COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background SARS-CoV-2 exposure during pregnancy is related to adverse effects for both the mother and the infant. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has lowered the risk of symptomatic disease substantially. Recently published studies have evaluated the outcomes of women who received the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy; systematic evidence regarding vaccination safety is crucial to ensure that COVID-19 vaccination is not associated with adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Methods Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from each database's inception through April 7, 2022. All interventional and observational studies comparing neonatal or pregnancy outcomes between pregnant women who received COVID-19 vaccines during their pregnancy and unvaccinated pregnant women were included. The random-effects model was used in the meta-analyses. Results A total of 11 studies comprising 756,098 pregnant mothers were included. The rate of neonates with 5-min Apgar score ≤ 7 (log RR -0.08 (95% CI: -0.15 to -0.00), (P = 0.03)) and pregnant mothers with preterm birth (log RR -0.11 (95% CI: -0.21 to -0.01), (P = 0.02)) was significantly lower among vaccinated group. No significant difference was observed in adverse neonatal outcomes (log RR -0.07 (95% CI: -0.17 to 0.03)), small for gestational age (log RR -0.06 (95% CI: -0.14 to 0.02)), caesarean delivery (log RR 0.05 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.15)), postpartum hemorrhage (log RR -0.05 (95% CI: -0.13 to 0.02)), stillbirth (log RR -0.05 (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.45)). Conclusions and relevance In this systematic review and meta-analysis, no evident differences were observed when comparing vaccinated pregnant mothers with those who had not received COVID-19 vaccines. Based on low certainty of evidence, vaccination during pregnancy was accompanied by a favorable Apgar score in neonates and fewer preterm births

Higher versus lower blood pressure targets after cardiac arrest: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

A few mostly underpowered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been used to study the impact of blood pressure (BP) targets in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis to compare the outcomes between the higher BP target and the lower BP target groups following OHCA. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library until December 2022. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using RevMan 5.4. Our search yielded four RCTs with a total of 1114 patients. Regarding our primary outcome of all-cause mortality, there was no significant difference between higher versus lower BP target goals in post-OHCA patients (OR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.45). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the two groups in good neurological outcome, the incidence of arrhythmia, need for renal replacement therapy, and the levels of neuron-specific enolase at 48 h. The length of ICU stay of patients treated with the higher BP target was significantly lower but by a small margin. These findings do not support the use of a higher BP target but are subject to confirmation by large-scale RCTs investigating homogenous BP goals

The global prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disorder among patients coping with Post COVID-19 syndrome (long COVID): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Post COVID-19 syndrome, also known as "Long COVID," is a complex and multifaceted condition that affects individuals who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively assess the global prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disorder in individuals coping with Post COVID-19 syndrome. Methods A rigorous search of electronic databases was conducted to identify original studies until 24 January 2023. The inclusion criteria comprised studies employing previously validated assessment tools for depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders, reporting prevalence rates, and encompassing patients of all age groups and geographical regions for subgroup analysis Random effects model was utilized for the meta-analysis. Meta-regression analysis was done. Results The pooled prevalence of depression and anxiety among patients coping with Post COVID-19 syndrome was estimated to be 23% (95% CI: 20%—26%; I2 = 99.9%) based on data from 143 studies with 7,782,124 participants and 132 studies with 9,320,687 participants, respectively. The pooled prevalence of sleep disorder among these patients, derived from 27 studies with 15,362 participants, was estimated to be 45% (95% CI: 37%—53%; I2 = 98.7%). Subgroup analyses based on geographical regions and assessment scales revealed significant variations in prevalence rates. Meta-regression analysis showed significant correlations between the prevalence and total sample size of studies, the age of participants, and the percentage of male participants. Publication bias was assessed using Doi plot visualization and the Peters test, revealing a potential source of publication bias for depression (p = 0.0085) and sleep disorder (p = 0.02). However, no evidence of publication bias was found for anxiety (p = 0.11). Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate a considerable burden of mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders, among individuals recovering from COVID-19. The findings emphasize the need for comprehensive mental health support and tailored interventions for patients experiencing persistent symptoms after COVID-19 recovery

Datasheet1_Efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors for heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.docx

AimsWe sought to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov till March 2023 to retrieve all randomized controlled trials of SGLT2i in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF. Risk ratios (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model.ResultsWe included data from 14 RCTs. SGLT2i reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death (RR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.87; I2 = 0%); these results were consistent across the cohorts of HFmrEF and HFpEF patients. There was no significant decrease in the risk of cardiovascular death (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.13; I2 = 36%) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.05; I2 = 0%). There was a significant improvement in the quality of life in the SGLT2i group (SMD 0.13, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.20; I2 = 51%).ConclusionThe use of SGLT2i is associated with a lower risk of the primary composite outcome and a higher quality of life among HFpEF/HFmrEF patients. However, further research involving more extended follow-up periods is required to draw a comprehensive conclusion.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42022364223).</p