRA, 2 études d'observation ont généré des données directes de très faible qualité montrant une augmentation du risque de mortalité avec l'administration de corticostéroïdes (rapport de risques 2,30, IC de 95 % 1,00­5,29, DM 11,9 % plus élevé). C'est aussi le cas de données observationnelles sur l'influenza. Des données observationnelles de très faible qualité sur le SRAS et le SRMO montrent peu ou pas de réduction dans le risque de mortalité. Des essais randomisés et contrôlés sur la PEH suggèrent que les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité (risque relatif 0,70, IC de 95 % 0,50­0,98, DM 3,1 % plus faible, données de très faible qualité), et augmenter le risque d'hyperglycémie. INTERPRÉTATION: Les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité pour les patients atteints de la COVID-19 avec SDRA. Pour les patients atteints d'une forme grave de COVID-19 sans SDRA, les données sur les bénéfices provenant de différentes sources sont incohérentes et de très faible qualité.