International Journal of Preventive Medicine
Volume:14 Issue: 9, Sep 2023

Most patients with diabetes will present to hospital for a reason not directly related to their diabetes. When a person with diabetes is not cared for properly, hospitalization can become complicated and lead to worse consequences for the patient. In fact, it is important to know how to manage a diabetic patient while in hospital. Therefore, a special organization is needed in hospitals for adaptation to chronic diseases such as diabetes. This study intends to help hospital adaptation to the special needs of diabetic patients by identifying patterns of care delivery in selected countries. This comparative study was performed in 2021. The data collection was conducted by searching in PubMed, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Science Direct, Springer, Proquest, and also the websites of the selected countries hospitals. Based on the sampling method, three countries, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States, were selected from the countries with eligibility. However, during the study, according to the good practices about special diabetic care of countries such as Australia and Denmark, they were also examined. In this review study, we organized and compared the effective measures taken in selected countries in relation to the management of these patients in the hospital, focusing on the dimensions of service package, human resource, process, structure, equipment/technology, and information system required by diabetic patients.

To determine the pooled prevalence of cancer in subjects with multiple sclerosis (MS) who received Natalizumab.

Two researchers systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, google scholar, and gray literature including references of the included studies. The search strategy which was used in PubMed was (“Disseminated Sclerosis” OR “multiple sclerosis” OR “MS” OR “Acute Fulminating”) AND (“Cancer” OR “Neoplasia*” OR “Neoplasm*” OR “Tumor*” OR “Malignancy” OR “Benign Neoplasm” OR “Malignant neoplasm”) AND (“Tysabri” OR “Antegren” OR “natalizumab” OR “Modifying Therapy”).

We found 1,993 articles by literature search, and 1,573 studies remained after removing duplicate studies. For metaanalysis, we used the extracted data of eight studies. The pooled prevalence of cancer in patients who received Natalizumab was 2% (95%CI: 1–3%; I 2: 99.4%, P < 0.001). The pooled prevalence of basal cell carcinoma in patients with cancer was 12% (95%CI: 5–20%; I2 :50.3%, P = 0.13).

The main finding of this systematic review and metaanalysis is that the pooled prevalence of cancer in subjects who suffer from MS and received natalizumab was 2%.

Antiemetic medications have been associated with the prevention of nausea and vomiting in cesarean section, although less is known about the comparative efficacy of different medication classes.

We conducted a systematic review with network meta‑analyses to compare and rank antiemetic medication classes (5‑HT3 receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, anticholinergic agents, sedatives, and opioid antagonists or partial agonists) in terms of preventing intra‑ and postoperative nausea and vomiting among patients undergoing cesarean section. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any antiemetic medication classes’ treatment for target outcomes. Network meta‑analysis was conducted with a frequentist approach using the R netmeta package. A total of 58 trials were included (6,665 women undergoing cesarean section; mean age, 28.1 years).

Compared with placebo, all interventions reduced the odds of intraoperative nausea (except antihistamines), intraoperative vomiting (except antihistamines), postoperative nausea (except anticholinergic agents and opioid antagonists), and postoperative vomiting (except opioid antagonists). In terms of intraoperative nausea and both intra‑ and postoperative vomiting, sedatives ranked first among other medication classes.

The relative effect sizes for various classes of antiemetic medication in preventing nausea and vomiting in the cesarean section were modeled using the principles of network meta‑analysis which may facilitate informed clinical decision‑making.

This study aimed to see whether the adiponectin 45T/G (rs2241766) and visfatin 4689G/T (rs2110385) gene polymorphisms in an Iranian population are linked to obesity and/ or obesity‑related traits in normal and obese individuals.

230 obese individuals and 169 healthy controls had their genomic DNA taken. The alleles and genotypes of the rs2241766 and rs2110385 polymorphisms were determined using the polymerase chain reaction‑restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) technique.

Obese individuals had considerably greater frequencies of the G allele and GG genotypes of the rs2241766 polymorphism than healthy controls (35% vs 21%, Probability (P) <0.0001, odds ratios (OR): 1.99, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.45–2.75 and 21% vs 7%, P = 0.002, OR: 3.52, 95% CI: 1.81–6.85, respectively). In comparison to healthy controls, obesity patients had substantially lower frequencies of the T allele and TT genotype of the rs2241766 polymorphism (65% vs 79%, P < 0.0001, OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.36–0.69 and 51% vs 65%, P = 0.008, OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.39–0.87, respectively). Obese individuals had substantially higher frequencies of the G allele and GG genotype in the rs2110385 polymorphism than healthy controls (77% vs 69%, P = 0.01, OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.07– 2.0 and 61% versus 51%, P = 0.047, OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.0–2.2, respectively). When compared to healthy controls, the frequency of the T allele in the rs2110385 polymorphism was considerably lower in obese individuals (23% vs 31%, P = 0.01, OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.5–0.93). Furthermore, these single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were shown to have a strong link to clinical data in obese individuals. In the case of adiponectin, 45T/G (rs2241766) genotypes, serum low‑density lipoprotein, waist circumference, and diastolic blood pressure were substantially different among the rs2241766 genotypes (P = 0.007, P = 0.000, and P = 0.011, respectively). In the instance of the visfatin 4689G/T (rs2110385) gene polymorphism, serum triglycerides was substantially different among the rs2110385 genotypes (P = 0.039).

In the Iranian population, our findings revealed a strong link between adiponectin and visfatin gene polymorphisms and obesity and several obesity‑related clinical characteristics. These SNPs might be used to identify those who are at risk of becoming obese.

Failure mode and effect analysis (FEMA) approach as one of the preventive risk management strategies to identify and prevent errors in the medication process in nursing care in the 10 intensive wards in two large hospitals in Khorramabad.

This study is applied descriptive research, which is conducted as a mixed‑method quantitative‑qualitative approach using focus group discussion.

The average risk priority number (RPN) score for the intensive care unit (ICU) in this study was 20.97. The highest RPN scores were associated with the SICU (Surgical ICU) and EICU (Emergency ICU) wards with RPN of 24.66 and 22.71, respectively. Among the steps of the medication process, the first step “physician order” had the highest score (RPN = 26.08).

The intensive wards, which had high RPN scores are exposed to more risk of the drug medication process like EICU and SICU; also, simple acts such as handwriting readable by a physician can considerably reduce risk in the ICU.

In a recent correspondence, the authors pointed that the COVID‑19 pandemic has caused an austere impact on the health and wellbeing, especially of the homeless children and youths.[1] Indeed, the global health crisis has exposed significant gaps in public health that societies must vigorously resolve. It is crucial to consider the social determinants of health to initiate meaningful change in public health. This letter supports the call to address gaps in public health systems, particularly regarding mental health care in developing countries.

Dear Editor, COVID‑19 is still a global emergency with no effective treatment.[1] Vaccination is the best option for managing the spread of this disease.[2] COVID‑19 vaccination is now universally acknowledged as an effective primary COVID‑19 preventive strategy. Traditionally, two vaccine doses are necessary for full vaccination. After complete vaccination, immunity levels may diminish, necessitating the use of self‑protective behavior. When there is a new developing variant and a potential decline in antibodies after completion of routine immunization, several experts recommend using an additional booster dose of the COVID‑19 vaccine.[3,4] In general, vaccine effectiveness against COVID‑19 infection wanes significantly 5‑8 months after completion of immunization, which is why COVID‑19 vaccine booster injections are required.