Efficacy and safety of metformin for melasma treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Metformin has recently been demonstrated to have an anti-melanogenic activity. Nevertheless, clinical evidence of the effectiveness of metformin in melasma is lacking. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of metformin in the treatment of melasma. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Scopus, CINAHL, and grey literature databases were searched to 4 October 2022 and updated on 26 February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, observational studies, case series, and case reports investigating the efficacy and safety of metformin for melasma were included. The Melasma Area Severity Index (MASI) scores that changed from baseline were pooled using fixed-effects model and expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Three RCTs including 140 patients with melasma were included. The results demonstrated that after 8 weeks, 15% topical metformin significantly reduced the Melasma Area Severity Index (MASI) score compared to placebo (1 trial; n = 60; MD, -0.56; 95% CI, -1.07 to -0.04; p = 0.034). Furthermore, when compared to triple combination cream (TCC), 30% topical metformin demonstrated similar efficacy in reducing the MASI score after 8 weeks (2 trials; n = 80; MD, 0.19, 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.63; p = 0.390). Patients using 30% topical metformin had fewer adverse events compared to TCC users, although no statistical difference was found. Conclusion: Topical metformin was as effective as triple combination cream (TCC) in decreasing changes in the MASI score in patients with melasma, with minimum adverse events. Further studies with larger sample sizes, longer follow-up times, and well-designed trials are required. Systematic Review Registration: Identifier PROSPERO (CRD42022351966).

Transcultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Thai-Brief Resilient Coping Scale: a cross-sectional study during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Thailand.

This study aimed to examine the transcultural adaptation, construct validity, and psychometric properties of the Thai-Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) among the general population and college students through the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Thailand. We invited the 4004 participants to complete sets of anchor-based measurement tools, including depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, perceived stress, well-being, and perceived social support. The scale factor structure of the Thai-BRCS was assessed using factor analysis, and nonparametric item response theory (IRT) analysis. The psychometric properties of the Thai-BRCS for validity (convergent and discriminant) and reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility) were assessed. Based on the construct validity testing, factor analysis, and nonparametric IRT analysis reaffirmed the unidimensionality with a one-factor structure of the Thai-BRCS version. For convergent validity, the scale was significantly correlated with all sets of anchor-based measurement tools (all P < 0.001). The discriminant validity was satisfactory with a group of medium and low resilience and the risk of adverse mental outcomes. For scale reliability, it revealed excellent internal consistency (alpha = 0.84, omega = 0.85) and reproducibility (intraclass correlation = 0.91). The Thai-BRCS version fulfills transcultural adaptation with satisfactory psychometric properties to measure psychological resilience in the Thai population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Psychological Resilience and Adverse Mental Health Issues in the Thai Population during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

In light of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the enormous amount of uncertainty caused by it, mental health issues have become a great concern. Evidence regarding the effects of psychological resilience on the Thai population is scarce. We evaluated psychological resilience during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with the risk of mental health outcomes, such as depression, anxiety, stress, and health-related well-being. This cross-sectional study was a part of the HOME-COVID-19 project, which conducted an online survey of 4004 members of the general population in Thailand using the Brief Resilience Coping Scale. Logistic regression was performed to identify the association between psychological resilience and mental health issues and well-being. Groups with prevalence rates of 43.9%, 39.2%, and 16.9% were classified as low, moderate, and high resilient copers, respectively. Using high resilient copers as a reference group, the low resilient copers had a higher chance of having mental health adversities. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 1.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-2.56; p < 0.001) for depression, 2.13 (95% CI, 1.45-3.14; p < 0.001) for anxiety, 4.61 (95% CI, 3.30-6.45; p < 0.001) for perceived stress, and 3.18 (95% CI, 2.31-4.38; p < 0.001) for low well-being. For the medium resilient copers, only low well-being was found to be statistically significant (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.16-2.20; p = 0.004). It is important that resilience be considered in the development of strategies for managing the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent or reduce adverse mental health outcomes.

