Long-term levels of protection of different types of immunity against the Omicron variant: a rapid literature review.

INTRODUCTION: With the emergence of newer SARS-CoV-2 variants and their substantial effects on the levels and duration of protection against infection, an understanding of these characteristics of the protection conferred by humoral and cellular immunity can aid in the proper development and implementation of vaccine and safety guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a rapid literature review and searched five electronic databases weekly from 1 November 2021 to 30 September 2022. Studies that assessed the humoral or cellular immunity conferred by infection, vaccination or a hybrid (combination of both) in adults and risk groups (immunocompromised and older populations) were identified. Studies were eligible when they reported data on immunological assays of COVID-19 (related to vaccination and/or infection) or the effectiveness of protection (related to the effectiveness of vaccination and/or infection). RESULTS: We screened 5103 studies and included 205 studies, of which 70 provided data on the duration of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The duration of protection of adaptive immunity was greatly impacted by Omicron and its subvariants: levels of protection were low by 3-6 months from exposure to infection/vaccination. Although more durable, cellular immunity also showed signs of waning by 6 months. First and second mRNA vaccine booster doses increased the levels of protection against infection and severe disease from Omicron and its subvariants but continued to demonstrate a high degree of waning over time. CONCLUSION: All humoral immunities (infection-acquired, vaccine-acquired and hybrid) waned by 3-6 months. Cellular immunity was more durable but showed signs of waning by 6 months. Hybrid immunity had the highest magnitude of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Boosting may be recommended as early as 3-4 months after the last dose, especially in risk groups.

Organizational interventions and occupational burnout: a meta-analysis with focus on exhaustion.

PURPOSE: To assess whether organizational interventions are effective to prevent or reduce exhaustion, the core dimension of occupational burnout. METHODS: We searched in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases randomized and non-randomized controlled trials conducted among active workers and reporting the outcome as exhaustion score. We calculated the effect sizes using the pre-test-post-test control group design's estimate. We used the random effects model in meta-analysis and Cochrane collaboration's tool for interventions to assess the risk of bias. Overall quality of evidence was appraised using the GRADE. RESULTS: From the 2425 identified records, we assessed 228 full texts for eligibility and included 11 original articles describing 13 studies, 11 on organizational interventions, and 2 on combined inventions. The interventions were participatory (n = 9), focused on workload (n = 2), or on work schedule (n = 2). The overall effect size was - 0.30 ((95% CI = - 0.42; - 0.18), I2 = 62.28%), corresponding to a small reduction in exhaustion with a very low quality of evidence. Combined interventions had a larger effect (- 0.54 (95% CI = - 0.76; - 0.32)) than organizational interventions. When split by type of intervention, both participatory interventions and interventions focused on workload had a benefic effect of exhaustion reduction, with an estimated effect size of - 0.34 (95% CI = - 0.47; - 0.20) and - 0.44 (95% CI = - 0.68, - 0.20), respectively. CONCLUSION: Interventions at combined level in workplaces could be helpful in preventing exhaustion. However, the evidence is still limited, due to a high heterogeneity between studies, bias potential, and small number of eligible studies. This calls for further research, using workload interventions at organizational level, especially in sectors with high risk of job stress and exhaustion.

Point prevalence of burnout in Switzerland: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: To estimate the prevalence of occupational burnout among the Swiss working population. METHODS: We interrogated three international databases (Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and PsycINFO) and the databases of 15 Swiss universities to identify studies reporting the prevalence of occupational burnout in Swiss workers over the last 10 years, before the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were summarised descriptively and quantitatively using random-effects meta-analysis. We investigated between-study heterogeneity by stratifying results according to the type of burnout measurement tool, by occupation and by cut-off values. Three outcomes were considered: clinical/severe burnout, overall burnout and emotional exhaustion. RESULTS: We identified 23 studies about workers in Switzerland and estimated the prevalence of clinical or severe burnout at 4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2-6%). The average prevalence estimates for overall burnout and emotional exhaustion were similar at 18% (95% CI 12-25%) and 18% (95% CI 15-22%), respectively. When stratified by occupation, the clinical or severe burnout rates were higher among the healthcare workers than the general working population. CONCLUSIONS: These estimates of prepandemic (baseline) prevalence of occupational burnout are comparable with those available in the other countries where it is recognised and treated as a disease. They may prove useful in planning and assessing the effectiveness of interventions for prevention of occupational burnout and in minimising its negative consequences on individuals and on societies during and after the pandemic.

