Search

Background: Men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) have a disproportionately higher risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection than other groups. Oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective prevention tool and should be offered to those at higher risk. Identifying demand creation strategies (DCS) and retention strategies (RS) to improve PrEP persistence is essential to control the HIV epidemic. Aim: We aimed to identify the (DCS and RS with higher proportions among MSM and TGW. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies were conducted, with studies retrieved from five databases until November, 2022 following the Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022323220). The outcomes were DCS and RS for PrEP use among MSM and TGW. Strategies used for users enrolled in the PrEP-recruited (DCS) were classified as face-to-face (peer educator recruitment at social venues, nongovernmental organizations, and parties; direct referrals by health services; friends and/or sexual partners); online (chatbot or peer educator recruitment on social media [e.g., , Instagram or Facebook] or dating/hook-up apps [e.g., Grindr, Tinder, Badoo, and Scruff]); and mixed (face-to-face and online). RS was classified as provider counseling (face-to-face by a health professional; prevention of HIV risk counseling, distribution of condoms, lubricants, and testing for HIV or other sexually transmitted infections); online counseling (text messages, chatbots, telephone calls, social media, and peer educators); and mixed (all previous strategies). Subgroup analyses were conducted for each treatment strategy. Meta-analyses were performed using the R software version 4.2.1. Results: A total of 1, 129 studies were retrieved from the five databases. After eligibility, 46 studies were included. For MSM, most DCS and RS were online at 91% (95% CI: 0.85–0.97; I2=53%), and 83% (95% CI: 0.80–0.85; I2=17%) respectively. For TGW, mixed DCS and RS were the most frequent at85% (95% CI: 0.60–1.00; I2=91%) and online counseling at 84% (95% CI: 0.64–0.95) compared to other strategies. Conclusion: Critical issues play. Pivotal role in increasing PrEP awareness among MSM and TGW, minimizing access gaps, and ensuring retention of PrEP services. Offering oral PrEP using online DCS and RS can reach and retain high numbers of MSM and TGW, and reduce HIV incidence in these populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is still under debate, yet the drug has been widely used in some parts of the world, as shown by impressive market data. The available body of evidence may have changed over the last months, as studies have been retracted and "standards of care" (SOC) used in control groups have changed with rapidly evolving knowledge on COVID-19. This review aims to summarize and critically appraise the evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin, assessing clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.Methods: RCTs evaluating the effects of ivermectin in adult patients with COVID-19 were searched through June 22, 2022, in four databases, L.OVE platform, clinical trial registries and pre-prints platforms. Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and invasive ventilation requirement. Secondary endpoint was the occurrence of adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analysis included only studies which compared ivermectin to placebo or SOC. Random-effects were used to pool the risk ratios (RRs) of individual trials. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The protocol was register in PROSPERO (CRD42021257471).Results: Twenty-five RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria (n = 6310). Of those, 14 compared ivermectin with placebo, in night ivermectin associated with SOC was compared to SOC and two studies compared ivermectin to an active comparator. Most RCTs had some concerns or high risk of bias, mostly due to lack of concealment of the randomization sequence and allocation, lack of blinding and high number of missing cases. Ivermectin did not show an effect in reducing mortality (RR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.52-1.11) or mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.48-1.16). This effect was consistent when comparing ivermectin vs. placebo, and ivermectin associated with SOC vs. SOC, as well as in sensitivity analysis. Additionally, there was very low quality of evidence regarding adverse effects (RR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.84-1.35).Conclusions: The evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: C-reactive protein (CRP) is an inflammatory protein used in clinical practice to identify and monitor inflammatory and infectious processes. Recent data suggest CRP might be useful in guiding antibiotic therapy discontinuation among critical care patients. This meta-analysis analyzed the benefits and risks of CRP-guided protocols to guide antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients in comparison with standard treatment. Methods: Studies were searched in four databases: CENTRAL, Medline, Embase and LILACS. The search was performed until Jan 25th, 2023. The reference lists of the articles retrieved and related review studies were hand-screened to find eligible trials that might have been missed. Primary endpoints included the duration of antibiotic therapy for the index episode of infection. The secondary endpoint was the all-cause hospital mortality and infection relapses. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Random effects were used to pool the mean differences and odds ratio of individual studies. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021259977). Results: The search strategy retrieved 5209 titles, out of which three studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. 727 adult patients were analyzed, of whom 278 were included in the intervention group and 449 were included in the control group. 55,7% of all patients were women. Meta-analysis indicated that experimental groups (CRP-guided) had a lower duration of antibiotic therapy (days) [MMD = -1.82, 95%IC -3.23; -0.40]; with no difference in mortality [OR = 1.19 95%IC 0.67–2.12] or in the occurrence of infection relapse [OR = 3.21 95%IC 0.85–12.05]. Conclusion: The use of CRP-guided protocol reduces the total amount of time required for antibiotic therapy when compared to standard protocols of treatment in hospitalized patients with acute bacterial infection. We did not observe statistical differences regarding mortality and infection relapse rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]