Role of antihypertensive medicines in prostate cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is associated with the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) and its progression, however, it remains unclear whether antihypertensive medicines alter PCa risk or prognosis. This systematic review evaluated the role of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in the risk and prognosis of PCa. This review was performed in line with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. METHODS: Eligible studies comprised peer-reviewed observational studies which reported the role of CCBs and RAS inhibitors in PCa, had accessible full texts, and were written in English. Using a combination of keywords, 5 electronic bibliographic databases which included Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus were searched. RESULTS: A total of 1,346 studies were retrieved and 18 met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies reported reduced or no associated risk, improved prognosis, and survival with the use of RAS inhibitors. Studies on CCBs showed evidence of associated risk of PCa. Data extraction from retrieved studies focused on included study characteristics, setting, authors, year, outcomes of interest, and risk ratios. The quality assessment of included studies by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute study assessment tools, showed that all studies had good quality. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RAS inhibitors was mostly associated with lower risks or improved prognosis of PCa. CCBs may also be associated with risks of PCa. This suggests that high-risk patients managed with CCBs should be actively monitored for PCa. However, there is need for further evidence from large-scale prospective, controlled cohort studies to determine any influence of CCBs on PCa.

The Prognostic Utility of Anticholinergic Burden Scales: An Integrative Review and Gap Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic drugs are commonly prescribed, especially to older adults. Anticholinergic burden scales (ABS) have been used to evaluate the cumulative effects of multiple anticholinergics. However, studies have shown inconsistent results regarding the association between anticholinergic burden assessed with ABS and adverse clinical outcomes such as cognitive impairment, functional decline, and frailty. This review aims to identify gaps in research on the development, validation, and evaluation of ABS, and provide recommendations for future studies. METHOD: A comprehensive search of five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, CENTRAL) was conducted for relevant studies published from inception until 25 May 2023. Two reviewers screened for eligibility and assessed the quality of studies using different tools based on the study design and stage of the review framework. Research evidence was evaluated, and gaps were identified and grouped into evidence, knowledge, and methodological gaps, using evidence tables to summarize data. RESULTS: Several evidence, knowledge, and methodological gaps in existing development, validation, and evaluation studies of ABS were identified. There is no universally accepted scale, and there is a need to define a clinically relevant threshold for measuring total anticholinergic burden. The current evidence has limitations, underrepresenting low- and middle-income countries, younger individuals, and populations with cognitive disabilities. The impact of anticholinergic burden on frailty is also understudied. Existing evaluation studies provide limited evidence on the benefit of reducing anticholinergic burden on clinical outcomes or the safety of anticholinergic deprescribing. There is also uncertainty regarding optimal reduction, clinically significant anticholinergic burden thresholds, and cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Future research recommendations to bridge knowledge gaps include developing a risk assessment framework, refining ABS scales, establishing a standardized consensus scale, and creating a longitudinal measure of cumulative anticholinergic risk. Strategies to minimize bias, consider frailty, and promote multidisciplinary and multinational collaborations are also necessary to improve patient outcomes.

Risk Perception and Acceptability of the COVID-19 Vaccine in Nigeria.

Objectives: Vaccines are anticipated to control the ongoing coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, however, their acceptance is critical for the desired benefit. This study assessed risk perceptions of COVID-19, acceptability of its vaccine and socio-demographic associations of its acceptability in Nigeria. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional web-based study was conducted among 420 participants in Nigeria's six geopolitical regions, using a three-part questionnaire. The questionnaire link was distributed via snowball method to consenting participants through online platforms. Study outcome measures were acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine, and risk perception of COVID-19 by study participants. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS version 24. p values ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 410 respondents participated in the study and high-risk perception of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection (COVID-19) was seen in 127 (66.1%) respondents. Vaccine acceptance was high in 233 (56.8%) respondents and was significantly associated with geo-political region (p=0.028). A moderate positive relationship (r: 0.3) was found between risk perception and acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine and the correlation was statistically significant (p=0.000). Conclusion: High-risk perception of COVID-19 was found in over half of the respondents, and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate was a little more than 50%. However, the study noted regional association with vaccine acceptance among study participants. Therefore, strategic and targeted messaging on vaccine acceptance should be prioritized by stakeholders, to ensure successful vaccine implementation.

COVID-19-associated liver injury, role of drug therapy and management: a review.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is known to affect several body organs, including the liver. This results from several factors such as direct effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the liver, side effects of drug therapy and pre-existing liver diseases. Drug-induced liver injury can result from a range of drugs used in the treatment of COVID-19 such as antiviral drugs, anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, herbal medications and vaccines. Metabolism of most drugs occurs in the liver, and this leaves the liver at risk of medication-induced liver damage. Being among pathologies from the disease, COVID-19 liver injury presents with abnormally high liver-related enzymes, such as aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphate (ALP), and gamma-glutamyl transferase. It is reversible, generally not severe and occurs more mildly in children. However, COVID-19-associated liver injury is worsened by chronic liver diseases and vice versa. There is a high risk of abnormal ALT and AST, in-hospital liver injury and prolonged SARS-CoV-2 shedding in COVID-19 patients with previously existing metabolic-associated fatty liver disease. COVID-19-associated liver injury also appears to be severe and significantly associated with life-threatening COVID-19 and mortality in persons with a history of liver transplant. Where necessary, only supportive management is usually indicated. This paper evaluates the aetiology, clinical and laboratory features, occurrence and management of COVID-19-associated liver injury. It also elaborated on the role of drug therapy in the development of COVID-19 liver injury.