Do drugs interact together in cardiovascular prevention? A meta-analysis of powerful or factorial randomized controlled trials.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To explore whether preventive cardiovascular drugs (antihypertensive, antiplatelet, lipid lowering and hypoglycemic agents) interact together in cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: We searched PubMed®, Web of science™, Embase and Cochrane library for powerful randomized placebo-controlled trials (>1000 patients). We explored whether drug effect on major vascular events changed according to cross-exposure to other drug classes or to cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension or type 2 diabetes), through a meta-analysis of relative odds ratio computed by trial subgroups. A significant interaction was suggested from confidence intervals of the ratio of odds ratios, when they excluded neutral value of 1. RESULTS: In total, 14 trials with 178,398 patients were included. No significant interaction was observed between co-prescribed drugs or between these medications and type 2 diabetes/hypertension status. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis is the first one to evaluate drug-drug and drug-hypertension/type 2 diabetes status interactions in terms of cardiovascular risks: we did not observe any significant interaction. This indirectly reinforces the rationale of using several contrasted mechanisms to address cardiovascular prevention; and allows the combination effect prediction by a simple multiplication of their odds ratios. The limited availability of data reported or obtained from authors is a strong argument in favor of data sharing.

Association between continuity of care (COC), healthcare use and costs: what can we learn from claims data? A rapid review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe how longitudinal continuity of care (COC) is measured using claims-based data and to review its association with healthcare use and costs. RESEARCH DESIGN: Rapid review of the literature. METHODS: We searched Medline (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Central, manually checked the references of included studies, and hand-searched websites for potentially additional eligible studies. RESULTS: We included 46 studies conducted in North America, East Asia and Europe, which used 14 COC indicators. Most reported studies (39/46) showed that higher COC was associated with lower healthcare use and costs. Most studies (37/46) adjusted for possible time bias and discussed causality between the outcomes and COC, or at least acknowledged the lack of it as a limitation. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas a wide range of indicators is used to measure COC in claims-based data, associations between COC and healthcare use and costs were consistent, showing lower healthcare use and costs with higher COC. Results were observed in various population groups from multiple countries and settings. Further research is needed to make stronger causal claims.

Are mind-body therapies effective for relieving cancer-related pain in adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether mind-body therapies are effective for relieving cancer-related pain in adults, since at least one-third of adults with cancer are affected by moderate or severe pain. METHODS: We searched for all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) with cancer-related pain who were treated with mind-body therapies (mindfulness, hypnosis, yoga, guided imagery, and progressive muscle relaxation) in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Science Citation Index, Web of Science, trials registers, and reference lists. The primary outcome was pain intensity. We calculated the standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the risk of bias. RESULTS: We identified 40 primary studies involving a total of 3569 participants. The meta-analysis included 24 studies (2404 participants) and showed a significant effect of -0.39 (95% CI -0.62 to -0.16) with considerable heterogeneity (I2  = 86.3%, p < 0.001). After we excluded four "outlier" studies in sensitivity analyses, the effect size remained significant but weaker. There was a high risk of bias in all studies, for example, performance bias due to lack of participant blinding. Patients in multiple settings were included but many studies were of low quality. CONCLUSIONS: Mind-body therapies may be effective in improving cancer pain, but the quality of the evidence is low. There is a need for further high-quality clinical trials.

