| 1. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(author)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Callen, Michael, et al.
(author)
-
COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in low- and middle-income countries
- 2021
-
In: Nature Medicine. - : Springer Nature. - 1546-170X .- 1078-8956. ; 27:8, s. 1385-1394
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Widespread acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines is crucial for achieving sufficient immunization coverage to end the global pandemic, yet few studies have investigated COVID-19 vaccination attitudes in lower-income countries, where large-scale vaccination is just beginning. We analyze COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 15 survey samples covering 10 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia, Africa and South America, Russia (an upper-middle-income country) and the United States, including a total of 44,260 individuals. We find considerably higher willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine in our LMIC samples (mean 80.3%; median 78%; range 30.1 percentage points) compared with the United States (mean 64.6%) and Russia (mean 30.4%). Vaccine acceptance in LMICs is primarily explained by an interest in personal protection against COVID-19, while concern about side effects is the most common reason for hesitancy. Health workers are the most trusted sources of guidance about COVID-19 vaccines. Evidence from this sample of LMICs suggests that prioritizing vaccine distribution to the Global South should yield high returns in advancing global immunization coverage. Vaccination campaigns should focus on translating the high levels of stated acceptance into actual uptake. Messages highlighting vaccine efficacy and safety, delivered by healthcare workers, could be effective for addressing any remaining hesitancy in the analyzed LMICs. © 2021, The Author(s).
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
- Cheema, H. A., et al.
(author)
-
Molnupiravir for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients : An updated meta-analysis
- 2024
-
In: Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection. - : Elsevier BV. - 1684-1182. ; 57:3, s. 396-402
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The majority of available data on molnupiravir come from an unvaccinated COVID-19 population. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to integrate evidence from recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as observational studies stratified by vaccination status to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in COVID-19 outpatients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 2023. We conducted our meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 with risk ratio (RR) as the effect measure. Results: We included 8 RCTs and 5 observational studies in our meta-analysis. Molnupiravir reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20–0.79, I2 = 0%) but did not decrease the hospitalization rate (RR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45–1.00, I2 = 53%) in the overall population; in the immunized population, no benefits were observed. Molnupiravir lowered the rate of no recovery (RR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.76–0.81, I2 = 0%) and increased virological clearance at day 5 (RR 2.68; 95% CI: 1.94–4.22, I2 = 85%). There was no increase in the incidence of adverse events. Conclusions: Molnupiravir does not decrease mortality and hospitalization rates in immunized patients with COVID-19. However, it does shorten the disease course and increases the recovery rate. The use of molnupiravir will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis in the context of the prevailing social circumstances, the resource setting, drug costs, and the healthcare burden.
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
- Wood, David A., et al.
(author)
-
Timing of Staged Nonculprit Artery Revascularization in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction COMPLETE Trial
- 2019
-
In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 74:22, s. 2713-2723
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND The COMPLETE (Complete vs Culprit-only Revascularization to Treat Multi-vessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI) trial demonstrated that staged nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduced major cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of nonculprit-lesion PCI timing on major CV outcomes and also the time course of the benefit of complete revascularization. METHODS Following culprit-lesion PCI, 4,041 patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to staged nonculprit-lesion PCI or culprit-lesion only PCI. Randomization was stratified according to investigator-planned timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI: during or after the index hospitalization. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of CV death or myocardial infarction (MI). In pre-specified analyses, hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for each time stratum. Landmark analyses of the entire population were performed within 45 days and after 45 days. RESULTS For nonculprit-lesion PCI planned during the index hospitalization (actual time: median 1 day), CV death or MI was reduced with complete revascularization compared with culprit-lesion only PCI (HR: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 1.00). For nonculprit lesion PCI planned to occur after hospital discharge (actual time: median 23 days), CV death or MI was also reduced with complete revascularization (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.97; interaction p = 0.62). Landmark analyses demonstrated an HR of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.24) during the first 45 days and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.54 to 0.89) from 45 days to the end of follow-up for intended nonculprit lesion PCI versus culprit lesion only PCI. CONCLUSIONS Among STEMI patients with multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over culprit-lesion only PCI was consistent irrespective of the investigator-determined timing of nonculprit-lesion intervention. The benefit of complete revascularization on hard clinical outcomes emerged mainly over the long term. (C) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
- Cheema, H. A., et al.
(author)
-
Colchicine for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 : an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- 2024
-
In: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 14:4
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of colchicine treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of colchicine treatment in patients with COVID-19 as compared with placebo or standard of care were included. There were no language restrictions. Studies that used colchicine prophylactically were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted all information relating to the study characteristics, such as author names, location, study population, details of intervention and comparator groups, and our outcomes of interest. We conducted our meta-analysis by using RevMan V.5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference as the effect measures. RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs (28 249 participants) in this systematic review. Colchicine did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I2=0%; 20 RCTs, 25 824 participants), with the results being consistent among both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. There were no significant differences between the colchicine and control groups in other relevant clinical outcomes, including the incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; p=0.22; I2=40%; 8 RCTs, 13 262 participants), intensive care unit admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22; p=0.27; I2=0%; 6 RCTs, 961 participants) and hospital admission (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; p=0.19; I2=70%; 3 RCTs, 8572 participants). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis do not support the use of colchicine as a treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, RCTs investigating early treatment with colchicine (within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with early-stage disease) are needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of colchicine in this patient population. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022369850.
|
|
| 16. |
- Cheema, PK, et al.
