No abstract

The pandemic of the 2019 novel Coronavirus has seen unprecedented exponential growth. Within three months, 192 countries have been affected, crossing more than 1 million confirmed cases and over 60 thousand deaths until the first week of April. Decision making in such a pandemic becomes difficult due to limited data on the nature of the disease and its propagation, course, prevention, and treatment. The pandemic response has varied from country to country and has resulted in a heterogeneous timeline for novel Coronavirus propagation. We compared the public health measures taken by various countries and the potential impact on the spread. We studied 6 countries including China, Italy, South Korea, Singapore, United Kingdom(UK), United States(US), and the special administrative region of Hong Kong. All articles, press releases, and websites of government entities published over a five-month period were included. A comparison of the date of the first diagnosed case, the spread of disease, and time since the first case and major public health policy implemented for prevention and containment and current cases was done. An emphasis on early and aggressive border restriction and surveillance of travelers from infected areas, use of information technology, and social distancing is necessary for control of the novel pandemic. Moving forwards, improvement in infrastructure, and adequate preparedness for pandemics is required.

In late 2019, a queer type of pneumonia emerged in Wuhan city in the central part of China. On investigation, it was found to be caused by the coronavirus. Human coronaviruses were discovered in the 1960s. There are a total of seven types of coronaviruses that infect humans: 229E and NL63 are the alpha coronaviruses; OC43, HKU1, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV are beta coronaviruses, and SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus. COVID-19 surfaced in China at the culmination of the year 2019. The pandemic then fanned out rapidly, involving Italy, Japan, South Korea, Iran, and the rest of the world.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI), one of the most commonly prescribed medications, carry a myriad of adverse events. For colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, it still remains unclear whether the concurrent use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) would negatively affect chemotherapy. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 10 June 2022, to identify relevant studies involving CRC patients receiving chemotherapy and reporting comparative survival outcomes between PPI users and non-users. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. We identified 16 studies involving 8,188 patients (PPI = 1,789; non-PPI = 6,329) receiving either capecitabine-based or fluorouracil-based regimens. The overall survival (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.15; I2 = 0%) and progression-free survival (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.35; I2 = 29%) were similar between PPI users and non-users in patients taking capecitabine-based regimens, with low statis-tical heterogeneity. Although the subgroup analysis indicated that early-stage cancer patients taking capecitabine monotherapy with concurrent PPI had a significantly higher disease progression rate (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.21 to 3.16; I2 = 0%) than those who did not use PPIs, both groups had comparable all-cause mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.75 to 2.29; I2 = 0%). On the other hand, there was little difference in both OS and PFS in both early- and end-stage patients taking capecitabine combination therapy between PPI users and non-users. Conversely, the use of concomitant PPI in patients taking fluorouracil-based regimens contributed to a marginally significant higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.40; I2 = 74%), but with high statistical heterogeneity. In conclusion, PPI has little survival influence on CRC patients treated with capecitabine-based regimens, especially in patients taking capecitabine combination therapy. Thus, it should be safe for clinicians to prescribe PPI in these patients. Although patients treated with fluorouracil-based regimens with concomitant PPI trended toward higher all-cause mortality, results were subject to considerable heterogeneity.Systematic Review Registration: identifier https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022338161

Introduction Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have reshaped the treatment landscape for cancer patients, they carry potential risk for the development of cardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs). Objectives We attempted to identify risk factors for CVAEs in cancer patients receiving ICI. Methods Two investigators (C.H.H. and Y.C.) independently reviewed Medline, PubMed, and Embase from inception to May 20, 2022 to identify high quality studies. We included randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective cohorts that reported the risks factors for any new onset or worsening CVAEs, including cardiomyopathy, arrhythmia, heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, myocarditis, and pericarditis, in cancer patients receiving ICI. Two investigators (E.A. and M.A.) independently extracted data from included studies. Any discrepancy was resolved through discussion with senior reviewers (K.Y.C and M.N.). We performed random-effects meta-analyses on risk factors for CVAEs after the initiation of ICI. We used I-statistics (I 2 ) to quantify the statistical heterogeneity. Results 12 observational studies involving 21,912 patients (CVAEs=2,897) of any cancers were included for final qualitative and quantitative analyses. 11 covariates, including age, gender, body mass index, ever-smoking history, hypertension, type II diabetes, coronary artery disease (CAD), congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke, were available for the meta-analyses. Our meta-analyses (Table 1) demonstrated that male gender, hypertension, CAD, and CKD were associated with increased odds for the development of CVAEs in patients taking ICI. Conclusions In conclusion, male gender, hypertension, CAD, and CKD were identified as significant risk factors for CVAEs in patients taking ICI. Evidence supports a strategy of proper optimization of risk factors before, during, and after the ICI treatment.