Disparities and Factors Associated with Coronavirus Disease-2019-Related Public Stigma: A Cross-Sectional Study in Thailand.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related public stigma is a major challenge, with scarce available evidence. This study aimed to determine the disparities and factors associated with COVID-19-related public stigma in the Thai population. We conducted a cross-sectional study involving a voluntary online survey in Thailand from 21 April 2020 to 4 May 2020. We invited 4004 participants to complete a series of questionnaires, including the validated COVID-19 public stigma scale and questions on relevant COVID-19-related psychosocial issues. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to investigate the factors associated with COVID-19-related public stigma. The prevalence of COVID-19-related public stigma was 24.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.2-26.2) for no/minimal, 35.5% (95% CI, 33.4-37.6) for moderate, and 40.3% (95% CI, 38.2-42.4) for high. We observed disparities in the prevalence of COVID-19-related public stigma according to participant characteristics and psychosocial factors. Using the no/minimal group as a reference group, the six predominant risk factors significantly associated with a moderate and high degree of COVID-19-related public stigma were middle-aged or older adults, male, divorced/widowed/separated, current quarantine status, moderate/severe fear of COVID-19, and medium/high perceived risk of COVID-19. Additional risk factors significantly related to a high degree of COVID-19-related public stigma were religion (Buddhist), region of residence (non-capital city), and exposure to COVID-19-related information. Disparities in COVID-19-related public stigma due to sociodemographic and psychosocial issues are frequent in the Thai population. To reduce public stigmatization, early identification of vulnerable groups and the development of tailored mitigation strategies should be implemented during the pandemic.

Use of Thiazide Diuretics and Risk of All Types of Skin Cancers: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The use of thiazide diuretics is associated with skin cancer risk; however, whether this applies to all skin cancer types is unclear. Methods: In this meta-analysis, we searched multiple electronic databases and gray literature up to 10 April 2022, with no language restrictions, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (cohort, case-control) that investigated the association between thiazide diuretics and skin cancer. The primary outcomes of interest were malignant melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (basal cell carcinoma [BCC], squamous cell carcinoma [SCC]). Secondary outcomes included other skin cancers (lip cancer, Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant adnexal skin tumors, oral cavity cancer, and precursors of skin cancer). We used a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Thirty non-randomized studies (17 case-control, 13 cohort, no RCTs) were included. Thiazide diuretic users had a higher risk of malignant melanoma (17 studies; n = 10,129,196; pooled adjusted OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04−1.15; p < 0.001; strength of evidence, very low; very small harmful effect), BCC (14 studies; n = 19,780,476; pooled adjusted OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02−1.09; p = 0.003; strength of evidence, very low; very small harmful effect), and SCC (16 studies; n = 16,387,862; pooled adjusted OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.22−1.48; p < 0.001; strength of evidence, very low; very small harmful effect) than non-users. Thiazide diuretic use was also associated with a higher risk of lip cancer (5 studies; n = 161,491; pooled adjusted OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.52−2.42; p < 0.001; strength of evidence, very low; small harmful effect), whereas other secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Conclusions: Thiazide diuretics are associated with the risk of all skin cancer types, including malignant melanoma; thus, they should be used with caution in clinical practice.

Benefits and Harms of Treatment and Preventive Interventions for Hereditary Angioedema: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease that can lead to potentially life-threatening airway attacks. Although novel therapies for HAE treatment have become available over the past decades, a comparison of all available treatments has not yet been conducted. As such, we will perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to identify the best evidence-based treatments for the management of acute attacks and prophylaxis of HAE. METHODS: This study will include both parallel and crossover randomized controlled trials that have investigated prevention or treatment strategies for HAE attacks. We will search electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CINAHL, from inception with no language restrictions. Potential trials will be supplemented through a gray literature search. The process of study screening, selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, certainty assessment and classification of treatments will be performed independently by a pair of reviewers. Any discrepancy will be addressed through team discussion. A two-step approach of pairwise and network meta-analysis will be performed. The summarized effect estimates of direct and indirect treatment comparisons will be pooled using DerSimonion-Laird random-effects models. The incoherence assumption, in terms of the consistency of direct and indirect effects, will be assessed. An evidence-based synthesis will be performed, based on the magnitudes of effect size, evidence certainty, and ranking of treatment effects, with respect to treatment benefits and harms. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and network meta-analysis will summarize evidence-based conclusions with respect to the ratio of benefits and harms arising from interventions for the treatment of acute attacks and prophylaxis of HAE. Evidence from this network estimate could promote the rational use of interventions among people living with HAE in clinical practice settings. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021251367.

Fear of COVID-19 and Perceived Stress: The Mediating Roles of Neuroticism and Perceived Social Support.

