Quantified Metrics of Gastric Emptying Delay by GLP-1 Agonists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Insights for Periprocedural Management.

INTRODUCTION: Divergent recommendations for periprocedural management of GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications rely on limited evidence. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide quantitative measures of gastric emptying relevant to mechanisms of weight loss and to periprocedural management of GLP-1 RA. We hypothesized that the magnitude of gastric emptying delay would be low and of limited clinical significance to procedural sedation risks. METHODS: A protocolized search identified studies on GLP-1 RA that quantified gastric emptying measures. Pooled estimates using random effects were presented as weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Univariate meta-regression was performed to assess the influence of GLP-1 RA type, short- vs long-acting mechanism of action, and duration of treatment on gastric emptying. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Five studies (n=247) utilized scintigraphy (GES). Mean T1/2 was 138.4 minutes (CI:74.5-202.3) for GLP-1 RA versus 95.0 minutes (CI:54.9-135.0) for placebo, with pooled mean difference of 36.0 minutes (CI:17.0-55.0, p<0.01, I2=79.4%). Ten studies (n=411) utilized the acetaminophen absorption test (AAT), with no significant delay in gastric emptying measured by Tmax, AUC4hr, and AUC5hr with GLP-1 RA (p>0.05). On meta-regression, type of GLP-1 RA, mechanism of action, and treatment duration did not impact gastric emptying (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While a gastric emptying delay of ∼36 minutes is quantifiable on GLP-1 RA medications, it is of limited magnitude relative to standard periprocedural fasting periods. There were no substantial differences in gastric emptying on modalities reflective of liquid emptying (AAT), particularly at time points relevant to periprocedural care.

Missing data and missed infections: Investigating racial and ethnic disparities in SARS-CoV-2 testing and infection rates in Holyoke, Massachusetts.

Routinely collected testing data has been a vital resource for public health response during the COVID-19 pandemic and has revealed the extent to which Black and Hispanic persons have borne a disproportionate burden of SARS-CoV-2 infections and hospitalizations in the United States. However, missing race and ethnicity data and missed infections due to testing disparities limit the interpretation of testing data and obscure the true toll of the pandemic. We investigated potential bias arising from these two types of missing data through a case study in Holyoke, Massachusetts during the pre-vaccination phase of the pandemic. First, we estimated SARS-CoV-2 testing and case rates by race/ethnicity, imputing missing data using a joint modelling approach. We then investigated disparities in SARS-CoV-2 reported case rates and missed infections by comparing case rate estimates to estimates derived from a COVID-19 seroprevalence survey. Compared to the non-Hispanic white population, we found that the Hispanic population had similar testing rates (476 vs. 480 tested per 1,000) but twice the case rate (8.1% vs. 3.7%). We found evidence of inequitable testing, with a higher rate of missed infections in the Hispanic population compared to the non-Hispanic white population (77 vs. 58 infections missed per 1,000).

Food insecurity and risk of cholera: A cross-sectional study and exploratory analysis of potential mediators.

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity has been independently associated with developing cholera and there is an inverse relationship between national food security and annual cholera incidence. However, the factors that mediate the risk of cholera among food insecure households remain largely unexplored. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In a cross-sectional survey of rural households in Haiti, we explored the role of food behaviors (i.e., dietary choices and food-handling practices) as mediators of cholera risk among food-insecure families. We generated a series of multivariable regression models to test hypothesized associations between the severity of food insecurity (measured by the Household Hunger Scale), hygiene and food behaviors, and history of severe, medically-attended cholera. Moderate household hunger (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 1.47, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.05-2.04; p = 0.021) and severe hunger (AOR 2.45, 95% CI 1.45-4.15; p = 0.001) were positively associated with a history of severe, medically-attended cholera compared with little to no household hunger. Household hunger was positively associated with three behaviors: antacid use, consumption of leftover non-reheated food, and eating food and beverages prepared outside of the home (i.e., at a restaurant or from a vendor). Consumption of outside food items and antacid use were positively associated with a history of cholera. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that food behaviors may mediate the association between food insecurity and cholera and contribute to an understanding of how interventions could be designed to target food insecurity as part of cholera prevention and control.

Effectiveness of contact tracing in the control of infectious diseases: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Contact tracing is used for multiple infectious diseases, most recently for COVID-19, but data regarding its effectiveness in disease control are scarce. To address this knowledge gap and inform public health decision making for COVID-19, we systematically reviewed the existing literature to determine the effectiveness of contact tracing in the control of communicable illness. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from database inception up to Nov 22, 2021, for published studies evaluating associations between provider-initiated contact tracing for transmissible infectious diseases and one of three outcomes of interest: case detection rates among contacts or at the community level, overall forward transmission, or overall disease incidence. Clinical trials and observational studies were eligible, with no language or date restrictions. Reference lists of reviews were searched for additional studies. We excluded studies without a control group, using only mathematical modelling, not reporting a primary outcome of interest, or solely examining patient-initiated contact tracing. One reviewer applied eligibility criteria to each screened abstract and full-text article, and two reviewers independently extracted summary effect estimates and additional data from eligible studies. Only data reported in published manuscripts or supplemental material was extracted. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (randomised studies) or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (non-randomised studies). FINDINGS: We identified 9050 unique citations, of which 47 studies met the inclusion criteria: six were focused on COVID-19, 20 on tuberculosis, eight on HIV, 12 on curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and one on measles. More than 2 million index patients were included across a variety of settings (both urban and rural areas and low-resource and high-resource settings). Of the 47 studies, 29 (61·7%) used observational designs, including all studies on COVID-19, and 18 (38·3%) were randomised controlled trials. 40 studies compared provider-initiated contact tracing with other interventions or evaluated expansions of provider-initiated contact tracing, and seven compared programmatic adaptations within provider-initiated contact tracing. 29 (72·5%) of the 40 studies evaluating the effect of provider-initiated contact tracing, including four (66·7%) of six COVID-19 studies, found contact tracing interventions were associated with improvements in at least one outcome of interest. 23 (48·9%) studies had low risk of bias, 22 (46·8%) studies had some risk of bias, and two (4·3%) studies (both randomised controlled trials on curable STIs) had high risk of bias. INTERPRETATION: Provider-initiated contact tracing can be an effective public health tool. However, the ability of authorities to make informed choices about its deployment might be limited by heterogenous approaches to contact tracing in studies, a scarcity of quantitative evidence on its effectiveness, and absence of specificity of tracing parameters most important for disease control. FUNDING: The Sullivan Family Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research, and US National Institutes of Health.