Safety and immunogenicity of Vi-diphtheria toxoid typhoid conjugate vaccine among children below 2 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The Vi-diphtheria toxoid typhoid conjugate vaccine (Vi-DT) has shown promising results in preventing typhoid fever in children under 2 years of age. However, a thorough assessment of its safety and immunogenicity is required to inform vaccination strategies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the safety and immunogenicity of Vi-DT in children below 2 years. Methods: We systematically searched multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, for relevant studies published up to September 2023. We included studies reporting on the safety and immunogenicity outcomes of Vi-DT compared to the control or Vi-tetanus toxoid conjugated vaccine (Vi-TT) in children below 2 years. We applied a random-effects model for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4. We expressed the results as risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Results: In this analysis, five studies were selected, encompassing 1,292 children under 2 years who received the Vi-DT vaccine. No significant difference in immediate reactions was observed within 30 min post-vaccination between Vi-DT and control groups (RR: 0.99 [95% CI: 0.19, 5.26]), nor between Vi-DT and Vi-TT groups. For solicited adverse events within 4 weeks, the VI-DT group showed no significant increase in adverse events compared to control (RR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.78, 1.12]) or Vi-TT (RR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.69, 1.07]). Similarly, within 7 days post-vaccination, risk ratios indicated no significant differences in adverse events between the groups. The 4-week seroconversion rate was significantly higher in the Vi-DT group compared to the control (RR: 1.99 [95% CI: 1.07, 3.69]), but no difference was found between Vi-DT and Vi-TT. Adverse events associated with typhoid conjugate vaccines were predominantly non-serious, including fever and injection site reactions. Serious adverse events were rare but included conditions like pneumonia and gastroenteritis. Conclusion: This meta-analysis highlights Vi-DT safety and immunogenicity in six to 24-month-old children. The findings support the use of this Vi-DT to expand typhoid vaccination in endemic regions, in line with WHO's strategy.

The effect of HIV and mpox co-infection on clinical outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Co-infection with HIV and mpox is a significant issue for public health because of the potential combined impact on clinical outcomes. However, the existing literature lacks a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to provide insight into the impact of HIV and mpox co-infection on clinical outcomes. METHODS: We systematically searched major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science) for pertinent studies published up to June 2023. Included were studies that described the clinical outcomes of people who had both mpox and HIV. We performed the analysis using OpenMeta and STATA 17 software. RESULTS: With an overall number of participants of 35 207, 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria were considered. The greatest number of the studies (n = 10) were cohort designs, with three being cross-sectional and eight being case series studies. The meta-analysis found that people who had both HIV and mpox had a higher hospitalization rate than those who only had mpox (odds ratio [OR] 1.848; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.918-3.719, p = 0.085, I2 = 60.19%, p = 0.020). Furthermore, co-infected patients had higher mortality rates than those who did not have HIV co-infection (OR 3.887; 95% CI 2.272-6.650, p < 0.001). Meta-regression analysis showed that CD4 levels can significantly predict the risk of hospitalization (p = 0.016) and death (p = 0.031). DISCUSSION: HIV causes immunosuppression, making it difficult for the body to mount an effective immune response against pathogens such as mpox. Individuals who are co-infected are at a higher risk of severe disease and death, according to our findings. Although hospitalization rates did not differ significantly between the two groups, it is critical to prioritize interventions and improve management strategies tailored specifically for people living with HIV. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis provides substantial evidence that HIV and mpox co-infection has a negative impact on clinical outcomes. Co-infected individuals had higher hospitalization and significantly higher mortality rates. These findings highlight the significance of early diagnosis, prompt treatment initiation, and effective management strategies for people living with HIV and mpox.

Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of different treatments in reducing amniocentesis-associated pain and anxiety.