Background: Fear of COVID-19 leads to stress and may result in various kinds of mental health problems. Many factors are associated with an individual's perception of stress, including neuroticism and perceived social support. This study aimed to examine the role of neuroticism and perceived social support as mediators of fear of COVID-19 on perceived stress. Methods: Data from 3299 participants aged ≥18 years from the HOME-COVID-19 survey in 2020 were used for analysis. Measurements used included the Fear of COVID-19 and Impact on Quality of Life Scale, the Perceived Stress Scale-10, the Neuroticism inventory and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support-12. A parallel mediation model within a structural equation modeling framework with 5000 bootstrapping sampling was used to test the mediating effect. Results: Fear of COVID-19 had a direct effect on perceived stress (B = 0.100, 95% CI = 0.080−0.121, p < 0.001), whereas neuroticism, but not perceived social support, partially mediated the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and perceived stress (B = 0.018, 95% CI = 0.000−0.036). Among all types of social support, only perceived support from friends was a significant mediator (B = 0.016, 95% CI = 0.006−0.025). Conclusions: Neuroticism and perceived support from friends are critical factors in the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and perceived stress.

Impact of Pharmacological Treatments for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria with an Inadequate Response to H1-Antihistamines on Health-Related Quality of Life: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, pharmacological treatment options for H1-antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria have increased dramatically; however, their effects on patient-reported outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQOL), remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of these treatments on HRQOL among H1-antihistamine-refractory patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria. METHODS: We completed a comprehensive search of the available literature in the electronic databases, gray literature, and preprint reports up to April 19, 2021, with no language restrictions. The primary outcome for evaluation was a change in HRQOL from the baseline, and secondary outcomes included patient unacceptability and other patient-reported outcomes. We used a random-effects network meta-analysis and estimated differences in standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios with 95% CIs. Evidence-based synthesis was based on magnitudes of effect size, evidence certainty, ranking of treatment effects, and clinically meaningful improvement. RESULTS: Twelve randomized controlled trials encompassing 1866 adolescent and adult patients were included. Our evidence synthesis analyses revealed that hydroxychloroquine (SMD, -1.00 [-1.61 to -0.39]), 72 mg ligelizumab (SMD, -0.66 [-0.96 to -0.35]), 240 mg ligelizumab (SMD, -0.67 [-0.98 to -0.37]), and 300 mg omalizumab (SMD, -0.53 [-0.67 to -0.39]) significantly improved HRQOL with a moderate beneficial effect. However, the use of hydroxychloroquine seems to be limited by a higher risk of patient unacceptability of treatment. Other secondary outcomes remain inconclusive based on the available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Both ligelizumab (72 or 240 mg) and 300 mg omalizumab appeared to be effective treatments for H1-antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria, because they were closely associated with improved HRQOL.

Use of serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants and the risk of bleeding complications in patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) antidepressants are implicated in increasing the risk of bleeding among users; however, the comparative increase in bleeding risk with concurrent antithrombotic therapy (anticoagulant or antiplatelet) remains unclear. As such, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available evidence to evaluate the effects of SRI and the risk of bleeding complications among patients receiving antithrombotic therapy. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and grey literature (Google Scholar and preprint reports) up to 26 November, 2020, with no language restrictions (updated on 31 July 2021). The primary outcome of interest was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included intracranial haemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and any bleeding events. We used a random-effects model meta-analysis to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We did not identify any randomised studies but found 32 non-randomized studies (cohort or case-control) with 1,848,285 patients that fulfilled the study selection criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Among individuals receiving anticoagulants (13 studies), SRI users experienced a statistically higher risk of major bleeding compared to non-SRI users: pooled OR was 1.39 (95% CI, 1.23-1.58; p < .001; moderate heterogeneity). Among individuals receiving antiplatelet therapy (2 studies), SRI users were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding: pooled OR was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.17-1.80; p = .001; low heterogeneity). For secondary outcomes, the use of SRI among individuals treated with antithrombotic therapy revealed a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or any bleeding events, whereas only anticoagulant use was illustrated an increased risk of intracranial haemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SRI antidepressants among patients treated with antithrombotic therapy (either anticoagulant or antiplatelet) is associated with a higher risk of bleeding complications, suggesting that caution is warranted in co-prescription. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42018083917KEY MESSAGESIn this meta-analysis of 32 non-randomized studies, SRI users were associated with the risk of bleeding complications compared to non-SRI users, with concurrent antithrombotic use (either anticoagulant or antiplatelet).The risk was consistently elevated across types of bleeding events (major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, or any bleeding events), whereas only anticoagulant use was associated with intracranial haemorrhage.To promote the rational use of medicines, our findings suggest that the risk-benefit ratio must account for the clear efficacy of SRI against safety concerns in terms of bleeding risks.

