Search

Background Tuberculosis is estimated to cause 1.5 million deaths annually and is most common during the reproductive years. Despite that fact, we found that tuberculosis screening, prevention or care recommendations for people around the time of pregnancy were absent from some national policy recommendations and varied in others. Objectives To address the apparent gaps and inconsistencies in policy, we aim to design a systematic review and meta-analysis of the original research evidence informing tuberculosis care around the time of pregnancy. Methods With assistance from librarians at the Biomedical library of the University of Gothenburg, Pubmed, CINAHL and Scopus databases will be searched. Search terms will aim to identify studies generating original research evidence informing care for tuberculosis around the time of pregnancy. Evidence may include: the outcome of TB and/or of pregnancy; the cost-effectiveness or acceptability of any intervention; the sensitivity and specificity of any assessment, selection, diagnostic or test criterion. The output from these literature searches will be screened by two independent reviewers to select the eligible studies for inclusion. Discrepancies will be resolved with a third reviewer. Firstly, publications that provide contextual data will be tabulated, summarising their main contributions. Secondly, studies that provide evidence directly guiding patient care will be our focus and will be considered to be key. The key studies will be subject to quality assessment, data extraction and when possible, meta-analysis. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to guide policy, practice and future research priorities concerning tuberculosis care around the time of pregnancy.

Background: COVID-19 variants threaten health globally. Despite improving vaccines and treatments, there is an urgent need for alternative strategies to prevent or reduce the severity of COVID-19. Potential strategies include probiotics, which are safe, inexpensive, globally available and have been studied previously in relation to respiratory infections. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses of experimental, trial or observational research evidence evaluating probiotics compared with control groups for preventing or treating COVID-19. We searched PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar and Web of Science bibliographic databases for studies published until December 6, 2021. We then performed meta-analyses for outcomes reported consistently across studies. Outcomes reported inconsistently or not amenable to meta-analysis were compared descriptively. Results: We identified six eligible studies, which were all published in 2020 and 2021: one randomized controlled trial and five retrospective cohort studies. The only randomized controlled trial reported that groups that ingested probiotics compared with control groups that did not ingest probiotics did not differ significantly with respect to death, severe disease requiring admission to an intensive care unit or disease progression (all p>0.5). The five retrospective cohort studies reported various apparently beneficial and harmful COVID-19 outcome associations with probiotic ingestion. Meta-analyses revealed no significant associations between probiotic use and death, severe disease, or disease progression caused by COVID-19. Descriptive data revealed that probiotic ingestion was associated with a trend towards worsened duration of hospital stay, improvements in measures of respiratory condition and worsened disease duration. The evidence for these contradictory associations was weak because all studies were prone to bias and none were considered to be of high quality. Conclusions: Current evidence does not suggest that probiotics affect COVID-19 severity or mortality. However, additional higher quality studies need to be conducted to definitively determine if probiotics would be a useful adjunctive treatment for COVID-19.

Background: People with tuberculosis disease and their household members may suffer direct out-of-pocket expenses and indirect costs of lost income. These tuberculosis-related costs can worsen poverty, make tuberculosis treatment completion unaffordable, impair quality of life and increase the risk of death. Costs due to tuberculosis are usually defined as catastrophic if they exceed 20% of the pre-disease annual household income. The World Health Organisation strategy to “End TB” and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals include the target that no households should face catastrophic costs due to tuberculosis. However, there is limited evidence and policy concerning how this global priority of eliminating catastrophic costs due to tuberculosis should be achieved. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to address this knowledge gap. Methods: Publications assessing interventions that aimed to eliminate catastrophic costs will be identified by searching three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) together with reference lists from pertinent publications. We will screen eligible studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias with the quality assessment tool from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Discrepancies will be resolved by discussion between the reviewers. If we find sufficient comparable studies quantifying strategies to eliminate catastrophic costs then a meta-analysis will be performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42022292410). Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to rigorously assess the evidence for strategies to eliminate catastrophic costs due to tuberculosis.

Background: Some sputum smear microscopy protocols recommend placing filter paper over sputum smears during staining for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB). We found no published evidence assessing whether this is beneficial. We aimed to evaluate the effect of filter paper on sputum smear microscopy results. Methods: Sputum samples were collected from 30 patients with confirmed pulmonary TB and 4 healthy control participants. From each sputum sample, six smears (204 smears in total) were prepared for staining with Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN), auramine or viability staining with fluorescein diacetate (FDA). Half of the slides subjected to each staining protocol were randomly selected to have Whatman grade 3 filter paper placed over the dried smears prior to stain application and removed prior to stain washing. The counts of acid-fast bacilli (AFB) and precipitates per 100 high-power microscopy fields of view, and the proportion of smear that appeared to have been washed away were recorded. Statistical analysis used a linear regression model adjusted by staining technique with a random effects term to correct for between-sample variability. Results: The inclusion of filter paper in the staining protocol significantly decreased microscopy positivity independent of staining with ZN, auramine or FDA (p=0.01). Consistent with this finding, there were lower smear grades in slides stained using filter paper versus without (p=0.04), and filter paper use reduced AFB counts by 0.28 logarithms (95% confidence intervals, CI=0.018, 0.54, p=0.04) independent of staining technique. In all analyses, auramine was consistently more sensitive with higher AFB counts versus ZN (p=0.001), whereas FDA had lower sensitivity and lower AFB counts (p