Odds of HIV among incarcerated drug users: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Asian countries.

Background: HIV makes up a large portion of infectious diseases globally. People injecting drugs in prisons are at high risk for contracting HIV infection. Prisons house ~10.2 million people globally, making them a high-risk setting for HIV transmission. This systematic review summarizes the available data on the odds of developing HIV infection among imprisoned people who inject drugs (PWIDs) in Asian regions. Methods: The authors electronically assessed published studies from January, 2000 to December, 2022, including studies that investigated the odds of HIV in imprisoned PWIDs. We extensively searched PubMed, ERIC, and Cochrane Central and Google Scholar with no constraints in language or time. All the observational studies evaluating the chances of HIV in Asian prisoners with an exposure group of PWIDs and a control group of non-injecting-drug users were included in our analysis. Results: The databases search yielded 254 potential studies, 10 observational studies of which having a total of 17 333 participants were included. A low or moderate risk of bias was reported in all the studies except one case-control. The pooled analysis showed a significant association between PWIDs and the chances of contracting HIV infection (Odds ratio=6.40; 95% CI=3.89-10.52; P<0.00001; I2=53%). Conclusion: This study found a vital correlation between injecting-drug usage during imprisonment and HIV transmission speed. The results of this meta-analysis support the need to prevent HIV and conducting treatment programs in high-risk settings like prisons.

Association of Body Mass Index With Outcomes Among Patients With Head and Neck Cancer Treated With Chemoradiotherapy.

Importance: Combined modality therapy, such as chemoradiotherapy, often results in significant morbidity among patients with head and neck cancer. Although the role of body mass index (BMI) varies based on cancer subtypes, its association with treatment response, tumor recurrence, and survival outcomes among patients with head and neck cancer remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the role of BMI in treatment response, tumor recurrence, and survival outcomes among patients with head and neck cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, observational, single-institution cohort study conducted at a comprehensive cancer center included 445 patients with nonmetastatic head and neck cancer who underwent chemoradiotherapy from January 1, 2005, to January 31, 2021. Exposure: Normal vs overweight or obese BMI. Main Outcomes and Measures: Metabolic response after chemoradiotherapy, locoregional failure (LRF), distant failure (DF), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS), with Bonferroni correction used to adjust for multiple comparisons and P < .025 being considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 445 patients (373 men [83.8%]; median age, 61 years [IQR, 55-66 years]; 107 [24.0%] with normal BMI, 179 [40.2%] with overweight BMI, and 159 [35.7%] with obese BMI) were included for analysis. Median follow-up was 48.1 months (IQR, 24.7-74.9 months). On Cox proportional hazards regression multivariable analysis, only overweight BMI was associated with improved OS (5-year OS, 71.5% vs 58.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.91]; P = .02) and PFS (5-year PFS, 68.3% vs 50.8%; AHR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.34-0.75]; P < .001). On logistic multivariable analysis, overweight BMI (91.6% vs 73.8%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80-0.93]; P < .001) and obese BMI (90.6% vs 73.8%; AOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]; P = .005) were associated with complete metabolic response on follow-up positron emission tomography-computed tomography after treatments. On Fine-Gray multivariable analysis, overweight BMI was associated with reduction in LRF (5-year LRF, 7.0% vs 25.9%; AHR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.12-0.71]; P = .01), but not DF (5-year DF, 17.4% vs 21.5%; AHR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.47-1.77]; P = .79). Obese BMI was not associated with LRF (5-year LRF, 10.4% vs 25.9%; AHR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.29-1.37]; P = .24) or DF (5-year DF, 15.0% vs 21.5%; AHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.35-1.38]; P = .30). Conclusion: In this cohort study of patients with head and neck cancer, when compared with normal BMI, overweight BMI was an independent factor favorably associated with complete response after treatments, OS, PFS, and LRF. Further investigations are warranted to improve understanding on the role of BMI among patients with head and neck cancer.

Efficacy of mindfulness-based intervention for the treatment of chronic headaches: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy has attained popularity as an adjunctive treatment for a plethora of medical and psychiatric conditions, however, its impact on chronic headaches is inconclusive. This review aims to assess the impact of MBSR/MBCT in alleviating the symptoms of chronic headaches. Data sources and data selection: PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception till 1st May 2021. Randomized Control Trials evaluating mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy with either passive comparators (usual care) or active comparators (e.g., Health education or cognitive behavioral therapy) for chronic headaches (Migraine, Tension-type, or cluster headaches), which evaluated either headache frequency, pain intensity or headache duration as primary outcome were eligible for inclusion. The Risk of Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool. Results: A total of ten Randomized Controlled Trials (five on migraine; three on tension-type; two with mixed samples) were evaluated. In comparison to usual care, mindfulness-based stress reduction/cognitive therapy did not illustrate significant changes in headache frequency (MD = -0.14; 95% CI -1.26 to 0.97; P = 0.80; Moderate Certainty), headache duration (MD = -0.27; 95% CI -3.51 to 2.97, P = 0.87; Low Certainty) or pain intensity (MD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.46 to 0.07; P = 0.15; Moderate Certainty). Conclusion: The results found are insignificant for the three primary outcomes, which may be due to the low number of participants and often a high or unclear risk of bias in the randomized control trials included. Perhaps more aggressive clinical trials with a larger sample size effectively demonstrate differences in outcomes before and after therapy for MBSR/MBCT could provide a more significant change.