COVID-19 Public Stigma Scale (COVID-PSS): development, validation, psychometric analysis and interpretation.

OBJECTIVE: Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, social stigma towards COVID-19 infection has become a major component of public discourse and social phenomena. As such, we aimed to develop and validate the COVID-19 Public Stigma Scale (COVID-PSS). DESIGN AND SETTING: National-based survey cross-sectional study during the lockdown in Thailand. PARTICIPANTS: We invited the 4004 adult public to complete a set of measurement tools, including the COVID-PSS, global fear of COVID-19, perceived risk of COVID-19 infection, Bogardus Social Distance Scale, Pain Intensity Scale and Insomnia Severity Index. METHODS: Factor structure dimensionality was constructed and reaffirmed with model fit by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and non-parametric item response theory (IRT) analysis. Psychometric properties for validity and reliability were tested. An anchor-based approach was performed for classifying the proper cut-off scores. RESULTS: After factor analysis, IRT analysis and test for model fit, we created the final 10-item COVID-PSS with a three-factor structure: stereotype, prejudice and fear. Face and content validity were established through the public and experts' perspectives. The COVID-PSS was significantly correlated (Spearman rank, 95% CI) with the global fear of COVID-19 (0.68, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.70), perceived risk of COVID-19 infection (0.79, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.80) and the Bogardus Social Distance Scale (0.50, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.53), indicating good convergent validity. The correlation statistics between the COVID-PSS and the Pain Intensity Scale and Insomnia Severity Index were <0.2, supporting the discriminant validity. The reliability of the COVID-PSS was satisfactory, with good internal consistency (Cronbach's α of 0.85, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.86) and test-retest reproducibility (intraclass correlation of 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.96). The proposed cut-off scores were as follows: no/minimal (≤18), moderate (19-25) and high (≥26) public stigma towards COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-PSS is practical and suitable for measuring stigma towards COVID-19 in a public health survey. However, cross-cultural adaptation may be needed.

Evaluation of Pharmacologic Treatments for H1 Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The comparative benefits and harms of all available treatments for H1 antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) have not been established. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate different treatment effects of pharmacologic treatments among patients with H1 antihistamine-refractory CSU. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL from inception to April 19, 2021, with no language restrictions. Gray literature from Google Scholar, ongoing trial registers, and preprint reports was added to the searches of electronic databases. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials using validated measurement tools that investigated the benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments among adolescent or adult patients with CSU who had an inadequate response to H1 antihistamines were screened for inclusion independently by 2 investigators. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two investigators independently extracted study data according to the predefined list of interests. A random-effects model was used to calculate the network estimates reported as standardized mean differences and odds ratios with corresponding 95% CIs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes that reflect the patient's perspective included changes in urticaria symptoms from baseline and unacceptability of treatment (all-cause dropouts). RESULTS: Twenty-three randomized clinical trials with 2480 participants that compared 18 different interventions or dosages and placebo were included. The standardized mean differences for change in urticaria symptoms were -1.05 (95% CI, -1.37 to -0.73) for ligelizumab, 72 mg; -1.07 (95% CI, -1.39 to -0.75) for ligelizumab, 240 mg; -0.77 (95% CI, -0.91 to -0.63) for omalizumab, 300 mg; and -0.59 (95% CI, -1.10 to -0.08) for omalizumab, 600 mg. No significant differences in treatment unacceptability were observed. With respect to benefits and harms, the network estimates illustrated that the most efficacious treatments were achieved with ligelizumab, 72 or 240 mg (large beneficial effect) and omalizumab, 300 or 600 mg (moderate beneficial effect). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings in this meta-analysis suggest that the biologic agents ligelizumab, 72 or 240 mg, and omalizumab, 300 or 600 mg, can be recommended as effective treatments for patients with CSU who have had an inadequate response to H1 antihistamines. Head-to-head trials with high methodologic quality and harmonized design and outcome definitions are needed to help inform subsequent international guidelines for the management of CSU.