OBJECTIVE: This network meta-analysis compared different methods to determine which is most efficient at lowering pain and anxiety in women undergoing amniocentesis. METHOD: We looked through all published randomized controlled trials in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and EM base. Anxiety and pain were the predominant results. We used the R software version 4.2.1 to analyze the data. RESULTS: We included a total of 20 studies, with sample sizes ranging from 60 to 570. Virtual reality was the most effective strategy for lowering pain during AC [MD = -1.30, 95% CI (-2.11, -0.49)]. In addition, paracetamol use was the most successful approach for lowering pain following AC [MD = -1.68, 95% CI (-1.99, -1.37)]. The use of H7 acupressure, however, was the strategy that significantly reduced anxiety following AC [SMD = -15.46, 95% CI (-17.77, -13.15)]. CONCLUSION: The most effective method for reducing pain is the combination of virtual reality with paracetamol. Whereas, the most effective way to reduce anxiety is to combine an ice gel pack with H7 acupressure before applying AC.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib in treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: SLE is an autoimmune disease marked by broad immunological dysregulation and multi-system inflammation. Baricitinib is one of the novel treatments for SLE. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate its safety and effectiveness in treating SLE. METHOD: We looked for all published randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane and included all RCTs comparing baricitinib and placebo in the treatment of SLE. Review Manager 5.4 program was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Three trials with a total of 1849 individuals were included. Participants in the baricitinib group were significantly more likely to attain SRI-4 response than those in the placebo group [RR = 1.11, 95% CI (1.02, 1.21), P = 0.01]. Additionally, baricitinib performed better than the placebo in terms of reduction of ≥ 4 points from baseline in SLEDAI-2 K score [RR = 1.13, 95% CI (1.04, 1.22), P = 0.004]. In terms of SLEDAI-2 K remission of arthritis or rash, baricitinib was also superior to placebo [RR = 1.08, 95% CI (1.00, 1.17), P = 0.04]. Treatment-emergent adverse events did not differ significantly [RR = 1.01, 95% CI (0.97, 1.05), P = 0.61]. CONCLUSION: Baricitinib is potentially safe and effective in the treatment of SLE. It has successfully met the study's primary endpoint and some secondary endpoints highlighting its potential to improve the outcomes of SLE. Despite achieving an SRI-4 response, glucocorticoids sparing and some other secondary outcomes weren't reached by baricitinib.

Effect of ondansetron compared to lidocaine and placebo for reducing propofol injection pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. Ondansetron is a potent anti-emetic drug showing promising results as an analgesic. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of ondansetron to placebo and lidocaine in reducing post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) till May 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan software version 5.4, and we assessed the quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: In our study, we included 23 RCTs with 2957 participants. Compared to placebo, ondansetron significantly increased the rate of no pain [risk ratio (RR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.39-4.01)], and reduced moderate [RR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.30-0.52)] and severe pain [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.24-0.50)]. Furthermore, ondansetron significantly reduced PONV [RR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.58, 0.91)]. On the other hand, ondansetron showed an inferior efficacy to lidocaine regarding the incidence of no, moderate, and severe pain. CONCLUSION: Ondansetron is effective in reducing post-operative propofol-induced pain. However, lidocaine is more effective than it.

Melatonin as a potential treatment for septic cardiomyopathy.

Septic cardiomyopathy (SCM) is a common complication of sepsis contributing to high mortality rates. Its pathophysiology involves complex factors, including inflammatory cytokines, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and immune dysregulation. Despite extensive research, no effective pharmacological agent has been established for sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy. Melatonin, a hormone with diverse functions in the body, has emerged as a potential agent for SCM through its anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-apoptotic, and cardioprotective roles. Through various molecular levels of its mechanism of action, it counterattacks the adverse event of sepsis. Experimental studies have mentioned that melatonin protects against many cardiovascular diseases and exerts preventive effects on SCM. Moreover, melatonin has been investigated in combination with other drugs such as antibiotics, resveratrol, and anti-oxidants showing synergistic effects in reducing inflammation, anti-oxidant, and improving cardiac function. While preclinical studies have demonstrated positive results, clinical trials are required to establish the optimal dosage, route of administration, and treatment duration for melatonin in SCM. Its safety profile, low toxicity, and natural occurrence in the human body provide a favorable basis for its clinical use. This review aims to provide an overview of the current evidence of the use of melatonin in sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy (SICM). Melatonin appears to be promising as a possible treatment for sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy and demands further investigation.

