Objective Hepatitis D virus (HDV) is a defective virus that completes its life cycle only with hepatitis B virus (HBV). The HBV with HDV super-infection has been considered as one of the most severe forms of the chronic viral hepatitis. However, there is a scarcity of data on the global burden of HDV infection. Design We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and China Knowledge Resource Integrated databases from 1 January 1977 to 31 December 2016. We included studies with a minimum sample size of 50 patients. Our study analysed data from a total of 40 million individuals to estimate the prevalence of HDV by using Der-Simonian Laird random-effects model. The data were further categorised according to risk factors. Results From a total of 2717 initially identified studies, only 182 articles from 61 countries and regions met the final inclusion criteria. The overall prevalence of HDV was 0.98% (95% CI 0.61 to 1.42). In HBsAg-positive population, HDV pooled prevalence was 14.57% (95% CI 12.93 to 16.27): Seroprevalence was 10.58% (95% CI 9.14 to 12.11) in mixed population without risk factors of intravenous drug use (IVDU) and high-risk sexual behaviour (HRSB). It was 37.57% (95% CI 29.30 to 46.20) in the IVDU population and 17.01% (95% CI 10.69 to 24.34) in HRSB population. Conclusion We found that approximately 10.58% HBsAg carriers (without IVDU and HRSB) were coinfected with HDV, which is twofold of what has been estimated before. We also noted a substantially higher HDV prevalence in the IVDU and HRSB population. Our study highlights the need for increased focus on the routine HDV screening and rigorous implementation of HBV vaccine programme.

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has become a global health crisis since its first appearance in Wuhan, China. Current epidemiological studies suggest that COVID-19 affects older patients with multiple comorbidities, such as hypertension, obesity, and chronic lung diseases. The differences in the incidence and severity of COVID-19 are likely to be multifaceted, depending on various biological, social, and economical factors. Specifically, the socioeconomic differences and psychological impact of COVID-19 affecting males and females are essential in pandemic mitigation and preparedness. Previous clinical studies have shown that females are less susceptible to acquire viral infections and reduced cytokine production. Female patients have a higher macrophage and neutrophil activity as well as antibody production and response. Furthermore, in-vivo studies of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) showed higher expression in the kidneys of male than female patients, which may explain the differences in susceptibility and progression of COVID-19 between male and female patients. However, it remains unknown whether the expression of ACE2 differs in the lungs of male or female patients. Disparities in healthcare access and socioeconomic status between ethnic groups may influence COVID-19 rates. Ethnic groups often have higher levels of medical comorbidities and lower socioeconomic status, which may increase their risk of contracting COVID-19 through weak cell-mediated immunity. In this article, we examine the current literature on the gender and racial differences among COVID-19 patients and further examine the possible biological mechanisms underlying these differences.

The growing popularity of medical and recreational consumption of cannabis, especially among the youth, raises immediate concerns regarding its safety and long-terms effects. The cardiovascular effects of cannabis are not well known. Cannabis consumption has been shown to cause arrhythmia including ventricular tachycardia, and potentially sudden death, and to increase the risk of myocardial infarction (MI). These effects appear to be compounded by cigarette smoking and precipitated by excessive physical activity, especially during the first few hours of consumption. Cannabinoids, or the active compounds of cannabis, have been shown to have heterogeneous effects on central and peripheral circulation. Acute cannabis consumption has been shown to cause an increase in blood pressure, specifically systolic blood pressure (SBP), and orthostatic hypotension. Cannabis use has been reported to increase risk of ischemic stroke, particularly in the healthy young patients. The endocannabinoid system (ECS) is currently considered as a promising therapeutic target in the management of several disease conditions. Synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) are being increasingly investigated for their therapeutic effects; however, the value of their benefits over possible complications remains controversial. Despite the considerable research in this field, the benefits of cannabis and its synthetic derivatives remains questionable even in the face of an increasingly tolerating attitude towards recreational consumption and promotion of the therapeutic complications. More efforts are needed to increase awareness among the public, especially youth, about the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis use and to disseminate the accumulated knowledge regarding its ill effects.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus−2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been recently identified as the culprit of the highly infectious, outbreak named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China. Now declared a public health emergency, this pandemic is present in more than 200 countries with over 14 million cases and 600,000 deaths as of July 18, 2020. Primarily transmitted through the respiratory tract, the most common clinical presentations of symptomatic individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 include fever, dyspnea, cough, fatigue, and sore throat. In advanced cases, patients may rapidly develop respiratory failure with acute respiratory distress syndrome, and even progress to death. While it is known that COVID-19 manifests similarly to the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and the 2012 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), primarily affecting the pulmonary system, the impact of the disease extends far beyond the respiratory system and affects other organs of the body. The literature regarding the extrapulmonary manifestations (cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, gastrointestinal, ocular, dermatologic, and neurological) of COVID-19 is scant. Herein, we provide a comprehensive review of the organ-specific clinical manifestations of COVID-19, to increase awareness about the various organs affected by SARS-CoV-2 and to provide a brief insight into the similarities and differences in the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 and the earlier SARS and MERS.

Sepsis is a heterogeneous disease and identification of its subclasses may facilitate and optimize clinical management. This study aimed to identify subclasses of sepsis and its responses to different amounts of fluid resuscitation. This was a retrospective study conducted in an intensive care unit at a large tertiary care hospital. The patients fulfilling the diagnostic criteria of sepsis from June 1, 2001 to October 31, 2012 were included. Clinical and laboratory variables were used to perform the latent profile analysis (LPA). A multivariable logistic regression model was used to explore the independent association of fluid input and mortality outcome. In total, 14,993 patients were included in the study. The LPA identified four subclasses of sepsis: profile 1 was characterized by the lowest mortality rate and having the largest proportion and was considered the baseline type; profile 2 was characterized by respiratory dysfunction; profile 3 was characterized by multiple organ dysfunction (kidney, coagulation, liver, and shock), and profile 4 was characterized by neurological dysfunction. Profile 3 showed the highest mortality rate (45.4%), followed by profile 4 (27.4%), 2 (18.2%), and 1 (16.9%). Overall, the amount of fluid needed for resuscitation was the largest on day 1 (median 5115 mL, interquartile range (IQR) 2662 to 8800 mL) and decreased rapidly on day 2 (median 2140 mL, IQR 900 to 3872 mL). Higher cumulative fluid input in the first 48 h was associated with reduced risk of hospital mortality for profile 3 (odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.95 for each 1000 mL increase in fluid input) and with increased risk of death for profile 4 (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.30). The study identified four subphenotypes of sepsis, which showed different mortality outcomes and responses to fluid resuscitation. Prospective trials are needed to validate our findings.