Global prevalence of mental health issues among the general population during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To provide a contemporary global prevalence of mental health issues among the general population amid the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We searched electronic databases, preprint databases, grey literature, and unpublished studies from January 1, 2020, to June 16, 2020 (updated on July 11, 2020), with no language restrictions. Observational studies using validated measurement tools and reporting data on mental health issues among the general population were screened to identify all relevant studies. We have included information from 32 different countries and 398,771 participants. The pooled prevalence of mental health issues amid the COVID-19 pandemic varied widely across countries and regions and was higher than previous reports before the COVID-19 outbreak began. The global prevalence estimate was 28.0% for depression; 26.9% for anxiety; 24.1% for post-traumatic stress symptoms; 36.5% for stress; 50.0% for psychological distress; and 27.6% for sleep problems. Data are limited for other aspects of mental health issues. Our findings highlight the disparities between countries in terms of the poverty impacts of COVID-19, preparedness of countries to respond, and economic vulnerabilities that impact the prevalence of mental health problems. Research on the social and economic burden is needed to better manage mental health problems during and after epidemics or pandemics. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD 42020177120.

Association of job loss, income loss, and financial burden with adverse mental health outcomes during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Thailand: A nationwide cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Economic crises during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic severely impacted mental health outcomes. However, there is limited evidence on this issue in Thailand. We aimed to evaluate the association of economic burden during the first phase of the pandemic and the risk of adverse mental health outcomes in the Thai population. METHODS: We recruited 2,303 participants aged 18 years or above with employment/full-time jobs before the national lockdown in April-May 2020. The measures of economic burden were job loss, income loss, and financial problems related to the outbreak. The outcomes included depressive symptoms, anxiety, and perceived stress. The association between economic burden and adverse mental health outcomes was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Individuals who lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic had a higher risk of perceived stress compared to those who maintained their job (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-4.51; p = .006). A higher risk of anxiety was observed in individuals with a monthly income loss of 50% (adjusted OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03-1.99; p = .035; individuals without income loss, reference group) or over. Self-reported financial problems were significantly associated with adverse mental health outcomes (nonexperienced financial problems, reference group): Adjusted ORs of 1.84 (95% CI, 1.34-2.51; p < .001) for depressive symptoms, 2.00 (95% CI, 1.48-2.71; p < .001) for anxiety, and 2.12 (95% CI, 1.51-2.95; p < .001) for perceived stress. CONCLUSIONS: Economic burden, especially self-reported financial problems, was associated with adverse mental health outcomes. However, long-term studies are needed to address the mental health consequences of COVID-19 and economic downturns.

Exposure to COVID-19-Related Information and its Association With Mental Health Problems in Thailand: Nationwide, Cross-sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on both the physical and mental health of individuals worldwide. Evidence regarding the association between mental health problems and information exposure among Thai citizens during the COVID-19 outbreak is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the relationship between information exposure and mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand. METHODS: Between April 21 and May 4, 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, nationwide online survey of the general population in Thailand. We categorized the duration of exposure to COVID-19-related information as follows: <1 h/day (reference group), 1-2 h/day, and ≥3 h/day. Mental health outcomes were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale, the Perceived Stress Scale-10, and the Insomnia Severity Index for symptoms of depression, anxiety, perceived stress, and insomnia, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between information exposure and the risk of developing the aforementioned symptoms. An ancillary analysis using multivariable multinomial logistic regression models was also conducted to assess the possible dose-response relationship across the severity strata of mental health problems. RESULTS: Of the 4322 eligible participants, 4004 (92.6%) completed the online survey. Of them, 1481 (37.0%), 1644 (41.1%), and 879 (22.0%) participants were exposed to COVID-19-related information for less than 1 hour per day, 1 to 2 hours per day, or 3 or more hours per day, respectively. The major source of information related to the COVID-19 pandemic was social media (95.3%), followed by traditional media (68.7%) and family members (34.9%). Those exposed to information for 3 or more hours per day had a higher risk of developing symptoms of depression (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.03-1.76; P=.03), anxiety (adjusted OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.43-2.46; P<.001), and insomnia (adjusted OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.17-1.97; P=.001) than people exposed to information for less than 1 hour per day. Meanwhile, people exposed to information for 1 to 2 hours per day were only at risk of developing symptoms of anxiety (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08-1.69; P=.008). However, no association was found between information exposure and the risk of perceived stress. In the ancillary analysis, a dose-response relationship was observed between information exposure of 3 or more hours per day and the severity of mental health problems. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that social media is the main source of COVID-19-related information. Moreover, people who are exposed to information for 3 or more hours per day are more likely to develop psychological problems, including depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Longitudinal studies investigating the long-term effects of COVID-19-related information exposure on mental health are warranted.

