Failure of scabies treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment failure is considered to be an important factor in relation to the increase in scabies incidence over the last decade. However, the regional and temporal differences, in addition to the predictors of therapy failure, are unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of treatment failure in patients with scabies and investigation of associated factors. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2021 for randomized and quasi-randomized trials, in addition to observational studies that enrolled children or adults diagnosed with confirmed or clinical scabies treated with permethrin, ivermectin, crotamiton, benzyl benzoate, malathion, sulfur or lindane, and measured treatment failure or factors associated with treatment failure. We performed a random effects meta-analysis for all outcomes reported by at least two studies. RESULTS: A total of 147 studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The overall prevalence of treatment failure was 15.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.9-17.6; I2 = 95.3%, moderate-certainty evidence] with regional differences between World Health Organization regions (P = 0.003) being highest in the Western Pacific region (26.9%, 95% CI 14.5-41.2). Oral ivermectin (11.8%, 95% CI 8.4-15.4), topical ivermectin (9.3%, 95% CI 5.1-14.3) and permethrin (10.8%, 95% CI 7.5-14.5) had relatively lower failure prevalence compared with the overall prevalence. Failure prevalence was lower in patients treated with two doses of oral ivermectin (7.1%, 95% CI 3.1-12.3) compared with those treated with one dose (15.2%, 95% CI 10.8-20.2; P = 0.021). Overall and permethrin treatment failure prevalence in the included studies (1983-2021) increased by 0.27% and 0.58% per year, respectively. Only three studies conducted a multivariable risk factor analysis; no studies assessed resistance. CONCLUSIONS: A second dose of ivermectin showed lower failure prevalence than single-dose ivermectin, which should be considered in all guidelines. The increase in treatment failure over time hints at decreasing mite susceptibility for several drugs, but reasons for failure are rarely assessed. Ideally, scabicide susceptibility testing should be implemented in future studies.

Physical activity interventions for cancer-related fatigue: A scoping review of randomized controlled trials from a Nursing Science Precision Health Model perspective.

BACKGROUND: The Nursing Science Precision Health (NSPH) Model has the potential to guide research on the development, testing, and targeting of interventions. PURPOSE: This scoping review examines the relationship between physical activity (PA) and cancer-related fatigue (CRF) within the context of the NSPH Model. METHODS: The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guided this review. We included randomized controlled trials in people with cancer that investigated PA interventions and measured change in CRF as an outcome. DISCUSSION: A total of 181 studies met the eligibility criteria. Over 20 different instruments were used to measure CRF. The most common PA interventions were strength training (48%), walking (36%), cycling (26%), and yoga (15%). A limited number of studies reported phenotypic characteristics (32/181, 17%) or biomarkers (31/181, 17%) associated with CRF. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified the body of existing research exploring CRF and PA from a precision health perspective.

Perioperative Supplemental Oxygen and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Subanalysis of a Trial, Systematic Review, and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative supplemental oxygen may reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting by mitigating hypoxic stress on the gastrointestinal tract. The authors therefore tested the hypothesis that supplemental oxygen reduces nausea and vomiting in adults recovering from colorectal surgery at the Cleveland Clinic between January 28, 2013, and March 11, 2016. METHODS: Initially, the authors conducted an unplanned subanalysis of a previous trial that evaluated the effect of 80% versus 30% intraoperative inspired oxygen on surgical site infection. Specifically, they assessed the effect of 80% versus 30% oxygen concentration on the incidence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting. Thereafter, the authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of supplemental oxygen on postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: The authors' underlying analysis included 5,057 colorectal surgeries on 4,001 patients. For 2,554 surgeries, assignment was to 80% oxygen, and in 2,503 surgeries, to 30%. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was 852 of 2,554 (33%) in 80% oxygen and 814 of 2,503 (33%) in 30% oxygen. The estimated relative risk (95% CI) of 80% versus 30% oxygen on postoperative nausea and vomiting was 1.04 (0.96 to 1.12) in a generalized estimating equation model adjusting for within-patient correlation for patients with multiple surgeries, P = 0.355. Furthermore, supplemental oxygen did not reduce antiemetic use (P = 0.911) or the severity of nausea and vomiting (P = 0.924). The authors' meta-analysis included 10 qualifying trials (6,749 patients) and did not find a difference in postoperative nausea and vomiting: relative risk, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.08], P = 0.55, I2 = 52%. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting did not differ in patients assigned to 80% or 30% inspired oxygen. A meta-analysis of available trials similarly indicated that supplemental intraoperative oxygen does not reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting. Therefore, supplemental oxygen should not be given in the expectation that it will reduce nausea and vomiting.

Preincision adjunctive prophylaxis for cesarean deliveries a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review the relative effectiveness of preincision cefazolin with or without adjunctive prophylaxis (macrolides or metronidazole) vs cefazolin alone in decreasing the incidence of postcesarean delivery surgical site infections. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic search on PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from October 25, 2020, to November 25, 2020, to identify studies comparing cefazolin with adjunctive macrolides or metronidazole with cefazolin alone. The reference lists were reviewed, and a manual search of articles published after the last database search was performed. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Overall, 3 randomized controlled trials and 1 prospective observational study of reproductive-age women undergoing cesarean deliveries were included in the study. We excluded studies of women who were immunocompromised (eg, patients who were HIV positive) or women with a diagnosis of chorioamnionitis before cesarean delivery. All patients received first-line cefazolin (either cefazolin 1 g or 2 g). We compared preincision cefazolin alone with preincision cefazolin plus adjunctive therapy (500 mg, oral or intravenous formulations of azithromycin, metronidazole, or clarithromycin). METHODS: A total of 6 review authors independently assessed the risk of bias for each study, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria. Synthesis and further appraisal were done using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation levels and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists appraisal guidelines. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Treatment effects were evaluated using meta-analysis, and pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were generated using random-effects models using the Review Manager 5 software (version 5.4.1). RESULTS: Overall, 3 randomized controlled trials and 1 prospective observational study representing 2613 women met the criteria for inclusion. Significant reductions in surgical site infections (relative risk, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.63; 3 randomized controlled trials) and the duration of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -1.46; 95% confidence interval, -2.21 to -0.71; 2 randomized controlled trials) were observed with preincision cefazolin and adjunctive prophylaxis compared with cefazolin alone. No significant difference was observed in maternal febrile morbidity (relative risk, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-1.25; 2 randomized controlled trials). CONCLUSION: Our findings have provided evidence for the use of preincision adjunctive extended-spectrum prophylaxis with cefazolin over cefazolin alone. However, future investigations are required to establish the relative efficacies of different adjunctive antibiotic options.