The association between the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII) and breast cancer risk has been widely reported in recent years, but there is still controversy about whether a pro-inflammatory diet is a risk factor for breast cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the relationship between the DII and breast cancer risk in pre-menopausal and post-menopausal women. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library in January 2021 to identify articles reporting an association between the DII and breast cancer risk. A pooled analysis was conducted with 14 studies covering 312,885 participants. Overall, women in the most pro-inflammatory diet category were at greater risk for breast cancer than those in the most anti-inflammatory category (relative risk [RR]=1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.60, P<0.001). This association was strong in both pre-menopausal women (RR=1.87, 95% CI 1.17-2.99, P=0.001) and post-menopausal women (RR=1.23, 95% CI 1.08-1.40, P<0.001). Thus, a strong and independent association was observed between a pro-inflammatory diet (assessed using the DII score) and breast cancer risk, irrespective of menopausal status. Further studies will be required to determine the relationship between a pro-inflammatory diet and different subtypes of breast cancer.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the possible difference in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load between asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 patients. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed in abstracting data and assessing validity. We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for all investigations in the English language, reporting data on the threshold cycle (Ct) from real-time RT-PCR assays for the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), envelope (E) and nucleocapsid (N) SARS-CoV-2 genes in asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 patients. Results: Overall, 703 COVID-19 patients (553 symptomatic and 150 asymptomatic) were analyzed. Five investigations reported the mean age of patients, evidencing that asymptomatic patients were younger than symptomatic patients (34.0 vs. 40.3 years, respectively). Pooled data regarding the levels of expression of the RdRp gene revealed no significant difference between symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects. Similarly, no differences were observed comparing the mean Ct values for the E and N genes. Based on real-time RT-PCR data, no differences exist in the viral load between symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 subjects considering Ct values for RdRp, E and N genes' expression. Asymptomatic subjects may represent a reservoir of the infection and significantly contribute to the maintenance of the pandemic.

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection has been predominantly linked to respiratory distress syndrome, but gastrointestinal symptoms and hepatic injury have also been reported. The mechanism of liver injury is poorly understood and may result as a consequence of viral hepatitis, systemic inflammatory response, gut barrier and microbiome alterations, intensive care treatment or drug toxicity. The incidence of hepatopathy among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear, but studies have reported liver injury in patients with SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). We aimed to systematically review data on the prevalence of hepatic impairments and their clinical course in SARS and MERS Coronaviridae infections. A systematic literature search (PubMed/Embase/Cinahl/Web of Science) according to preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA) was conducted from database inception until 17/03/2020 for studies that evaluated the incidence of hepatic abnormalities in SARS CoV-1, SARS CoV-2 and MERS infected patients with reported liver-related parameters. A total of forty-three studies were included. Liver anomalies were predominantly mild to moderately elevated transaminases, hypoalbuminemia and prolongation of prothrombin time. Histopathology varied between non-specific inflammation, mild steatosis, congestion and massive necrosis. More studies to elucidate the mechanism and importance of liver injury on the clinical course and prognosis in patients with novel SARS-CoV-2 infection are warranted.

Research and development (R&D) costs factor into considerations of the tradeoffs between prices, intellectual property protection, and incentivizing innovation, all of which can have implications for policy development. Yet, there is little consensus on the actual cost of R&D for new drugs. We review and synthesize papers estimating drug R&D costs incurred by industry. We find a substantial range of per-drug costs, from $113 million to just over $6 billion in 2018 dollars. This range includes estimates covering all new drugs, new molecular entities, and drugs in specific therapeutic classes. The range is narrower-$318 million to $2.8 billion-for estimates of the per-drug cost for new molecular entities. We discuss the data sources, methods, and assumptions used in each study to provide context for the wide range in existing estimates. Differences in definitions, methods, and assumptions lead to large divergences in the main estimates, and the combination of fragmented data sources and different assumptions across studies means that the resulting estimates that can rarely be directly compared. We suggest areas for future research and data collection that would result in more comparable and robust estimates to inform ongoing policy discussion.

This study aimed to develop generic quality nursing care indicators for a low- and middle-income country's quality nursing care measurement through a modified Delphi consensus.

