19 research outputs found

    Integration of Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver Diseases (NAFLD) into NPCDCS programme: A recent initiative in India

    Get PDF
    Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is an emerging public health problem globally. NAFLD is one of the most common liver diseases worldwide and is the most common cause of abnormal liver enzymes in many developed countries. NAFLD is estimated to afflict approximately 1 billion individuals worldwide. An estimated 20-30 % of general population is afflicted from it globally. In India NAFLD could be a silent epidemic with its prevalence ranging from 9-32%. Studies have shown, strong association of NAFLD with major Non Communicable diseases (NCD) like Diabetes, Obesity, CVD, Chronic Kidney diseases, Cancers, etc. Perceiving the threat of NAFLD and the central role of hepatic accumulation of fat in the pathogenesis of other NCD, the Government of India (GoI) has taken steps to include NAFLD in the public health agenda. It has included it in the national NCD programme, i.e., National Programme for Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS) in 2021. India has become the first country in the world to start a national programme for preventive efforts for NAFLD. The present review describes public health relevance of NAFLD and the process of integration of Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver Diseases (NAFLD) into NPCDCS programme in India

    Electronic nicotine delivery systems and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems for tobacco smoking cessation or reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    Objective A systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS) versus no smoking cessation aid, or alternative smoking cessation aids, in cigarette smokers on long-term tobacco use. Data sources Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science up to December 2015. Study selection Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies. Data extraction Three pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles, extracted data from included studies on populations, interventions and outcomes and assessed their risk of bias. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence by outcome. Data synthesis Three randomised trials including 1007 participants and nine cohorts including 13?115 participants proved eligible. Results provided by only two RCTs suggest a possible increase in tobacco smoking cessation with ENDS in comparison with ENNDS (RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.38; p=0.07; I2=0%, risk difference (RD) 64/1000 over 6 to 12?months, low-certainty evidence). Results from cohort studies suggested a possible reduction in quit rates with use of ENDS compared with no use of ENDS (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; p=0.051; I2=56%, very low certainty). Conclusions There is very limited evidence regarding the impact of ENDS or ENNDS on tobacco smoking cessation, reduction or adverse effects: data from RCTs are of low certainty and observational studies of very low certainty. The limitations of the cohort studies led us to a rating of very low-certainty evidence from which no credible inferences can be drawn. Lack of usefulness with regard to address the question of e-cigarettes\u27 efficacy on smoking reduction and cessation was largely due to poor reporting. This review underlines the need to conduct well-designed trials measuring biochemically validated outcomes and adverse effects

    Pain Management in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

    Get PDF
    Background: Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most effective analgesic protocol. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of analgesics for pain relief in AP. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify all RCTs assessing analgesics in patients with AP. The primary outcome was the number of participants who needed rescue analgesia. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using a random-effects model. Results: Twelve studies comprising 699 patients with AP (83% mild AP) were analysed. The tested analgesics significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia (3 studies, OR.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) vs. placebo or conventional treatment. The analgesics also improved the pain score [Visual Analogue Scale (Δ-VAS)] at 24 h (WMD 18.46, 0.84 to 36.07) and by the 3rd to 7th days (WMD 11.57, 0.87 to 22.28). Opioids vs. non-opioids were associated with a decrease in the need for rescue analgesia (6 studies, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, p = 0.03) but without significance in pain score. In subgroup analyses, opioids were similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regarding the primary outcome (4 studies, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.32, p = 0.18). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events. Other studies, comparing epidural anaesthesia vs. patient-controlled analgesia and opioid (buprenorphine) vs. opioid (pethidine) did not show significant difference in primary outcome. Study quality issues significantly contributed to overall study heterogeneity. Conclusions: NSAIDs and opioids are equally effective in decreasing the need for rescue analgesia in patients with mild AP. The relative paucity of trials and high-quality data in this setting is notable and the optimal analgesic strategy for patients with moderately severe and severe AP still requires to be determined