Meta-analysis and GRADE assessment of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis patients.

OBJECTIVE: A persistent immune-mediated inflammatory disorder called psoriatic arthritis affects about 25% of persons with psoriasis. Bimekizumab, a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody, is a novel therapeutic approach that inhibits homodimers and heterodimers of IL-17A and IL-17F by binding to comparable locations in these molecules. Bimekizumab was the subject of a meta-analysis to assess its efficacy and safety in psoriatic arthritis patients. METHODS: All randomized clinical trials were looked up on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The Systematic Review Accelerator tool was used to screen them, and RevMan was used to analyze them. The Mean Difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were used to examine continuous data, whereas the Risk Ratio (RR) and 95% CI were used to evaluate dichotomous data. RESULTS: A total of 1364 participants from 4 trials were included in this meta-analysis. The number of participants who met the American College of Rheumatology 50 threshold was significantly higher in the bimekizumab group compared to the placebo group [RR = 4.94, 95% CI (3.73, 6.55), p < .00001]. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 100 was achieved by significantly more people in the bimekizumab group than in the placebo group [RR = 11.45, 95% CI (6.67, 19.67), p < .00001]. There was no significant difference between the bimekizumab group and the placebo group in terms of treatment-emergent adverse events [RR = 1.08, 95% CI (0.97, 1.21), p = .15]. CONCLUSION: In comparison to a placebo, bimekizumab treatment significantly improved joint and skin efficacy outcomes. Also, its safety results were acceptable.

Olokizumab's Effectiveness and Safety in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: In the development of rheumatoid arthritis, the cytokine interleukin-6 plays a role. An interleukin-6 cytokine-specific monoclonal antibody called olokizumab directly targets this cytokine. OKZ effectiveness and safety are being evaluated through this meta-analysis. METHOD: I looked up every published randomized controlled study on Clinicaltrials.gov, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and PubMed. I conducted the study using both the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance approaches. I evaluated bias in the included studies using the risk of bias tool 2. RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, five trials totalling 2227 participants, were examined. In contrast to the placebo group, the olokizumab group had a significantly higher incidence of American College of Rheumatology 20; RR = 1.83, 95% CI [1.69, 1.99], P < 0.00001. Regarding Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index improvement, olokizumab significantly outperformed the placebo group; MD = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.32, -0.24], P < 0.00001. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was significantly higher in the olokizumab group than in the placebo group; RR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.04, 1.17], P = 0.0006. Furthermore, the incidence of treatment-emergent serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the olokizumab group and the placebo group; RR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.60, 1.20], P = 0.35. CONCLUSION: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, olokizumab combined methotrexate is well tolerated and more effective than placebo plus methotrexate.

Effectiveness and safety of baricitinib in patients with alopecia areata: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Since there is now no medication available that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune condition that has a detrimental impact on individuals. Recent clinical trials using baricitinib demonstrated that it may be effective in treating AA. This meta-analysis was done to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of baricitinib in comparison to placebo. METHODS: Author looked through Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, for all published, randomized, clinical trials. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 1282 participants from two citations (reporting three stand-alone studies). In term of SALT score, baricitinib significantly outperformed placebo; MD = -34.07, 95% CI [-37.90, -30.23], p < .00001. Additionally, the proportion of patients in the baricitinib group that attained SALT ≤ 20 was significantly higher than in the placebo group; RR = 6.41, 95% CI [4.57, 8.98], p < .00001. The results of the safety analysis revealed no significant differences between the baricitinib and placebo groups for any of the outcomes with the exception of acne, which was significantly higher in the placebo group when compared to the baricitinib group (RR= 4.79, 95% CI [2.38, 9.66], p .0001). CONCLUSION: When compared to placebo, baricitinib is an effective and well-tolerated medication for the treatment of AA.