Non-Pharmaceutical Public Health Interventions (NPHIs) have been used by different countries to control the spread of the COVID-19. Despite available evidence regarding the effectiveness of NPHSs, there is still no consensus about how policymakers can trust these results. Studies on the effectiveness of NPHSs are single studies conducted in specific communities. Therefore, they cannot individually prove if these interventions have been effective in reducing the spread of the infection and its adverse health outcomes. In this systematic review, we aimed to examine the effects of NPHIs on the COVID-19 case growth rate, death growth rate, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and reproduction number in countries, where NPHIs have been implemented. We searched relevant electronic databases, including Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, etc. from late December 2019 to February 1, 2021. The key terms were primarily drawn from Medical Subject Heading (MeSh and Emtree), literature review, and opinions of experts. Peer-reviewed quasi-experimental studies were included in the review. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020186855. Interventions were NPHIs categorized as lockdown, stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and other interventions (mask-wearing, contact tracing, and school closure). We used PRISMA 2020 guidance for abstracting the data and used Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Practice (EPOC) Risk of Bias Tool for quality appraisal of the studies. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model was performed. Main outcomes included COVID-19 case growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 mortality growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 ICU admission (percentage daily changes), and COVID-19 reproduction number changes. Our search strategies in major databases yielded 12,523 results, which decreased to 7,540 articles after eliminating duplicates. Finally, 35 articles qualified to be included in the systematic review among which 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Although studies were from both low-income and high-income countries, the majority of them were from the United States (13 studies) and China (five studies). Results of the meta-analysis showed that adoption of NPHIs has resulted in a 4.68% (95% CI, -6.94 to -2.78) decrease in daily case growth rates, 4.8% (95 CI, -8.34 to -1.40) decrease in daily death growth rates, 1.90 (95% CI, -2.23 to -1.58) decrease in the COVID-19 reproduction number, and 16.5% (95% CI, -19.68 to -13.32) decrease in COVID-19 daily ICU admission. A few studies showed that, early enforcement of lockdown, when the incidence rate is not high, contributed to a shorter duration of lockdown and a lower increase of the case growth rate in the post-lockdown era. The majority of NPHIs had positive effects on restraining the COVID-19 spread. With the problems that remain regarding universal access to vaccines and their effectiveness and considering the drastic impact of the nationwide lockdown and other harsh restrictions on the economy and people's life, such interventions should be mitigated by adopting other NPHIs such as mass mask-wearing, patient/suspected case isolation strategies, and contact tracing. Studies need to address the impact of NPHIs on the population's other health problems than COVID-19.

The emergence of COVID-19 in 2019 has resulted in a significant global health crisis. Consequently, extensive research was published to understand and mitigate the disease. In particular, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been considered the benchmark for assessing the efficacy and safety of interventions. Hence, the present study strives to present a comprehensive overview of the global research landscape pertaining to RCTs and COVID-19. A bibliometric analysis was performed using the Scopus database. The search parameters included articles published from 2020 to 2022 using keywords specifically related to COVID-19 and RCTs. The data were analyzed using various bibliometric indicators. The volume of publications, contributions of countries and institutions, funding agencies, active journals, citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis, and future research direction analysis were specifically analyzed. A total of 223,480 research articles concerning COVID-19 were published, with 3,727 of them related to RCTs and COVID-19. The ten most productive countries collectively produced 75.8% of the documents, with the United States leading the way by contributing 31.77%, followed by the UK with 14.03% (n = 523), China with 12.96% (n = 483) and Canada with 7.16% (n = 267). Trials (n = 173, 4.64%), BMJ Open (n = 81, 2.17%), PLOS One (n = 73, 1.96%) and JAMA Network Open (n = 53, 1.42%) were the most active journals in publishing articles related to COVID-19 RCTs. The co-occurrence analysis identified four clusters of research areas: the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, mental health strategies to cope with the impact of the pandemic, the use of monoclonal antibodies to treat patients with COVID-19, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19 research. This paper offers a detailed examination of the global research environment pertaining to RCTs and their use in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The comprehensive body of research findings was found to have been generated by the collaborative efforts of multiple countries, institutions, and funding organizations. The predominant research areas encompassed COVID-19 vaccines, strategies for mental health, monoclonal antibodies, and systematic reviews. This information has the potential to aid researchers, policymakers, and funders in discerning areas of weakness and establishing areas of priority.