ABSTRACT
Probiotics such as Lactobacillus spp. play an important role in human health as they embark beneficial effect on the human gastrointestinal microflora composition and immune system. Dysbiosis in the gastrointestinal microbial composition has been identified as a major contributor to chronic inflammatory conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Higher prevalence of IBD is often recorded in most of the developed Western countries, but recent data has shown an increase in previously regarded as lower risk regions, such as Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and India. Although the IBD etiology remains a subject of speculation, the disease is likely to have developed because of interaction between extrinsic environmental elements; the host's immune system, and the gut microbial composition. Compared to conventional treatments, probiotics and probiotic-based interventions including the introduction of specific prebiotics, symbiotic and postbiotic products had been demonstrated as more promising therapeutic measures. The present review discusses the association between gut dysbiosis, the pathogenesis of IBD, and risk factors leading to gut dysbiosis. In addition, it discusses recent studies focused on the alteration of the gastrointestinal microbiome as an effective therapy for IBD. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and other viral infections on IBD are also discussed in this review. Clinical and animal-based studies have shown that probiotic-based therapies can restore the gastrointestinal microbiota balance and reduce gut inflammations. Therefore, this review also assesses the status quo of these microbial-based therapies for the treatment of IBD. A better understanding of the mechanisms of their actions on modulating altered gut microbiota is required to enhance the effectiveness of the IBD therapeutics.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To examine the results, level of evidence, and methodologic quality of original studies regarding surgical mask effectiveness in minimizing viral respiratory illness transmission, and, in particular, the performance of the N95 respirator versus surgical mask. METHODS: Meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with use of PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases. RESULTS: Eight studies (9164 participants) were included after screening 153 articles. Analyses showed statistically significant differences between N95 respirator versus surgical mask use to prevent influenza-like-illness (risk ratio [RR] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68-0.94, P < 0.05), non-influenza respiratory viral infection (RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.52-0.74, P < 0.05), respiratory viral infection (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.65-0.82, P < 0.05), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) 1 and 2 virus infection (RR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.06-0.49, P < 0.05), and laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.66-0.84, P < 0.05). Analyses did not indicate statistically significant results against laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR = 0.87, CI = 0.74-1.03, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: N95 respirator use was associated with fewer viral infectious episodes for healthcare workers compared with surgical masks. The N95 respirator was most effective in reducing the risk of a viral infection in the hospital setting from the SARS-CoV 1 and 2 viruses compared to the other viruses included in this investigation. Methodologic quality, risk of biases, and small number of original studies indicate the necessity for further research to be performed, especially in front-line healthcare delivery settings.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly evolved as a viral pandemic. Countries worldwide have been affected by the recent outbreak caused by the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome)-CoV-2 virus. As with prior viral pandemics, health-care workers are at increased risk. Orthopaedic surgical procedures are common in health-care systems, ranging from emergency to elective procedures. Many orthopaedic surgical procedures are life or limb-saving and cannot be postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic because of potential patient harm. Our goal is to analyze how orthopaedic surgeons can perform medically necessary procedures during the pandemic and to help guide decision-making perioperatively. METHODS: We performed a review of the existing literature regarding COVID-19 and prior viral outbreaks to help guide clinical practice in terms of how to safely perform medically necessary orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic for both asymptomatic patients and high-risk (e.g., COVID-19-positive) patients. We created a classification system based on COVID-19 positivity, patient health status, and COVID-19 prevalence to help guide perioperative decision-making. RESULTS: We advocate that only urgent and emergency surgical procedures be performed. By following recommendations from the American College of Surgeons, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the recent literature, safe orthopaedic surgery and perioperative care can be performed. Screening measures are needed for patients and perioperative teams. Surgeons and perioperative teams at risk for contracting COVID-19 should use appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), including N95 respirators or powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), when risk of viral spread is high. When preparing for medically necessary orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic, our classification system will help to guide decision-making. A multidisciplinary care plan is needed to ensure patient safety with medically necessary orthopaedic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic can be performed safely when medically necessary but should be rare for COVID-19-positive or high-risk patients. Appropriate screening, PPE use, and multidisciplinary care will allow for safe medically necessary orthopaedic surgery to continue during the COVID-19 pandemic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.