Risk factors for self-harm and suicidal ideation and behaviour in adolescents and young adults: a protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Background:There are many primary studies on the risk and protective factors for self-harm and suicidal ideation and/or behaviour in the adolescent and young adult (AYA) age group.  Moreover, there have been many systematic reviews on these primary studies. Some of these focus on a specific population, a geographic area, a specific risk factor or a socioeconomic group, whereas others are more general in their approach.  An umbrella review of these systematic reviews is an appropriate design to synthesise the available research regarding the main risks and protective factors for self-harm and suicidal ideation and/or behaviour in AYAs and to establish the relative strength of the associations of these risk and protective factors.    Methods and analysis: The PRISMA-P checklist was used for this protocol. The databases to be used for this umbrella review will be Ovid Medline, Embase, APA PsycInfo, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and Scopus.  Systematic reviews included will date as far back as the year 2010 and up to the present so as to ensure that the evidence is contemporary and up-to-date.  Two authors, including the first author, will independently screen the results for inclusion.  The AMSTAR 2 checklist will be used for the quality assessment process and the overall strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE tool.  </p

Risk and protective factors for self-harm in adolescents and young adults: an umbrella review of systematic reviews

We conducted an umbrella review to synthesise the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examined the risk and protective factors for self-harm in young people. We searched six different databases and used the AMSTAR-2 checklist for quality assessment. The importance of each risk and protective factor was determined based on (1) the number of times it was identified by general reviews examining any risk or protective factor, and (2) the effect sizes from meta-analyses. There were 61 systematic reviews included in this review. The most frequently identified risk factors for self-harm in young people included childhood abuse, depression/anxiety, bullying, trauma, psychiatric illnesses, substance use/abuse, parental divorce, poor family relationships, lack of friends, and exposure to self-harm behaviour in others. The risk factors with the strongest evidence for an association with self-harm were behavioural disorders, personality disorders and depression or anxiety. There was a dearth of systematic reviews examining protective factors but good family/friend relationships were most frequently identified. There was also evidence to show that non-suicidal and suicidal self-harm shared many of the same risk factors. Clinicians and other professionals who work with young people should be particularly cognisant of the psychiatric and adverse life event risk factors as well as the substance use, education-related and individual-level (e.g. being LGB) risk factors for self-harm. Knowledge of risk factors for self-harm can potentially be used to inform the design and implementation of prevention measures and further research is needed on the protective factors for self-harm.</p

Additional file 1: of Incidence of hepatitis C among people who inject drugs in Ireland

Data and computations. (XLSX 15 kb

Immunocompromise among vaccinated versus unvaccinated COVID-19 cases admitted to critical care in Ireland, July to October 2021

As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed, so too did the proportion of cases admitted to critical care in Ireland who were fully vaccinated. Reporting of this observation has public health implications as incorrect interpretation may affect public confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. A potential explanation is the reduced ability of those who are immunocompromised to produce an adequate, sustained immune response to vaccination. We conducted an analysis of the association between COVID-19 vaccination status and underlying degree of immunocompromise among a cohort of critical care patients all with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to critical care between July and October 2021. Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate an odds ratio of immunocompromise among vaccinated COVID-19 cases in critical care compared to unvaccinated cases. In this study, we found a statistically significant association between the vaccination status of severe COVID-19 cases requiring critical care admission and underlying immunocompromise. Fully vaccinated patients were significantly more likely to be highly (OR = 19.3, 95 % CI 7.7-48.1) or moderately immunocompromised (OR = 9.6, 95 % CI 5.0-18.1) compared to unvaccinated patients with COVID-19. These findings support our hypothesis, that highly immunocompromised patients are less likely to produce an adequate and sustained immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, and are therefore more likely to require critical care admission for COVID-19 infection. </p

Absence of evidence or evidence of absence - a review of the evidence for hydroxychloroquine as a potential candidate for prophylaxis against COVID-19

