Effectiveness of honey for symptomatic relief in upper respiratory tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic over prescription for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) in primary care exacerbates antimicrobial resistance. There is a need for effective alternatives to antibiotic prescribing. Honey is a lay remedy for URTIs, and has an emerging evidence base for its use. Honey has antimicrobial properties, and guidelines recommended honey for acute cough in children. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for symptomatic relief in URTIs. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, AMED, Cab abstracts, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and CINAHL with a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. RESULTS: We identified 1345 unique records, and 14 studies were included. Overall risk of bias was moderate. Compared with usual care, honey improved combined symptom score (three studies, mean difference -3.96, 95% CI -5.42 to -2.51, I2=0%), cough frequency (eight studies, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.21, I2=0%) and cough severity (five studies, SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.25, I2=20%). We combined two studies comparing honey with placebo for relieving combined symptoms (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.18, I2=91%). CONCLUSIONS: Honey was superior to usual care for the improvement of symptoms of upper respiratory tract infections. It provides a widely available and cheap alternative to antibiotics. Honey could help efforts to slow the spread of antimicrobial resistance, but further high quality, placebo controlled trials are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO: Study ID, CRD42017067582 on PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).

Infection and mortality of healthcare workers worldwide from COVID-19: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate COVID-19 infections and deaths in healthcare workers (HCWs) from a global perspective during the early phases of the pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Two parallel searches of academic bibliographic databases and grey literature were undertaken until 8 May 2020. Governments were also contacted for further information where possible. There were no restrictions on language, information sources used, publication status and types of sources of evidence. The AACODS checklist or the National Institutes of Health study quality assessment tools were used to appraise each source of evidence. OUTCOME MEASURES: Publication characteristics, country-specific data points, COVID-19-specific data, demographics of affected HCWs and public health measures employed. RESULTS: A total of 152 888 infections and 1413 deaths were reported. Infections were mainly in women (71.6%, n=14 058) and nurses (38.6%, n=10 706), but deaths were mainly in men (70.8%, n=550) and doctors (51.4%, n=525). Limited data suggested that general practitioners and mental health nurses were the highest risk specialities for deaths. There were 37.2 deaths reported per 100 infections for HCWs aged over 70 years. Europe had the highest absolute numbers of reported infections (119 628) and deaths (712), but the Eastern Mediterranean region had the highest number of reported deaths per 100 infections (5.7). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infections and deaths among HCWs follow that of the general population around the world. The reasons for gender and specialty differences require further exploration, as do the low rates reported in Africa and India. Although physicians working in certain specialities may be considered high risk due to exposure to oronasal secretions, the risk to other specialities must not be underestimated. Elderly HCWs may require assigning to less risky settings such as telemedicine or administrative positions. Our pragmatic approach provides general trends, and highlights the need for universal guidelines for testing and reporting of infections in HCWs.