Abdominal functional electrical stimulation to improve respiratory function after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: Abdominal functional electrical stimulation (abdominal FES) is the application of a train of electrical pulses to the abdominal muscles, causing them to contract. Abdominal FES has been used as a neuroprosthesis to acutely augment respiratory function and as a rehabilitation tool to achieve a chronic increase in respiratory function after abdominal FES training, primarily focusing on patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). This study aimed to review the evidence surrounding the use of abdominal FES to improve respiratory function in both an acute and chronic manner after SCI. Settings: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, with studies included if they applied abdominal FES to improve respiratory function in patients with SCI. Methods: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria (10 acute and 4 chronic). Low participant numbers and heterogeneity across studies reduced the power of the meta-analysis. Despite this, abdominal FES was found to cause a significant acute improvement in cough peak flow, whereas forced exhaled volume in 1 s approached significance. A significant chronic increase in unassisted vital capacity, forced vital capacity and peak expiratory flow was found after abdominal FES training compared with baseline. Conclusions: This systematic review suggests that abdominal FES is an effective technique for improving respiratory function in both an acute and chronic manner after SCI. However, further randomised controlled trials, with larger participant numbers and standardised protocols, are needed to fully establish the clinical efficacy of this technique

Optimizing Nervous System-Specific Gene Targeting with Cre Driver Lines: Prevalence of Germline Recombination and Influencing Factors.

The Cre-loxP system is invaluable for spatial and temporal control of gene knockout, knockin, and reporter expression in the mouse nervous system. However, we report varying probabilities of unexpected germline recombination in distinct Cre driver lines designed for nervous system-specific recombination. Selective maternal or paternal germline recombination is showcased with sample Cre lines. Collated data reveal germline recombination in over half of 64 commonly used Cre driver lines, in most cases with a parental sex bias related to Cre expression in sperm or oocytes. Slight differences among Cre driver lines utilizing common transcriptional control elements affect germline recombination rates. Specific target loci demonstrated differential recombination; thus, reporters are not reliable proxies for another locus of interest. Similar principles apply to other recombinase systems and other genetically targeted organisms. We hereby draw attention to the prevalence of germline recombination and provide guidelines to inform future research for the neuroscience and broader molecular genetics communities

The Role of Health Systems Factors in Facilitating Access to Psychotropic Medicines: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the WHO-AIMS in 63 Low- and Middle-Income Countries

In a cross-sectional analysis of WHO-AIMS data, Ryan McBain and colleagues investigate the associations between health system components and access to psychotropic drugs in 63 low and middle income countries

Use of antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays by healthcare workers to protect them when treating patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 infection

Background COVID‐19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and – due to its contagious nature – to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of HCWs are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help reduce the risk of active infection being passed from infected patients to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves, or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose. Understanding these possible side effects is particularly important when the HCWs are otherwise fit and well. Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays used by healthcare workers (HCWs) to protect themselves when treating patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 infection. Search methods Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020. Selection criteria This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: RCTs; quasi‐RCTs; non‐randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross‐sectional studies; controlled before‐and‐after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies. We sought studies comparing any antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered to HCWs, with or without the same intervention being given to the patients with COVID‐19. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) incidence of symptomatic or test‐positive COVID‐19 infection in HCWs; 2) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 3) viral content of aerosol, when present (if intervention administered to patients); 4) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro‐ or nasopharynx; 5) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long‐term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Main results We found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified three ongoing studies (including two RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 700 participants. The interventions included in these trials are povidone iodine, nitric oxide and GLS‐1200 oral spray (the constituent of this spray is unclear and may not be antimicrobial in nature). Authors' conclusions We identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID‐19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by two RCTs and a non‐randomised study. We are concerned that only one of the ongoing studies specifically states that it will evaluate adverse events and it is not clear if this will include changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof. Very few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular, where those receiving the intervention are otherwise fit and well, it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.</p