Conectar
Food allergy affects a large population throughout the world. Recently, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been reported as an effective treatment for severe food allergy. Although OIT was successful in numerous trials in desensitisation, adverse events including anaphylaxis during OIT frequently occur. Additionally, some patients fail to be desensitised after OIT and the response to treatment is often not sustained. As a further adjunctive therapy to facilitate OIT, the role of biological agents has been identified. For example, efficacy and safety of omalizumab as an adjuvant therapy of OIT has become apparent through some RCTs and observational studies. Interest towards this topic is growing worldwide, and ongoing trials will provide additional data on the biologics in food allergy.
We aim to systematically analyse the efficacy and safety of OIT combined with biological agents for food allergy.
This paper provides a protocol for a systematic review of the relevant published analytical studies using an aggregate approach following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Two authors will perform a comprehensive search for studies on MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Subsequently, two independent authors will perform abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction. A meta-analysis will be conducted as appropriate.
The protocol of this systematic review will be provided in a peer-reviewed journal. As the researchers will not identify the individual patients included in the studies, they do not need to acquire ethics approval.
CRD42022373015.
Longitudinal studies can provide timely and accurate information to evaluate and inform COVID-19 control and mitigation strategies and future pandemic preparedness. The Optimise Study is a multidisciplinary research platform established in the Australian state of Victoria in September 2020 to collect epidemiological, social, psychological and behavioural data from priority populations. It aims to understand changing public attitudes, behaviours and experiences of COVID-19 and inform epidemic modelling and support responsive government policy.
This protocol paper describes the data collection procedures for the Optimise Study, an ongoing longitudinal cohort of ~1000 Victorian adults and their social networks. Participants are recruited using snowball sampling with a set of seeds and two waves of snowball recruitment. Seeds are purposively selected from priority groups, including recent COVID-19 cases and close contacts and people at heightened risk of infection and/or adverse outcomes of COVID-19 infection and/or public health measures. Participants complete a schedule of monthly quantitative surveys and daily diaries for up to 24 months, plus additional surveys annually for up to 48 months. Cohort participants are recruited for qualitative interviews at key time points to enable in-depth exploration of people’s lived experiences. Separately, community representatives are invited to participate in community engagement groups, which review and interpret research findings to inform policy and practice recommendations.
The Optimise longitudinal cohort and qualitative interviews are approved by the Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (# 333/20). The Optimise Study CEG is approved by the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (# HEC20532). All participants provide informed verbal consent to enter the cohort, with additional consent provided prior to any of the sub studies. Study findings will be disseminated through public website (https://optimisecovid.com.au/study-findings/) and through peer-reviewed publications.
by Chorong Park, Britta Larsen, Simona C. Kwon, Yuhe Xia, Marianna LaNoue, Victoria V. Dickson, Harmony R. Reynolds, Tanya M. Spruill
The 24-hour day consists of physical activity (PA), sedentary behavior, and sleep, and changing the time spent on one activity affects the others. Little is known about the impact of such changes on cardiovascular risk, particularly in Asian American immigrant (AAI) women, who not only have a higher cardiovascular risk but also place greater cultural value on family and domestic responsibilities compared to other racial/ethnic groups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of reallocating 30 minutes of each 24-hour activity component for another on BMI, waist circumference, and blood pressure in AAI women. Seventy-five AAI women completed 7 days of hip and wrist actigraphy monitoring and were included in the analysis (age = 61.5±8.0 years, BMI = 25.5±3.6 kg/m2, waist circumference = 85.9±10.2 cm). Sleep was identified from wrist actigraphy data, and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), light PA, and sedentary behavior identified from hip actigraphy data. On average, the women spent 0.5 hours in MVPA, 6.2 hours in light PA, 10 hours in sedentary activities, and 5.3 hours sleeping within a 24-hour day. According to the isotemporal substitution models, replacing 30 minutes of sedentary behavior with MVPA reduced BMI by 1.4 kg/m2 and waist circumference by 4.0 cm. Replacing that same sedentary time with sleep reduced BMI by 0.5 kg/m2 and waist circumference by 1.4 cm. Replacing 30 minutes of light PA with MVPA decreased BMI by 1.6 kg/m2 and waist circumference by 4.3 cm. Replacing 30 minutes of light PA with sleep also reduced BMI by 0.8 kg/m2 and waist circumference by 1.7 cm. However, none of the behavioral substitutions affected blood pressure. Considering AAI women’s short sleep duration, replacing their sedentary time with sleep might be a feasible strategy to reduce their BMI and waist circumference.by Banghyun Lee, Suk-Joon Chang, Byung Su Kwon, Joo-Hyuk Son, Myong Cheol Lim, Yun Hwan Kim, Shin-Wha Lee, Chel Hun Choi, Kyung Jin Eoh, Jung-Yun Lee, Dong Hoon Suh, Yong Beom Kim
ObjectivesThis meta-analysis was undertaken to systematically evaluate the effects of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) maintenance therapy on the survival of newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients.
