India is coming to grips with a stage of nutrition transition. According to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), preventable micronutrient deficiency is arising public health precedence in India. However, the foremost public health concern is the lack of national prevalence data. The present study was carried out to estimate the pooled age-wise prevalence of six preventable micronutrient deficiencies (vitamin A, vitamin B₁₂, vitamin D, iron, iodine and folic acid) in India. A systematic review was carried out on PubMed and Global Index Medicus databases using the Boolean search strategy. Statistical analyses were done using R software, version 3.6. 2. PRISMA guidelines were strictly adhered to during the review. A preliminary literature search yielded 4302 articles; however, 270 original research articles were found eligible to be included in quantitative synthesis. The estimated overall prevalence was 17 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0⋅07, 0⋅26] for iodine deficiency, 37 % (95 % CI 0⋅27, 0⋅46) for folic acid deficiency, 54 % (95 % CI 0⋅49, 0⋅59) for iron deficiency, 53 % (95 % CI 0⋅41, 0⋅64) for vitamin B₁₂deficiency, 19 % (95 % CI 0⋅09, 0⋅29) for vitamin A deficiency and 61 % (95 % CI 0⋅07, 0⋅26) for vitamin D with high heterogeneity. We classified the population into infants (0–5 years), adolescents (18 years) and pregnant women. Iron deficiency was most prevalent (61 %) in pregnant women. The results of the present study reinforce the data on micronutrient deficiency in India and warrant the immediate need for further active public health interventions to address these deficiencies. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020205043).

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have uncommon associations with cardiotoxicity, yet these cardiotoxic effects are associated with high mortality. An accurate assessment of risk for cardiotoxicity is essential for clinical decision‐making, but data from randomized controlled trials often differ from real‐world observational studies. Methods and Results: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus was performed, including phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs) reporting myocarditis or pericardial disease, myocardial infarction, or stroke with an immunotherapy. Odds ratios (ORs) were used to pool results between ICIs and other cancer therapy in RCTs and OSs. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guideline was followed. In total, 54 RCTs (N=38 264) and 24 OSs (N=12 561 455) were included. In RCTs, ICI use resulted in higher risk of myocarditis (OR, 3.55 [95% CI, 2.10–5.98]), pericardial disease (OR, 2.73 [95% CI, 1.57–4.77]), and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.03–3.25]), compared with non‐ICI (placebo or chemotherapy). In OSs, ICI use was not associated with myocarditis, pericardial disease, or myocardial infarction compared with controls; however, combination ICIs demonstrated higher risk of myocarditis compared with single ICI use (OR, 3.07 [95% CI, 1.28–7.39]). Stroke risk was not increased with use of ICIs in RCTs. Conclusions: We demonstrated increased risk of ICI myocarditis, pericardial disease, and myocardial infarction in RCTs but not OSs. Results of this study suggest there are differences between ICI cardiotoxicity risk, possibly suggesting differences in diagnoses and management, in clinical trials versus the OSs.

Background: Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been concerns related to the preparedness of healthcare workers (HCWs). This study aimed to describe the level of awareness and preparedness of hospital HCWs at the time of the first wave. Methods: This multinational, multicenter, cross-sectional survey was conducted among hospital HCWs from February to May 2020. We used a hierarchical logistic regression multivariate analysis to adjust the influence of variables based on awareness and preparedness. We then used association rule mining to identify relationships between HCW confidence in handling suspected COVID-19 patients and prior COVID-19 case-management training. Results: We surveyed 24,653 HCWs from 371 hospitals across 57 countries and received 17,302 responses from 70.2% HCWs overall. The median COVID-19 preparedness score was 11.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 6.0–14.0) and the median awareness score was 29.6 (IQR = 26.6–32.6). HCWs at COVID-19 designated facilities with previous outbreak experience, or HCWs who were trained for dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, had significantly higher levels of preparedness and awareness (p<0.001). Association rule mining suggests that nurses and doctors who had a ’great-extent-of-confidence’ in handling suspected COVID-19 patients had participated in COVID-19 training courses. Male participants (mean difference = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.22, 0.46; p<0.001) and nurses (mean difference = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.53, 0.81; p<0.001) had higher preparedness scores compared to women participants and doctors. Interpretation: There was an unsurprising high level of awareness and preparedness among HCWs who participated in COVID-19 training courses. However, disparity existed along the lines of gender and type of HCW. It is unknown whether the difference in COVID-19 preparedness that we detected early in the pandemic may have translated into disproportionate SARS-CoV-2 burden of disease by gender or HCW type.

Korean Circulation Journal 대한심장학회지 순환기 Sharma A, et al. Korean Circ J. 2021 Sep;51:e109. https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2021.0100