(author)
-
International variability in the reimbursement of cancer drugs by publically funded drug programs
- 2012
-
In: Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.). - : MDPI AG. - 1718-7729. ; 19:3, s. E165-E176
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: Evaluate inter-country variability in the reimbursement of publically funded cancer drugs, and identify factors such as cost containment measures that may contribute to variability. Methods: As of February 28, 2010, licensed indications for 10 cancer drugs (bevacizumab, bortezomib, cetuximab, erlotinib, imatinib, pemetrexed, rituximab, sorafenib, sunitinib, and trastuzumab) were obtained from the drug registries of 6 licensing authorities corresponding to 13 countries or regions: Australia, Canada (Ontario), England, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States (Medicare Parts B and D). Number of licensed indications reimbursed by public payers and the use of cost containment measures were obtained by survey of health authorities involved in reimbursement and through public documents. Results: The 48 identified licensed indications varied between agencies (range: 36–44 indications). Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, and the United States reimbursed the highest percentage of indications (range: 90%–100%). Canada (54%), Australia (46%), Scotland (40%), England (38%), and New Zealand (25%) reimbursed the least. All 5 countries with the lowest rate of reimbursement incorporated a cost-effectiveness analysis into reimbursement decisions and rejected submissions for reimbursement mainly because of lack of cost effectiveness; in New Zealand, lack of cost effectiveness was the second leading cause of rejection after excessive cost. In 9 countries, risk-sharing agreements were used to contain costs. Indications initially not recommended for reimbursement (9 in Australia, 5 in Canada, and 3 in England, New Zealand, and Scotland) were subsequently approved with risk-sharing agreements or special pricing arrangements. Conclusions: Reimbursement of publically funded cancer drugs varies globally. The cause is multifactorial.
|
|
| 17. |
- Jolly, Sanjit S., et al.
(author)
-
Procedural Volume and Outcomes With Radial or Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention
- 2014
-
In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097. ; 63:10, s. 954-963
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives The study sought to evaluate the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes with radial and femoral approach. Background RIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL) was a randomized trial of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention (N = 7,021),which overall did not show a difference in primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding. Methods In pre-specified subgroup analyses, the hazard ratios for the primary outcome were compared among centers divided by tertiles and among individual operators. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the independent effect of center and operator volumes after adjusting for other variables. Results In high-volume radial centers, the primary outcome was reduced with radial versus femoral access (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.87) but not in intermediate-(HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.72) or low-volume centers (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.31; interaction p 0.021). High-volume centers enrolled a higher proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). After adjustment for STEMI, the benefit of radial access persisted at high-volume radial centers. There was no difference in the primary outcome between radial and femoral access by operator volume: high-volume operators (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.28), intermediate (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.27), and low (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.65; interaction p 0.536). However, in a multivariable model, overall center volume and radial center volume were independently associated with the primary outcome but not femoral center volume (overall percutaneous coronary intervention volume HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96; radial volume HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97; and femoral volume HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07; p 0.98). Conclusions Procedural volume and expertise are important, particularly for radial percutaneous coronary intervention. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273) (C) 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
|
|
| 18. |
- Radhakrishnan, Guru V., et al.
(author)
-
An ancestral signalling pathway is conserved in intracellular symbioses-forming plant lineages
- 2020
-
In: NATURE PLANTS. - : NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP. - 2055-026X .- 2055-0278. ; 6:3, s. 280-289
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Plants are the foundation of terrestrial ecosystems, and their colonization of land was probably facilitated by mutualistic associations with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Following this founding event, plant diversification has led to the emergence of a tremendous diversity of mutualistic symbioses with microorganisms, ranging from extracellular associations to the most intimate intracellular associations, where fungal or bacterial symbionts are hosted inside plant cells. Here, through analysis of 271 transcriptomes and 116 plant genomes spanning the entire land-plant diversity, we demonstrate that a common symbiosis signalling pathway co-evolved with intracellular endosymbioses, from the ancestral arbuscular mycorrhiza to the more recent ericoid and orchid mycorrhizae in angiosperms and ericoid-like associations of bryophytes. By contrast, species forming exclusively extracellular symbioses, such as ectomycorrhizae, and those forming associations with cyanobacteria, have lost this signalling pathway. This work unifies intracellular symbioses, revealing conservation in their evolution across 450 million yr of plant diversification. An extensive phylogenomics study based on hundreds of genomes and transcriptomes provides a new interpretation of the evolution of different types of symbiotic associations in land plants, and reveals a conserved ancestral symbiosis pathway.
|
|