Clinical trials are investigating several agents as potential options for pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis to prevent infection with COVID-19. A particular focus has been high risk groups including healthcare workers. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are the predominant agents in terms of numbers of clinical trials listed on Clinicaltrials.gov. However, CQ/HCQ have not been proven as an effective treatment option for COVID-19, and it is currently unclear what benefit, if any, is available to support their use in a prophylactic role. Four randomised control trials have been published so far which have examined the effect of HCQ as pre-exposure (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). This study summarises the evidence to date for HCQ as a potential prophylactic option for PEP and PrEP, presents both the aggregated and disaggregated data and details the gaps in the evidence base. The absolute risk differences for the pre-exposure prophylaxis studies were -0.3% to -2% and for the post prophylaxis studies were -0.6% and -2.4%. There were more adverse events noted in the hydroxychloroquine arms across all four studie

DMVhi study participant characteristics by glucose tolerance status (n = 29,144).

<p>*Mean value,</p><p>^§ abdominal obesity defined as waist circumference of ≥80cm in females and ≥94cm in males. BP = blood pressure, T2D = type 2 diabetes,</p><p>DMVhi study participant characteristics by glucose tolerance status (n = 29,144).</p

Table_1_Point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and neutralisation capacity—lateral flow immunoassay evaluation compared to commercial assay to inform potential role in therapeutic and surveillance practices.DOCX

IntroductionAs the COVID-19 pandemic moves towards endemic status, testing strategies are being de-escalated. A rapid and effective point of care test (POCT) assessment of SARS-CoV-2 immune responses can inform clinical decision-making and epidemiological monitoring of the disease. This cross-sectional seroprevalence study of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Irish healthcare workers assessed how rapid anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing can be compared to a standard laboratory assay, discusses its effectiveness in neutralisation assessment and its uses into the future of the pandemic.MethodsA point of care lateral flow immunoassay (LFA) detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S)-receptor binding domain (RBD) neutralising antibodies (Healgen SARS-CoV-2 neutralising Antibody Rapid Test Cassette) was compared to the Roche Elecsys/-S anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays and an in vitro surrogate neutralisation assay. A correlation between anti-spike (S), anti-nucleocapsid (N) titres, and in vitro neutralisation was also assessed.Results1,777 serology samples were tested using Roche Elecsys/-S anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays to detect total anti-N/S antibodies. 1,562 samples were tested using the POC LFA (including 50 negative controls), and 90 samples were tested using an in vitro ACE2-RBD binding inhibition surrogate neutralisation assay. The POCT demonstrated 97.7% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 61% in comparison to the commercial assay. Anti-S antibody titres determined by the Roche assay stratified by the POC LFA result groups demonstrated statistically significant differences between the “Positive” and “Negative” LFA groups (p ConclusionHigh sensitivity, specificity, and PPV were demonstrated for the POC LFA for the detection of anti-S-RBD antibodies in comparison to the commercial assay. The LFA was not a reliable determinant of the neutralisation capacity of identified antibodies. POC LFA are useful tools in sero-epidemiology settings, pandemic preparedness and may act as supportive tools in treatment decisions through the rapid identification of anti-Spike antibodies.</p

DMVhi cohort age-group and gender-specific prevalence rates of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose (n = 29,144; male = 12,929 (44%); female = 16,215 (56%)).

<p>T2D = type 2 diabetes, IGT = impaired glucose tolerance and IFG = impaired fasting glucose. Gender differences for DMVhi cohort and for each age group: p<0.001</p><p>DMVhi cohort age-group and gender-specific prevalence rates of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose (n = 29,144; male = 12,929 (44%); female = 16,215 (56%)).</p

Additional file 1: of Hepatitis C in the era of direct-acting antivirals: real-world costs of untreated chronic hepatitis C; a cross-sectional study

Liver transplant work-up - staff utilisation and investigations. (DOCX 86 kb

DMVhi study participant characteristics by glucose tolerance status (n = 29,144).

<p>*Mean value,</p><p>^§ abdominal obesity defined as waist circumference of ≥80cm in females and ≥94cm in males. BP = blood pressure, T2D = type 2 diabetes,</p><p>DMVhi study participant characteristics by glucose tolerance status (n = 29,144).</p