Effects of Statins to Reduce All-Cause Mortality in Heart Failure Patients: Findings from the EPICAL2 Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The addition of statins to standard care in heart failure (HF) patients remains controversial in clinical practice. Large-scale clinical trials failed to show mortality benefits, but uncertainty persists in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether the prescription of statins at hospital discharge is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality at up to 1 year of follow-up in HF patients. METHODS: We analyzed data from Epidémiologie et Pronostic de l'Insuffisance Cardiaque Aiguë en Lorraine (EPICAL2) cohort study of 2254 hospitalized acute HF patients who were admitted to 21 hospitals located in northeast France for acute HF between October 2011 and October 2012 and who received statins at discharge compared with patients who did not. We used propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses to estimate the treatment effects of statins, and a multivariable Cox proportional-hazards model to examine survival with statin use, adjusting for patient demographics, HF characteristics, medical history, comorbidities, drug treatment and other known potential confounders. We plotted Kaplan-Meier survivor curves, and used log-rank test to determine the equality of survivor functions. RESULTS: We included 2032 patients in this investigation: 919 (45%) in the statin-treated group and 1113 (55%) in the control group. The estimated average statin-treatment effects for all-cause mortality in HF failed to demonstrate a significant effect on mortality [Z = - 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.11 to 0.007, p value = 0.083, and Z = - 0.95, 95% CI - 1.34 to 0.46, p value = 0.34] for propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses, respectively. Moreover, the Cox proportional-hazards model showed that statin prescription was not significantly associated with the rate of death (hazard ratio = 0.85, 95% CI 0.66-1.11, p value = 0.26), adjusted for all confounders. CONCLUSION: In patients with HF (and reduced or preserved ejection fraction), the prescription of statins did not appear to be associated with better survival after 1 year of follow-up in the EPICAL2 cohort. We cannot exclude that a subpopulation of HF patients may have some benefits compared with the whole HF population or that there might be a lack of power to show such effect. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02880358.

Effectiveness of drug interventions to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise and synthesise the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of drug interventions to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) and all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane Library from inception to May 2017; manual search of references of included studies for potentially relevant reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: We reviewed the effectiveness of drug interventions for SCD and all-cause mortality prevention in patients with HFrEF. We included overviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-i), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), antialdosterones or mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists, amiodarone, other antiarrhythmic drugs, combined ARB/neprilysin inhibitors, statins and fish oil supplementation. REVIEW METHODS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the reviews and the quality of evidence for the primary studies for each drug intervention, using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE), respectively. RESULTS: We identified 41 reviews. Beta-blockers, antialdosterones and combined ARB/neprilysin inhibitors appeared effective to prevent SCD and all-cause mortality. ACE-i significantly reduced all-cause mortality but not SCD events. ARBs and statins were ineffective where antiarrhythmic drugs and omega-3 fatty acids had unclear evidence of effectiveness for prevention of SCD and all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive overview of systematic reviews confirms that beta-blockers, antialdosterone agents and combined ARB/neprilysin inhibitors are effective on SCD prevention but not ACE-i or ARBs. In patients with high risk of SCD, an alternative therapeutic strategy should be explored in future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017067442.

A sudden death risk score specifically for hypertension: based on 25 648 individual patient data from six randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To construct a sudden death risk score specifically for hypertension (HYSUD) patients with or without cardiovascular history. METHODS: Data were collected from six randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive treatments with 8044 women and 17 604 men differing in age ranges and blood pressure eligibility criteria. In total, 345 sudden deaths (1.35%) occurred during a mean follow-up of 5.16 years. Risk factors of sudden death were examined using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model adjusted on trials. The model was transformed to an integer system, with points added for each factor according to its association with sudden death risk. RESULTS: Antihypertensive treatment was not associated with a reduction of the sudden death risk and had no interaction with other factors, allowing model development on both treatment and placebo groups. A risk score of sudden death in 5 years was built with seven significant risk factors: age, sex, SBP, serum total cholesterol, cigarette smoking, diabetes, and history of myocardial infarction. In terms of discrimination performance, HYSUD model was adequate with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 77.74% (confidence interval 95%, 74.13-81.35) for the derivation set, of 77.46% (74.09-80.83) for the validation set, and of 79.17% (75.94-82.40) for the whole population. CONCLUSION: Our work provides a simple risk-scoring system for sudden death prediction in hypertension, using individual data from six randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive treatments. HYSUD score could help assessing a hypertensive individual's risk of sudden death and optimizing preventive therapeutic strategies for these patients.