    Social challenges experienced by Hepatitis B patients: A mixed method study

    No full text
    Background: Hepatitis B has a wide range of effects on patients' lives due to its chronic nature. Living with Hepatitis B has been associated with various social challenges such as stigma, disclosure, and discrimination. Aim: To assess the social challenges experienced by Hepatitis B–positive patients seeking treatment at a super specialty liver hospital of the country. Methods and Results: A mixed-method research design was used to explore various social challenges experienced by Hepatitis B–positive patients. Descriptive research design was used in the first phase and thematic analysis was done in the second phase of the study. Data were collected using a modified Hepatitis B stigma assessment tool and semi-structured interview guide. Total 180 Hepatitis B–positive patients were recruited for the first phase. Face to face interviews were recorded for the 9 patients facing high stigma in the second phase of the study. Mean age of the patients was 45 ± 13.1 years and 80% of the patients were male. Mean overall stigma score was found to be 74.34 ± 10.13. Of all, 5.1% patients experienced high stigma, 2.1% moderate stigma, and 92% patients experienced low stigma. Thematic analysis method uncovered various attributing factors to social challenges broadly classified into reaction on getting diagnosed with Hepatitis B, psychological issues, stigmatization in families, stigmatization at workplace, and stigmatization in healthcare settings. Conclusion: Patients with Hepatitis B experience social challenges in aspect of lack of awareness, psychological issues, and stigmatization by healthcare providers, family members, and by the colleagues at their workplace. A better understanding and awareness regarding Hepatitis B is needed to eliminate stigma and discrimination among these patients. Hence, a holistic approach is must to treat patients with Hepatitis B

    Prevalence of hypertension among adolescents (10-19 years) in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies.

    No full text
    BackgroundDespite the well-known short-term and long-term ill effects of elevated blood pressure in children and adolescents, pooled data on its burden among Indian adolescents have not yet been synthesized.ObjectivesWe did a systematic review with meta-analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence of hypertension among adolescents (10-19 years) in India.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Google Scholar and IndMed, and included cross-sectional studies reporting data on hypertension prevalence among 10 to19 years old and published in English language from their inception till 1st March 2020. Modified New castle Ottawa scale was used to assess risk of bias based on research design, recruitment strategy, response rate and reliability of outcome determination. A random effects model was used to estimate pooled prevalence, and heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane's Q statistic test of heterogeneity and I2 statistic. To explore the heterogeneity, we did a meta-regression, and sub-group analyses based on region, study setting and number of blood pressure readings.ResultsOut of 25 studies (pooled sample of 27,682 participants) six studies were of high, eighteen of moderate, and one was of low quality. The prevalence of hypertension across studies ranged from 2% to 20.5%, with a pooled estimate of 7.6% (95% CI: 6.1 to 9.1%), I2 = 96.6% (p-value ConclusionThe pooled prevalence of hypertension among adolescent in India is 7.6% with substantial heterogeneity between the studies. To tackle the high prevalence of hypertension among adolescents, early detection by screening under school health programme and opportunistic screening at Paediatric OPD should be implemented by Policy makers

    Frequency of neurological manifestations in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 350 studies

