Dexamethasone versus prednisone/prednisolone in the management of pediatric patients with acute asthmatic exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Acute asthmatic exacerbation is a common condition for pediatric emergency visits. Recently, dexamethasone has increasingly been used as an alternative to prednisone. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone (DEX) against prednisone/prednisolone (PRED) in managing pediatric patients with acute asthmatic exacerbation. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles from their inception to August 2022 by two independent reviewers using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) system. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42022353462). STUDY SELECTIONS: From 316 studies screened, seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria, with 5967 pediatric patients experiencing an asthma exacerbation requiring treatment with either DEX (n = 2865) or PRED (n = 3102). Baseline patient characteristics (age, sex, PRAM (pediatric respiratory assessment measure), previous corticosteroid and beta-agonist inhaler) were comparable between groups. RESULTS: After treatment administration, the DEX group had fewer vomiting incidents (OR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.51, I2 = 58%) and reduced noncompliance events (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.34, I2 = 0%) when compared to the PRED group. Regarding emergency-department (ED)-related outcomes, there were no differences in hospital admission rates (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.58, 1.19, I2 = 15%), time spent in the ED (MD= -0.11 h, 95% CI: -0.52; 0.30, I2 = 82%) or relapse occurrences (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.30, 1.49, I2 = 52%) between both groups. CONCLUSION: Although there were no differences between the DEX and PRED groups in terms of hospital admission rates, time spent in the ED or relapse events, pediatric patients receiving DEX experienced lower noncompliance and vomiting rates.

Assessing the Impact of HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Scale-Up on Gonorrhea Incidence Among Gay and Bisexual Men in Sydney: A Mathematical Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: The rollout of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention among gay and bisexual men (GBM) is associated with increases in condomless anal intercourse, potentially increasing the incidence of other sexually transmissible infections (STIs). METHODS: We developed an individual-based mathematical model to simulate the transmission of Neisseria gonorrhoeae among GBM in Sydney, accounting for changes in sexual practices, STI testing, and PrEP use. We calibrated and validated the model using reported incidence rates for HIV-positive and HIV-negative GBM from 2010 to 2019. Scenarios were run with varying PrEP uptake, PrEP-related STI testing, and PrEP-related sexual behavior and testing intervals up to 2030 to assess the impact of PrEP use on gonorrhea incidence. RESULTS: Preexposure prophylaxis uptake and associated 3-monthly STI testing from 2015 onward resulted in a predicted increase from 20 to 37 N. gonorrhoeae infections per 100 person-years among HIV-negative GBM by the end of 2020. This is lower than the counterfactual predictions of 45 per 100 person-years if PrEP were not scaled up and 48 per 100 person-years with nonadherence to 3-monthly STI testing. Increasing the time between STI tests for PrEP users by 1 month from 2018 results in the incidence rate among HIV-negative GBM increasing by 8% by 2030. If PrEP coverage doubles from 24% to 53%, incidence among HIV-negative GBM declines by ~25% by 2030. CONCLUSIONS: Behavior change due to widespread PrEP use may lead to significant increases in gonorrhea incidence in GBM, but the recommended quarterly STI testing recommended for PrEP users should reduce incidence by 18% by 2030.