Diagnostic value of the neutrophil lymphocyte ratio in discrimination between tuberculosis and bacterial community acquired pneumonia: A meta-analysis.

Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, to evaluate current literature on diagnostic value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in discrimination between tuberculosis (TB) and bacterial community acquired pneumonia (B-CAP). Methods: Literature search was conducted from July 20, 2023 using Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. STATA software (version 12.0; Stata Corporation) was used for all analyses. Results: We found that patients with TB had significantly lower levels of NLR compared to those with B-CAP (SMD = -1.09, 95 %CI = -1.78- -0.40, P = 0.002). In the quality subgroup analysis, we found that patients with TB had significantly lower level of NLR compared to those with B-CAP consistent in moderate (SMD = -0.86, 95 %CI = -2.30, 0.57, P = 0.23) and high-quality studies (SMD = -1.25, 95 %CI = -2.07, -0.42). In the subgroup analysis based on continent, we found that patients with TB had significantly lower level of NLR compared to those with B-CAP in studies performed in Asian populations (SMD = -1.37, 95 %CI = -2.13, -0.61, P < 0.001), but not on African population (SMD = -0.02, 95 %CI = -1.06, 1.02, P = 0.97). The result of this study did not change after execution of sensitivity analysis. The pooled sensitivity of NLR was 0.86 (95% CI = 0.80, 0.91), and the pooled specificity was0.88 (95% CI = 0.69, 0.95). Conclusion: Patients with TB had a significantly lower NLR levels compared to those with B-CAP, so we utilized this biomarker for distinguishing between the disorders.

Systematic review of the diagnostic role of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in sarcoidosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To outline the observations of studies evaluating the prominence of Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) in sarcoidosis. METHODS: The search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, and web of science up until November 21, 2021. Eventually, a number of 17 papers were incorporated into this review. RESULTS: The results of this analysis showed no significant difference of NLR values between sarcoidosis patients and tuberculosis patients (SMD=-0.36, 95% CI= -0.92-0.21). The results showed high heterogeneity (I2=90.83%, p<0.001). So, we used random-effects model. However, NLR can be utilized to identify the radiological severity and staging of pulmonary sarcoidosis due to statistically significant variations. An elevation in NLR values may assist both sarcoidosis diagnosis and lung parenchyma involvement. Also, extra-pulmonary involvement was just more probable to be found in individuals diagnosed with sarcoidosis inhibiting high rates of NLR. High NLR levels were found to be associated with an accelerated rate of progression, revealing that NLR might be used to detect Pulmonary Hypertension (PH) as a complication of sarcoidosis. CONCLUSIONS: In the visualizations of the disease, NLR was revealed to be a beneficial and straightforward fundamental laboratory biomarker connected to disease severity and requirement for therapy.

Comparison of therapeutic response between asthma, COPD, and ACOS patients by evaluation of spirometric findings.

Asthma and Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD ) both are a common public health problem that affects a large portion of population. Nearly 20% of patients with obstructive lung disease have features of both asthma and COPD called ACOS that GOLD_GINA guidelines defines as persistent airflow limitation with several features of asthma and several features of COPD. Yet there is a little data available about diagnosis and treatment of this entity and current study aimed to compare therapeutic response between asthma, COPD and Asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) subjects through spirometric data. In the present cross-sectional study, 30 known patients with mild to moderate asthma, 30 known patients with mild to moderate COPD and 30 known patients with mild to moderate ACOS according to GOLD_GINA guidelines were enrolled. We assessed post bronchodilator the ratio of the forced expiratory volume in the first one second to the forced vital capacity of the lungs (fev1) and the forced expiratory volume in the first one second to the forced vital capacity of the lungs (fev1/fvc) in all patients. Then they took standard treatment for 2 months and after this period spirometry was repeated. Spirometric data's changes was compared between the three groups by SPSS26 statistical software. Fev1 changes in response to treatment did not differ significantly between three groups (p > 0.05) but fev1/fvc changes differed significantly and this parameter in asthma was more than ACOS and in COPD was least. (In asthma, spirometric symbolized therapeutic response is more significant than ACOS, and in ACOS, it is more important than COPD in terms of fev1/fvc changes) and there was not any difference between the three groups regarding to FEV1 changes.

Comparison of losartan and amlodipine effects on the outcomes of patient with COVID-19 and primary hypertension: A randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the drug selection in hypertension (HTN) management in patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to compare the effects of losartan and amlodipine in patients with primary HTN and COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised clinical trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and primary HTN were enrolled in the study. One arm received losartan, 25 mg, twice a day and the other arm received amlodipine, 5 mg per day for 2 weeks. The main outcomes were compare 30-day mortality rate and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The mean age of patients treated with losartan (N = 41) and amlodipine (N = 39) was 67.3 ± 14.8 and 60.1 ± 17.3 years, respectively (P value = .068). The length of hospital stay in losartan and amlodipine groups was 4.57 ± 2.59 and 7.30 ± 8.70 days, respectively (P value = .085). Also, the length of ICU admission in losartan and amlodipine group was 7.13 ± 5.99 and 7.15 ± 9.95 days, respectively (P value = .994). The 30-day mortality was two and five patients in losartan and amlodipine groups, respectively (P value = .241). CONCLUSIONS: There was no priority in losartan or amlodipine administration in COVID-19 patients with primary HTN in decreasing mortality rate, hospital and ICU length stay. Further studies need to clarify the first-line anti-HTN medications in COVID-19.