Mental health circumstances among health care workers and general public under the pandemic situation of COVID-19 (HOME-COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: After the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) globally, upgraded quarantine and physical distancing strategy, strict infection measures, and government's strict lockdown have been abided to confront the spread of the COVID-19 in Thailand. During the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns about the mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population are now arising. Yet, information on mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population have not been comprehensively reported in Thailand. As such, we conduct a cross-sectional study, a national online survey to describe the short- and long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population in Thailand. METHODS: This study is a repeated cross-sectional study, an open online voluntary national-based survey during the wave I (April 21-May 4, 2020) follow-up in the wave II (August 3-16, 2020), wave III (November 15-28, 2020), and a 1-year follow-up survey (wave IV: April 21-May 4, 2021) in Thailand. Health care workers at the hospitals and the adult general population will be invited to participate in the online survey via the SurveyMonkey that limits one-time participation per unique internet protocol address. The target sample size of at least 1182 health care workers and 1310 general populations will be required to complete the online survey for each wave of the survey. Sociodemographic characteristics and a set of measurement tools for mental and psychosocial problems for each subcohort including depression, anxiety, stress, resilient copings, neuroticism, perceived social support, wellbeing, somatic symptoms, insomnia, burnout (for healthcare workers), and public stigma toward COVID-19 infection (for the general population) will be collected. For all estimates of prevalence, we will weigh data for all wave analyses under the complex design of the survey. Subgroup analyses stratified by key characteristics will also be done to analyze the proportion differences. For the repeated cross-sectional survey, we will combine the data from the wave I to wave IV survey to analyze changes in the mental health status. We will perform multilevel logistic regression models with random intercepts to explore associations with individual-level and region-level/hospital-level predictors. We also plan to perform an ancillary systematic review and meta-analysis by incorporating data from our findings to all available evidence. RESULTS: Our findings will provide information on the short- and long-term mental health status as well as the psychosocial responses to the COVID-19 outbreak in a national sample of health care workers and the general population in Thailand. CONCLUSION: This prospective, nationally based, a repeated cross-sectional study will describe the mental health status and psychosocial problems among health care workers and the general population in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Faculty of Public Health and Faculty of Pharmacy, Chiang Mai University. The findings will be disseminated through public, scientific, and professional meetings, and publications in peer-reviewed journals. THAI CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY (TCTR) REGISTRATION NUMBER: TCTR20200425001.

Effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and cardiovascular events among peritoneal dialysis patients: A protocol for systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Based on the International Society for peritoneal dialysis (PD) recommendations, blockade of renin-angiotensin systems with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) improves residual kidney function in PD patients. However, the long-term effectiveness of ACEI/ARB use in PD patients has not been fully elucidated. We, therefore, intend to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the effects of ACEI/ARB use on long-term mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and adverse events among PD patients. METHODS: This systematic review will include both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies in adult PD patients. We also plan to incorporate data from our cohort study in Thai PD population into this review. We will search PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and grey literature from inception to February 29, 2019, with no language restrictions. The process of study screening, selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and grading the strength of evidence will be performed independently by a pair of reviewers. Any discrepancy will be resolved through a team discussion and/or consultation with the third reviewer. The pooled effects estimate and 95% confidence intervals will be estimated using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models. Heterogeneity will be assessed by the Cochran Q test, I index and tau-squared statistics. The funnel plots along with the Begg and Egger test and trim and fill method will be performed to investigate any evidence of publication bias. Preplanned subgroup analyses and random-effects univariate meta-regressions will be performed to quantify the potential sources of heterogeneity based on studies- and patient-characteristics. RESULTS: This will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the long-term effectiveness of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in PD populations. CONCLUSION: In summary, this systematic review and meta-analysis will summarize the effectiveness of ACEI/ARB on long-term mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and adverse events among adult PD patients by integrated all available evidences. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Based on the existing published data, an ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through scientific meetings and publications in peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019129492.

Comparative Effectiveness of Local Application of Chlorhexidine Gluconate, Mupirocin Ointment, and Normal Saline for the Prevention of Peritoneal Dialysis-related Infections (COSMO-PD Trial): a multicenter randomized, double-blind, controlled protocol.