Methods/MaterialsA systematic literature search revealed 3,227 studies. A subsequent selection process identified seven suitable randomized studies that assessed the survival outcomes in newly diagnosed advanced EOC patients administered PARPi (n = 1921; the PARPi group) or placebo (n = 1150; the placebo group). The survival outcomes were compared with respect to the PARPi treatment regardless of bevacizumab maintenance therapy. All adverse events ≥ grade 3 were analyzed. Review Manager Version 5.4.1 software was used for the meta-analysis.
ResultsThe two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better in the PARPi group than the placebo (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.68). Furthermore, patients in the PARPi group with the BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm), BRCA wild type, homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCAm, but not with homologous-recombination proficiency had a significantly better two-year PFS than the patients in the placebo group. The five-year overall survival (OS) was comparable in the two groups, but patients in the PARPi group with BRCAm had a significantly better five-year OS than those in the placebo group (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.74). In addition, the adverse event rate (≥ grade 3) was significantly higher in the PARPi group than in the placebo group (HR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.13 to 7.63).
ConclusionsIn patients with newly diagnosed advanced EOC, PARPi maintenance therapy was significantly more effective in terms of survival than no PARPi treatment. However, the risk of serious adverse events was higher for patients who received PARPi maintenance therapy.
The WHO has stated that vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to overcoming COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy among underserved and at-risk communities is an ongoing challenge in Canada. Public confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness and the principles of equity need to be considered in vaccine distribution. In Canada, governments of each province or territory manage their own healthcare system, providing an opportunity to compare and contrast distribution strategies. The overarching objective of this study is to identify effective vaccine distribution approaches and advance knowledge on how to design and implement various strategies to meet the different needs of underserved communities.
Multiple case studies in seven Canadian provinces will be conducted using a mixed-methods design. The study will be informed by Experience-Based CoDesign techniques and theoretically guided by the Socio-Ecological Model and the Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix frameworks. Phase 1 will involve a policy document review to systematically explore the vaccine distribution strategy over time in each jurisdiction. This will inform the second phase, which will involve (2a) semistructured, in-depth interviews with policymakers, public health officials, researchers, providers, groups representing patients, researchers and stakeholders and (2b) an analysis of population-based administrative health data of vaccine administration. Integration of qualitative and quantitative data will inform the identification of effective vaccine distribution approaches for various populations. Informed by this evidence, phase 3 of the study will involve conducting focus groups with multiple stakeholders to codesign recommendations for the design and implementation of effective vaccine delivery strategies for equity-deserving and at-risk populations.
This study is approved by the University of Toronto’s Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (#42643), University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (#H22-01750-A002), Research Ethics Board of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (#48272), Newfoundland and Labrador Health Research Ethics Board (#2022.126), Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board, University of Calgary (REB22-0207), and University of Manitoba Health Research Board (H2022-239). The outcome of this study will be to produce a series of recommendations for implementing future vaccine distribution approaches from the perspective of various stakeholders, including equity-deserving and at-risk populations.
Diabetic foot ulcer and diabetic kidney disease are diabetes-related chronic vascular complications that strongly correlate with high morbidity and mortality. Although metformin potentially confers a wound-healing advantage, no well-established clinical evidence supports the benefit of metformin for diabetic foot ulcer. Thus, this study investigated the effect of metformin on diabetic foot ulcer from a large diabetic kidney disease cohort for the first time. This retrospective cohort study enrolled 10 832 patients who visited the nephrology department more than twice at two South Korean tertiary-referral centers between 2001 and 2016. The primary outcome was diabetic foot ulcer events; secondary outcomes included hospitalization, amputation, a composite of amputation or vascular intervention, and Wagner Grade ≥ 3. Multivariate Cox analysis and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to balance baseline intergroup differences between metformin users and non-users. In total, 4748 patients were metformin users, and 6084 patients were metformin non-users. Over a follow-up period of 117.5 ± 66.9 months, the diabetic foot ulcer incidence was 5.2%. After PSM, metformin users showed a lower incidence of diabetic foot ulcer events than metformin non-users (adjusted hazard ratio 0.41; p < 0.001). In a sensitivity analysis of 563 patients with diabetic foot ulcer, metformin usage was associated with lower severity in all four secondary outcomes: hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio 0.33; p < 0.001); amputation (adjusted hazard ratio 0.44; p = 0.001); composite of amputation or vascular intervention (adjusted hazard ratio 0.47; p < 0.001); and Wagner Grade ≥ 3 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.39; p < 0.001). In conclusion, metformin therapy in patients with diabetic kidney disease can lower diabetic foot ulcer incidence and progression.
FreshRSS 