    Get PDF
    Summary Objective To summarize the frequency of neurological manifestations reported in COVID-19 patients and investigate the association of these manifestations with disease severity and mortality. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis Eligibility criteria Studies enrolling consecutive COVID-19 patients (probable or confirmed) presenting with neurological manifestations. Data sources PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library, clinicaltrials.gov and EMBASE from 31 st December 2019 to 15 th December 2020. Data extraction and analysis Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts retrieved by literature search. Risk of bias was examined using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and pooled prevalence and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for neurological manifestations. Odds ratio (OR) and 95%CI were calculated to determine the association of neurological manifestations with disease severity and mortality. Presence of heterogeneity was assessed using I-square, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses. Statistical analyses were conducted in R version 3.6.2. Results Of 2,455 citations, 350 studies were included in this review, providing data on 145,634 COVID-19 patients, 89% of whom were hospitalized. Forty-one neurological manifestations (24 symptoms and 17 diagnoses) were identified. Pooled prevalence of the most common neurological symptoms included: fatigue (32%), myalgia (20%), taste impairment (21%), smell impairment (19%) and headache (13%). A low risk of bias was observed in 85% of studies; studies with higher risk of bias yielded higher prevalence estimates. Stroke was the most common neurological diagnosis (pooled prevalence-2%). In COVID-19 patients aged >60, the pooled prevalence of acute confusion/delirium was 34% and the presence of any neurological manifestations in this age group was associated with mortality (OR 1.80; 95%CI 1.11 to 2.91). Conclusions Up to one-third of COVID-19 patients analysed in this review experienced at least one neurological manifestation. One in 50 patients experienced stroke. In those over 60, more than one-third had acute confusion/delirium; the presence of neurological manifestations in this group was associated with near doubling of mortality. Results must be interpreted keeping in view the limitations of observational studies and associated bias. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020181867. What is already known on this topic The frequency of neurological manifestations including fatigue, myalgia, taste and smell impairments, headache and dizziness in COVID-19 patients has been reported in a few systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, considerable heterogeneity has been observed in terms of methodological quality of the studies, severity of the disease, mean age and hospitalization status of the patients. The evidence regarding the frequency of neurological diagnoses including stroke, encephalitis, Guillain Barré syndrome (GBS) is also limited to case reports and case series and no data exists thus far on the pooled prevalence estimates for neurological diagnoses in COVID-19 patients. What this study adds To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the largest systematic review and meta-analysis to date (including 350 studies with data on 145,634 cases) summarizing the evidence on the frequency of the full spectrum of neurological manifestations in COVID-19 patients in the overall, young and elderly populations. For the first time, our review reports the pooled prevalence of stroke in COVID-19 patients. Risk of bias, old age and disease severity were potential determinants of the frequency and nature of neurological manifestations as well as its association with mortality. Our review also highlights the need to develop reporting standards for studies describing the frequency of clinical features. Moreover, we note that this will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis on this subject to include studies reported in all languages

    Frequency of Neurologic Manifestations in COVID-19 A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    No full text
    BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: One year after the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we aimed to summarize the frequency of neurologic manifestations reported in patients with COVID-19 and to investigate the association of these manifestations with disease severity and mortality. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE for studies from December 31, 2019, to December 15, 2020, enrolling consecutive patients with COVID-19 presenting with neurologic manifestations. Risk of bias was examined with the Joanna Briggs Institute scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and pooled prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for neurologic manifestations. Odds ratio (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated to determine the association of neurologic manifestations with disease severity and mortality. Presence of heterogeneity was assessed with I(2), meta-regression, and subgroup analyses. Statistical analyses were conducted in R version 3.6.2. RESULTS: Of 2,455 citations, 350 studies were included in this review, providing data on 145,721 patients with COVID-19, 89% of whom were hospitalized. Forty-one neurologic manifestations (24 symptoms and 17 diagnoses) were identified. Pooled prevalence of the most common neurologic symptoms included fatigue (32%), myalgia (20%), taste impairment (21%), smell impairment (19%), and headache (13%). A low risk of bias was observed in 85% of studies; studies with higher risk of bias yielded higher prevalence estimates. Stroke was the most common neurologic diagnosis (pooled prevalence 2%). In patients with COVID-19 ≥60 years of age, the pooled prevalence of acute confusion/delirium was 34%, and the presence of any neurologic manifestations in this age group was associated with mortality (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.11–2.91). DISCUSSION: Up to one-third of patients with COVID-19 analyzed in this review experienced at least 1 neurologic manifestation. One in 50 patients experienced stroke. In those >60 years of age, more than one-third had acute confusion/delirium; the presence of neurologic manifestations in this group was associated with nearly a doubling of mortality. Results must be interpreted with the limitations of observational studies and associated bias in mind. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020181867
    corecore