ABSTRACT
Introduction: Cannabis is one of the most widely used psychoactive substances globally, with an increasing trend in its legalization for both medical and recreational purposes in various countries. While cannabis offers potential therapeutic benefits, its regular use can lead to the development of Cannabis Use Disorders (CUDs). Understanding the epidemiology of CUDs is crucial in assessing the public health burden associated with cannabis use. Methods: Epidemiological parameters of CUDs were assessed using the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) methodology across different age-groups, years, sexes, and locations worldwide from 1990-2019. Results: Globally, for both sexes combined, prevalent cases of CUDs increased steadily from 17.1 million(95%UI=12.7-22.8million) in 1990 to 23.8-million(95%UI=17.8-30.9 million) in 2019. All age-adjusted highest number of incidence observed in High-Income-North-America(HINA)(121/100,000), followed by Australasia(100/100,000), Oceania(83.97/100,000), Tropical Latin America(69.59/100,000). Globally, age-standardized disability-adjusted life years rate(ASDR) observed higher in HINA, followed by Australasia, and Western-Europe. In male, all-age incidence counts increased from 1.7 million(95%UI=1.3-2.4million) in 1990 to 2.4 million(95%UI=1.8-3.2 million) in 2019. The highest annual percentage of change in age-standardized incidence rate(ASIR) was found in East-Asia (22%) followed by Middle-East and North-Africa(MENA)(15%). The age group of 15-24 years exhibited the highest burden of CUDs. Conclusion: The widespread occurrence of CUDs on a global scale poses a substantial challenge to public health. Understanding the impact of CUDs and implementing evidence-based interventions is crucial in mitigating the associated individual, societal, and economic burdens. Continued research, collaboration, and knowledge dissemination are essential to inform policies, prevention efforts, and treatment strategies aimed at addressing CUDs on a global-scale.
ABSTRACT
Individuals with depression face an elevated stroke risk, marked by an unfavorable prognosis. This meta-analysis aims to determine the impact of depression on stroke risk. The current meta-analysis was conducted using the guidelines established by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We selected studies through a systematic review of electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL from January 2011 to January 2023. Google Scholar was utilized to identify supplementary studies. Furthermore, we scrutinized citation lists of reported articles for additional potential studies. Only English-language articles were included in the review. A total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sample size was 744,179. Sample size of the included studies ranged from 560 to 487,377. The pooled estimate of 15 studies showed that the risk of stroke was 1.47 times higher in individuals with depression compared to the individuals without depression, and the difference is statistically significant (RR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.66, p-value<0.001). Age and hypertension emerged as significant predictors of stroke risk in depressed individuals identified through meta-regression. These findings underscore the importance of targeted preventive strategies for depression-related stroke risk, especially considering age-specific considerations and associated factors.
ABSTRACT
The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril in patients with heart failure. We performed this meta-analysis according to the guidelines reported in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Two independent authors systematically searched online databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception till September 15, 2023. Outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular-related hospitalization. A total of nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the risk of all-cause mortality was higher in patients receiving enalapril compared to patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (risk ratio [RR]: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.04). Risk of cardiovascular mortality was significantly higher in the enalapril group compared to the sacubitril/valsartan group (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.91). The risk of cardiovascular hospitalization was significantly higher in the enalapril group compared to the sacubitril/valsartan group (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.86). In conclusion, our meta-analysis of nine studies underscores the superior clinical performance of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril in managing patients with heart failure.