No benefits of statins for sudden cardiac death prevention in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Statins showed mixed results in heart failure (HF) patients. The benefits in major HF outcomes, including all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death (SCD), have always been discordant across systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We intended to systematically identify and appraise the available evidence that evaluated the effectiveness of statins in clinical outcomes for HF patients. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched, until April 28, 2016: Medline, Embase, ISI Web of Science and EBM reviews (Cochrane DSR, ACP journal club, DARE, CCTR, CMR, HTA, and NHSEED), checked clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing trials and manually searched references of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We identified 24 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of statins for HF patients. All randomized clinical trials were assessed for risk of bias and pooled together in a meta-analysis. Pre-specified outcomes were sudden cardiac death, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for worsening heart failure. RESULTS: Statins did not reduce sudden cardiac death (SCD) events in HF patients [relative risk (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.21], all-cause mortality [RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02] but significantly reduced hospitalization for worsening heart failure (HWHF) although modestly [RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94]. Nevertheless, estimated predictive intervals were insignificant in SCD, all-cause mortality and HWHF [RR, 0.54 to 1.63, 0.64 to 1.19, and 0.54 to 1.15], respectively. An important finding was the possible presence of publication bias, small-study effects and heterogeneity of the trials conducted in HF patients. CONCLUSIONS: Statins do not reduce sudden cardiac death, all-cause mortality, but may slightly decrease hospitalization for worsening heart failure in HF patients. The evaluation of the risk of biases suggested moderate quality of the published results. Until new evidence is available, this study supports the 2013 ACCF/AHA guidelines to not systematically prescribe statins in "only" HF patients, which should help avoid unnecessary polypharmacy.

Impact of Aldosterone Antagonists on Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention in Heart Failure and Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a severe burden of modern medicine. Aldosterone antagonist is publicized as effective in reducing mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) or post myocardial infarction (MI). Our study aimed to assess the efficacy of AAs on mortality including SCD, hospitalization admission and several common adverse effects. METHODS: We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library and clinicaltrial.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assigning AAs in patients with HF or post MI through May 2015. The comparator included standard medication or placebo, or both. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Event rates were compared using a random effects model. Prospective RCTs of AAs with durations of at least 8 weeks were selected if they included at least one of the following outcomes: SCD, all-cause/cardiovascular mortality, all-cause/cardiovascular hospitalization and common side effects (hyperkalemia, renal function degradation and gynecomastia). RESULTS: Data from 19,333 patients enrolled in 25 trials were included. In patients with HF, this treatment significantly reduced the risk of SCD by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03); all-cause mortality by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88, p<0.00001) and cardiovascular death by 21% (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89, p<0.00001). In patients with post-MI, the matching reduced risks were 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; p = 0.03), 15% (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95, p = 0.003) and 17% (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94, p = 0.003), respectively. Concerning both subgroups, the relative risks respectively decreased by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; p = 0.002) for SCD, 18% (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88, p < 0.0001) for all-cause mortality and 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87, p < 0.0001) for cardiovascular mortality in patients treated with AAs. As well, hospitalizations were significantly reduced, while common adverse effects were significantly increased. CONCLUSION: Aldosterone antagonists appear to be effective in reducing SCD and other mortality events, compared with placebo or standard medication in patients with HF and/or after a MI.

ß-Blockers for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In many studies, beta-blockers have been shown to decrease sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure patients; other studies reported mixed results. Recently, several large randomized control trials of beta blockers have been carried out. It became necessary to conduct a systematic review to provide an up-to-date synthesis of available data. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials examining the use of beta-blockers vs. placebo/control for the prevention of SCD in heart failure patients. We identified 30 trials, which randomized 24,779 patients to beta-blocker or placebo/control. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Eligible studies had to be randomized controlled trials and provide information on the incidence of sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients. Additional inclusion criteria included: treatment for >30 days and follow-up≥3 months. Studies of patients<18 years, randomization to beta-blocker vs. an angiotensin converting enzyme (without placebo) and/or beta-blocker in both arms were excluded from the analysis. Pre-specified outcomes of interest included SCD, cardiovascular death (CVD), and all-cause mortality and were analyzed according to intention-to-treat. RESULTS: We found that beta-blockers are effective in the prevention of SCD [OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.77, P<0.00001], cardiovascular death (CVD) [OR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.79, P<0.00001], and all-cause mortality [OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.76, P<0.00001]. Based on the study analysis, 43 patients must be treated with a beta-blocker to prevent one SCD, 26 patients to prevent one CVD and 21 patients to prevent all-cause mortality in one year. CONCLUSION: Beta-blockers reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) by 31%, cardiovascular death (CVD) by 29% and all-cause mortality by 33%. These results confirm the mortality benefits of these drugs and they should be recommended to all patients similar to those included in the trials.