BACKGROUND: Current international guidelines recommend the use of a daily topical exit-site antimicrobial to prevent peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infections. Although nonantibiotic-based therapies are appealing because they may limit antimicrobial resistance, no controlled trials have been conducted to compare topical antimicrobial agents with usual exit-site care for the prevention of PD-related infections among the Thai PD population. We propose a controlled three-arm trial to examine the efficacy and safety of a daily chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated patch versus mupirocin ointment versus usual exit-site care with normal saline for the prevention of PD-related infections. METHODS/DESIGNS: This study is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, active-controlled, clinical trial. Adult patients aged 18 years or older who have end-stage kidney disease and are undergoing PD will be enrolled at three PD Centers in Thailand. A total of 354 PD patients will be randomly assigned to either the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated patch, mupirocin ointment, or usual exit-site care with normal saline dressing according to a computer-generated random allocation sequence. Participants will be followed until discontinuation of PD or completion of 24 months. The primary study outcomes are time to first PD-related infection (exit-site/tunnel infection or peritonitis) event and the overall difference in PD-related infection rates between study arms. Secondary study outcomes will include (i) the rate of infection-related catheter removal and PD technique failure, (ii) rate of nasal and exit-site Staphylococcus aureus colonization, (iii) healthcare costs, and (iv) skin reactions and adverse events. We plan to conduct a cost-utility analysis alongside the trial from the perspectives of patients and society. A Markov simulation model will be used to estimate the total cost and health outcome in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 20-year time horizon. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in Thai Baht and U.S. dollars per QALYs gained will be illustrated. A series of probabilistic sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the cost-utility analysis findings. DISCUSSION: The results from this study will provide new clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence to support the best strategy for the prevention of PD-related infections among the Thai PD population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02547103. Registered on September 11, 2015.

A Clinical Risk Prediction Tool for Peritonitis-Associated Treatment Failure in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients.

A tool to predict peritonitis-associated treatment failure among peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has not yet been established. We conducted a multicentre, retrospective cohort study among 1,025 PD patients between 2006 and 2016 in Thailand to develop and internally validate such a tool. Treatment failure was defined as either a requirement for catheter removal, a switch to haemodialysis, or peritonitis-associated mortality. Prediction model performances were analysed using discrimination (C-statistics) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test) tests. Predictors were weighted to calculate a risk score. In total, 435 patients with 855 episodes of peritonitis were identified; 215 (25.2%) episodes resulted in treatment failure. A total risk score of 11.5 was developed including, diabetes, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, and dialysate leukocyte count >1,000/mm3 and >100/mm3 on days 3-4 and day 5, respectively. The discrimination (C-statistic = 0.92; 95%CI, 0.89-0.94) and calibration (P > 0.05) indicated an excellent performance. No significant difference was observed in the internal validation cohort. The rate of treatment failure in the different groups was 3.0% (low-risk, <1.5 points), 54.4% (moderate-risk, 1.5-9 points), and 89.5% (high-risk, >9 points). A simplified risk-scoring scheme to predict treatment failure may be useful for clinical decision making regarding PD patients with peritonitis. External validation studies are needed.

The association between proton pump inhibitor use and the risk of adverse kidney outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Existing epidemiological studies illustrate that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be related to adverse kidney outcomes. To date, no comprehensive meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate and quantify this association. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to assess the association between PPI use and the risk of adverse kidney outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and grey literature with no language restrictions (through 31 October 2016). Adverse kidney outcomes were acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The risk ratios (RRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random effects model. The strength of evidence (SOE) for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommended Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Results: Of 2037 identified studies, four cohort and five case-control studies with ∼2.6 million patients were included. Of these, 534 003 (20.2%) were PPI users. Compared with non-PPI users, PPI users experienced a significantly higher risk of AKI [RR 1.44 (95% CI 1.08-1.91); P = 0.013; SOE, low] and CKD [RR 1.36 (95% CI 1.07-1.72); P = 0.012; SOE, low]. Moreover, PPIs increased the risk of AIN [RR 3.61 (95% CI 2.37-5.51); P < 0.001; SOE, insufficient] and ESRD [RR 1.42 (95% CI 1.28-1.58); P < 0.001; SOE, insufficient]. Conclusion: PPI usage was associated with adverse kidney outcomes; however, these findings were based on observational studies and low-quality evidence. Additional rigorous studies are needed for further clarification.