Association of antipsychotic use with breast cancer:a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies with over 2 million individuals-CORRIGENDUM

AIMS: Despite reports of an elevated risk of breast cancer associated with antipsychotic use in women, existing evidence remains inconclusive. We aimed to examine existing observational data in the literature and determine this hypothesised association. METHODS: We searched Embase, PubMed and Web of Science™ databases on 27 January 2022 for articles reporting relevant cohort or case-control studies published since inception, supplemented with hand searches of the reference lists of the included articles. Quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We generated the pooled odds ratio (OR) and pooled hazard ratio (HR) using a random-effects model to quantify the association. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022307913). RESULTS: Nine observational studies, including five cohort and four case-control studies, were eventually included for review (N = 2 031 380) and seven for meta-analysis (N = 1 557 013). All included studies were rated as high-quality (seven to nine stars). Six studies reported a significant association of antipsychotic use with breast cancer, and a stronger association was reported when a greater extent of antipsychotic use, e.g. longer duration, was operationalised as the exposure. Pooled estimates of HRs extracted from cohort studies and ORs from case-control studies were 1.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.73] and 1.37 (95% CI 0.90–2.09), suggesting a moderate association of antipsychotic use with breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Antipsychotic use is moderately associated with breast cancer, possibly mediated by prolactin-elevating properties of certain medications. This risk should be weighed against the potential treatment effects for a balanced prescription decision

Adverse events of special interest following the use of BNT162b2 in adolescents: a population-based retrospective cohort study

Accruing evidence suggests an increased risk of myocarditis in adolescents from messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines. However, other potential adverse events remain under-researched. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adolescents aged 12–18 with a territory-wide electronic healthcare database of the Hong Kong population linked with population-based vaccination records and supplemented with age- and sex-specific population numbers. Two age- and sex-matched retrospective cohorts were formed to observe 28 days following the first and second doses of BNT162b2 and estimate the age- and sex-adjusted incidence rate ratios between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Thirty AESIs adapted from the World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety were examined. Eventually, the first-dose cohort comprised 274,881 adolescents (50.25% received the first dose) and the second-dose cohort 237,964 (50.29% received the second dose). Ninety-four (34.2 per 100,000 persons) adolescents in the first-dose cohort and 130 (54.6 per 100,000 persons) in the second-dose cohort experienced ≥1 AESIs. There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of any AESI associated with BNT162b2 except myocarditis [first-dose cohort: incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 9.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14–73.16; second-dose cohort: IRR = 29.61, 95% CI 4.04–217.07] and sleeping disturbances/disorders after the second dose (IRR = 2.06, 95% CI 1.01–4.24). Sensitivity analysis showed that, with myocarditis excluded as AESIs, no significantly elevated risk of AESIs as a composite outcome associated with vaccination was observed (P = 0.195). To conclude, the overall absolute risk of AESIs was low with no evidence of an increased risk of AESIs except myocarditis and sleeping disturbances/disorders

Differential associations between quantity, content, and context of screen time, and children’s health-related quality of life: a two-wave study

No abstract available

Effects of activity intervention on cognitive and mood outcomes for participants with MCI-multiple domains deficits (Intention-to-treat method).

<p>() Standard Deviation, CDR-SOB—Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes; CMMSE—Cantonese Mini-mental state examination; ADAS-Cog—Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale; CVFT—category verbal fluency test;. Differences between intervention programs were evaluated with three-level model with time point at level one, subjects at level two and activity groups at level three.</p><p>Effects of activity intervention on cognitive and mood outcomes for participants with MCI-multiple domains deficits (Intention-to-treat method).</p

Effects of activity intervention on cognitive and mood outcomes for all participants (Intention-to-treat method).

<p>() Standard Deviation, CDR-SOB—Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes; CMMSE—Cantonese version of Mini-mental state examination; ADAS-Cog—Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale; CVFT—category verbal fluency test; SCC—Subjective Cognitive Complaints; CSDD—Cornel Scale for Depression in Dementia. Multi-level model-Differences between intervention groups were evaluated with three-level model with time point at level one, subjects at level two and activity groups at level three.</p><p>Effects of activity intervention on cognitive and mood outcomes for all participants (Intention-to-treat method).</p

Baseline demographic and cognitive characteristics of intervention groups.

<p>()—Standard deviation, sdMCI—Mild Cognitive Impairment, single domain deficit, mdMCI- Mild Cognitive Impairment, multiple domain deficit; CDR-SOB—Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes; CMMSE—Cantonese version of Mini-mental state examination; CVFT—category verbal fluency test; SCC—Subjective Cognitive Complaints; DAD-IADL—Instrumental activities of daily living of the Chinese Disability Assessment for Dementia; CSDD—Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia. Group comparisons—Multi-level linear model-Baseline differences between intervention groups were evaluated with two-level model with subjects at level one and activity groups at level two. Differences between intervention groups were not significant.</p><p>Baseline demographic and cognitive characteristics of intervention groups.</p

Demographic and baseline cognitive profiles of sdMCI and mdMCI participants.

<p>()—Standard deviation, sdMCI—Mild Cognitive Impairment, single domain deficit, mdMCI- Mild Cognitive Impairment, multiple domain deficit; CDR-SOB—Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes; CMMSE—Cantonese version of Mini-mental state examination; CVFT—category verbal fluency test; SCC—Subjective Cognitive Complaints; CSDD—Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia. Comparisons (t-tests)</p><p>Demographic and baseline cognitive profiles of sdMCI and mdMCI participants.</p

Open data from the first and second observing runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo

Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo are monitoring the sky and collecting gravitational-wave strain data with sufficient sensitivity to detect signals routinely. In this paper we describe the data recorded by these instruments during their first and second observing runs. The main data products are gravitational-wave strain time series sampled at 16384 Hz. The datasets that include this strain measurement can be freely accessed through the Gravitational Wave Open Science Center at http://gw-openscience.org, together with data-quality information essential for the analysis of LIGO and Virgo data, documentation, tutorials, and supporting software