ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in a significant number of cases and deaths worldwide. Vaccination is the most effective preventive measure against the disease. This study aimed to assess the mortality rates of COVID-19 patients in the United States and the effectiveness of Pfizer (Pfizer, NY, USA), Moderna (Moderna, MA, USA), and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson, NJ, USA) vaccines in preventing mortality. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-2020) guidelines. Eligible studies reporting on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines on patient outcomes were included. The search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. The data were extracted, and risk ratios (RR) were calculated for mortality outcomes. The analysis was performed using Review Manager software, and bias assessments were conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Meta-Analysis tools. A total of seven studies with 21,618,297 COVID-19 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) for mortality among unvaccinated patients compared to vaccinated patients was 2.46 (95% CI: 1.71-3.53), indicating that unvaccinated patients were 2.46 times more likely to die from COVID-19. The findings of this study support the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in reducing mortality among infected individuals. Unvaccinated patients had a significantly higher risk of mortality compared to vaccinated patients. Vaccination remains a crucial strategy to mitigate the severity of the disease and reduce mortality rates. Efforts should be made to address vaccine hesitancy and ensure widespread vaccine coverage.
ABSTRACT
The challenges in controlling the pandemic have been exacerbated by the disease's morbidity and the emergence of additional COVID-19 variants. The use of emergency vaccines to circumvent these challenges has sparked mixed opinions on their effectiveness. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines on clinical outcomes such as incidence, hospitalization, and ventilation rates in both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials were searched on April 21, 2022, to extract published articles comparing vaccinated COVID-19 patients versus unvaccinated COVID-19 patients and their clinical outcomes. The clinical outcomes studied were incidence rate, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and hospitalization rates. The analysis was performed with Review Manager (RevMan) software. Random-effect models were used to calculate pooled odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). In our meta-analysis, we have identified a total of 250 published findings, encompassing 15 studies that involved a cumulative count of 24,164,227 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19. Being unvaccinated had a significant association with severe clinical outcomes in patients infected with COVID-19. Unvaccinated individuals were 2.36 times more likely to be infected, with a 95% CI ranging from 1.13 to 4.94 (p = 0.02). Unvaccinated subjects with COVID-19 infection were 6.93 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU than their vaccinated counterparts, with a 95% CI ranging from 3.57 to 13.46 (p < 0.0001). The hospitalization rate was 3.37 higher among the unvaccinated compared to those vaccinated, with a 95% CI ranging from 1.92 to 5.93 (p < 0.0001). In addition, patients with COVID-19 infection who are unvaccinated were 6.44 times more likely to be mechanically ventilated than those vaccinated, with a 95% CI ranging from 3.13 to 13.23 (p < 0.0001). Overall, our study revealed that vaccination against COVID-19 disease is beneficial and effective in mitigating the spread of the infection and associated clinical outcomes. However, more awareness and proper education must be made to increase vaccine acceptance. We, therefore, recommend and urge all stakeholders involved in COVID-19 prevention, management, and control to strengthen awareness and educate the people on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination.
ABSTRACT
Background: Acute cholangitis (AC) is a relatively uncommon condition, with a mortality rate of 50% without prompt treatment. Our study aimed to assess the impact of demographic and social factors on morbidity, mortality and healthcare utilization of patients with AC in the United States (US). Methods: We used data from the National Inpatient Sample (2016 and 2017). Our study population included all patients with a discharge diagnosis of AC, identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code K830. Results: A total of 18,649 patients were hospitalized with a diagnosis of AC, with rates higher among older persons. The incidence increased notably from 142.36 cases per million in 2016 to 144.3 in 2017. The majority (53%) of patients were on Medicare. Age >60 years was associated with greater mortality compared to 0-18 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-5.43). Hispanic race (OR 1.4, 95%CI 1.15-1.76) and Black race (OR 1.3, 95%CI 1.04-1.63) had an increased mortality compared to White race. Among the factors analyzed, age >60 (OR 3.72, 95%CI 2.93-4.70) and male sex (OR 0.91, 95%CI 0.86-0.98) were found to be significantly associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) during hospitalization. The total charge for hospitalizations in 2016 was $766 million, increasing to $825 million in 2017. Conclusions: The incidence of AC in the US increased slightly year over year. In patients presenting with AC, age and race were associated with mortality while age and sex were associated with the need for ERCP.
ABSTRACT
Diabetic foot is a complex syndrome that is co-morbid with other diabetic complications such as peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and peripheral neuropathy. Patients with the diabetic foot are increasingly prone to diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) due to a high infection susceptibility and poor wound healing possibly prompting the need for minor or major amputations. We herein highlight the case of a 47-year-old male with a traumatic diabetic foot who necessitated a Ray amputation (RA). The notable aspects of this case are the late presentation of a patient with uncontrolled diabetes who could have avoided this complication if he went to seek help earlier and how diabetic foot is controlled and managed in a low-income resource setting. This case also highlights how physicians can better diagnose and treat diabetic foot complications with a scoring metric.
