ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study aims to investigate the relationship between sleep disorders and oral health outcomes among a representative sample of the United States population. METHODS: The study sample comprised 6,161 participants who participated in the NHANES 2017-2018, representing a population of 255,939,599. Oral health outcomes were assessed using the Oral Health Questionnaire (OHQ), covering dental pain, periodontal disease, bone loss, emotional perceptions of oral health, and impact on daily life. Sleep disorders were evaluated using questions related to sleep trouble and daytime sleepiness. RESULTS: Analysis of the NHANES 2017-2018 dataset, revealed notable associations between sleep disorders and oral health outcomes. Individuals with sleep disorders were more likely to report dental pain (19.79% vs. 11.8%), periodontal issues (19.5% vs. 12.25%), and feeling bad or embarrassed about their oral health (21% vs. 12%), compared to those without sleep disorders. Difficulty due to oral health issues was also more prevalent among participants with sleep disorders (32.6% vs. 12.9%). Adjusted models demonstrated that individuals with sleep disorders had a significantly higher likelihood of experiencing oral aches [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.58 (1.22-2.22)], reporting negative emotions about oral health [aOR = 1.59 (1.06-2.37)], and encountering challenges in school or job performance [aOR = 2.27 (1.47-3.51)], compared to individuals without sleep disorders (refer to Table 3). Other significant covariates affecting oral health outcomes included smoking, income, and education level. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a compelling association between sleep disorders and adverse oral health outcomes in the U.S.
Subject(s)
Oral Health , Sleep Wake Disorders , Adult , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Nutrition Surveys , Sleep , Pain , Sleep Wake Disorders/complications , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology , Sleep Wake Disorders/psychologyABSTRACT
To provide a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the cumulative incidence (incidence proportion) of human herpesvirus (HHV) reactivation among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE up to 25 September 2022, with no language restrictions. All interventional and observational studies enrolling patients with confirmed COVID-19 and providing data regarding HHV reactivation were included. The random-effects model was used in the meta-analyses. We included information from 32 studies. HHV reactivation was considered a positive polymerase chain reaction result taken at the time of COVID-19 infection. Most of the included patients were severe COVID-19 cases. The pooled cumulative incidence estimate was 38% (95% Confidence Intervals [CI], 28%-50%, I2 = 86%) for herpes simplex virus (HSV), 19% (95% CI, 13%-28%, I2 = 87%) for cytomegalovirus (CMV), 45% (95% CI, 28%-63%, I2 = 96%) for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), 18% (95% CI, 8%-35%) for human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6), 44% (95% CI, 32%-56%) for human herpesvirus 7 (HHV-7), and 19% (95% CI, 14%-26%) for human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8). There was no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry based on visual inspection and Egger's regression test for the results of HSV (p = 0.84), CMV (p = 0.82), and EBV (p = 0.27) reactivation. In conclusion, the identification of HHV reactivation in severe COVID-19 patients is helpful in the management of patients as well as the prevention of complications. Further research is required to elucidate the interaction between HHVs and COVID-19. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022321973.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cytomegalovirus Infections , Epstein-Barr Virus Infections , Herpesviridae Infections , Herpesviridae , Herpesvirus 6, Human , Humans , Herpesviridae Infections/complications , Herpesviridae Infections/epidemiology , Epstein-Barr Virus Infections/complications , Herpesvirus 4, Human/physiology , COVID-19/complications , Simplexvirus , Cytomegalovirus/physiology , Herpesvirus 6, Human/geneticsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs and to address disputes over the existing evidence. METHODS: MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs assessing the efficacy of Ivermectin up to 20 February 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was performed based on the PRISMA 2020 statement criteria. RESULTS: 19 and 17 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. There was no significant difference in progression to severe disease (log OR - 0.27 [95% CI - 0.61 to 0.08], I2 = 42.29%), negative RT-PCR (log OR 0.25 [95% CI - 0.18-0.68], I2 = 58.73%), recovery (log OR 0.11 [95% CI - 0.22-0.45], I2 = 13.84%), duration of hospitalization (SMD - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.85-0.06], I2 = 88.90%), time to negative RT-PCR (SMD - 0.36 [95% CI - 0.89-0.17], I2 = 46.2%), and viral load (SMD -0.17 [95% CI -0.45 to 0.12], I^2 = 0%). It is worth noting that, based on low-certainty evidence, ivermectin may possibly reduce mortality (log OR - 0.67 [95% CI - 1.20 to - 0.13], I2 = 28.96%). However, studies with a higher risk of bias were more likely to indicate positive effects on the efficacy of this drug, according to our subgroup analyses based on study quality. CONCLUSION: Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients and as WHO recommends, use of ivermectin should be limited to clinical trials.
