Search

The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials. In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300–400 μg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome. Trial registration: ISRCTN86534580. The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [−1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months. Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted. UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To critically appraise and evaluate the diagnostic value of symptoms and signs in identifying UTI in older adult outpatients, using evidence from observational studies.Methods: We searched Medline and Medline in process, Embase and Web of Science, from inception up to September 2017. We included studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms and/or signs in predicting UTI in outpatients aged 65 years and above. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.Results: We identified 15 eligible studies of variable quality, with a total of 12,039 participants (range 65-4259), and assessed the diagnostic accuracy of 66 different symptoms and signs in predicting UTI. A number of symptoms and signs typically associated with UTI, such as nocturia, urgency and abnormal vital signs, were of limited use in older adult outpatients. Inability to perform a number of acts of daily living were predictors of UTI: For example, disability in feeding oneself, + ve LR: 11.8 (95% CI 5.51-25.2) and disability in washing one's hands and face, + ve LR: 6.84 (95% CI 4.08-11.5).Conclusions: The limited evidence of varying quality shows that a number of symptoms and signs traditionally associated with UTI may have limited diagnostic value in older adult outpatients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertension is one of the most important preventable causes of premature death. Studies have been conducted assessing the impact of pomegranate on blood pressure, with varying results. The aim of this review was to critically appraise and evaluate the effect of pomegranate on blood pressure in adults, using evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We conducted electronic searches in Medline, Embase, Amed, and The Cochrane Library, and included RCTs assessing the effectiveness of pomegranate on blood pressure. We assessed the reporting quality using the Cochrane criteria. We included 8 RCTs comprising 619 participants. The studies varied in their reporting quality, and compared pomegranate juice or capsules with a control. Two studies reported significant reductions in systolic blood pressure favoring pomegranate: p = .002 and p < .001 respectively; 3 studies reported no significant differences between groups; and 3 studies failed to report between-group differences. Two studies reported significant reductions in diastolic blood pressure favoring pomegranate: p = .038, p < .001, respectively; 4 studies reported no significant between-group differences; and 2 studies did not report between group differences. No adverse events were observed. The limited evidence from clinical trials to date fails to convincingly show a beneficial effect of pomegranate on blood pressure. We have identified evidence gaps and highlight areas for future research to be conducted, including performing studies of high quality and longer duration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To critically appraise and evaluate the evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of oil pulling on oro dental hygiene.Methods: We conducted electronic searches in Medline, Embase, Amed, The Cochrane Library and Cinahl databases from inception to February 2015, and assessed reporting quality using the Cochrane risk of bias criteria. We included RCTs that compared oil pulling using conventional cooking oils with a control intervention. Our primary outcomes were measures of oro dental hygiene using validated scales.Results: Electronic searches yielded 26 eligible studies, of which five RCTs comprising a total of 160 participants were included. The studies varied in reporting quality, lasted between 10 and 45 days, and compared oil pulling with chlorhexidine, placebo or routine dental hygiene practice. Three studies reported no significant differences in post intervention plaque index scores between oil pulling and control groups (Chlorhexidine mouthwash +/- Placebo): p=0.28, 0.94, and 0.38, respectively. Two studies reported no significant difference in post-intervention modified gingival index score between oil pulling and Chlorhexidine mouthwash groups (p=0.32 and 0.64).Conclusion: The limited evidence to date from clinical trials suggests that oil pulling may have beneficial effects on oro dental hygiene as seen for the short period of time investigated. Given that this is a potentially cost-effective intervention, this practice might be of particular benefit. Future clinical trials should be more rigorous and better reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]