Global trends of monkeypox-related articles: A bibliometric analysis over the last five decades (1964 - July 14, 2022)

BACKGROUND

The first human monkeypox (MPX) case was identified in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 1970 with an outbreak in 2010 and the first human MPX case in the UK in 2022. In this study, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of the literature on monkeypox based on the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) to identify relevant topics and trends in monkeypox research.

METHODS

We searched the Web of Science from 1964 until July 14, 2022, for all publications using the keywords "Monkeypox" and "Monkeypox virus." Results were compared using numerous bibliometric methodologies and stratified by journal, author, year, institution, and country-specific metrics.

RESULTS

Out of 1170 publications initially selected, 1163 entered our analysis, with 65.26 % (n = 759) being original research articles and 9.37 % (n = 109) being review articles. Most MPX publications were in 2010, with 6.02 % (n = 70), followed by 2009 and 2022 at 5.67 % (n = 66) each. The USA was the country with the highest number of publications, with n = 662 (56.92 %) of total publications, followed by Germany with n = 82 (7.05 %), the UK with n = 74 (6.36 %), and Congo with n = 65 (5.59 %). Journal of Virology published the highest number of MPX publications, followed by Virology Journal and Emerging Infectious Diseases with n = 52 (9.25 %), n = 43 (7.65 %), and n = 32 (5.69 %) publications, respectively. The top contributing institutions were the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis provides an objective and robust overview of the current literature on MPX and its global trends; this information could serve as a reference guide for those aiming to conduct further MPX-related research and as a source for those seeking information about MPX.

The Effect of Nitazoxanide on the Clinical Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Nitazoxanide, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved antiparasitic agent, was reported to be effective in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The lack of effective and precise treatments for COVID-19 infection earlier in the pandemic forced us to depend on symptomatic, empirical, and supportive therapy, which overburdened intensive care units and exhausted hospital resources. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was  to assess the efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide for COVID-19 treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing relevant randomized controlled trials from six databases (MedRxiv, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, PubMed, and CENTRAL) until 17 May 2022 was conducted. Risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes was used and data with a 95% confidence interval (CI) are presented. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022334658.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials with 1412 patients were included in the analysis. Nitazoxanide was effective in accelerating viral clearance compared with placebo (RR: 1.30 with 95% CI 1.08, 1.56, p = 0.006) and reducing oxygen requirements (RR: 0.48 with 95% CI 0.39, 0.59, p = 0.00001), but we found no difference between nitazoxanide and placebo in improving clinical resolution (RR: 1.01 with 95% CI 0.94, 1.08, p = 0.88), reducing the mortality rate (RR: 0.88 with 95% CI 0.4, 1.91, p = 0.74), and intensive care unit admission (RR: 0.69 with 95% CI 0.43, 1.13, p = 0.14). Moreover, nitazoxanide was as safe as placebo (RR: 0.9 with 95% CI 0.72, 1.12, p = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, nitazoxanide was effective in expediting viral clearance and decreasing oxygen requirements. However, there was no difference between nitazoxanide and placebo regarding clinical response, all-cause mortality, and intensive care unit admission. Therefore, more large-scale studies are still needed to ascertain the clinical applicability of nitazoxanide in COVID-19.

Human monkeypox disease (MPX)

Monkeypox is a rare viral infection, endemic in many central and western African countries. The last international outbreak of monkeypox reported outside Africa occurred back in 2003. However, monkeypox has reemerged at a global scale with numerous confirmed cases across the globe in 2022. The rapid spread of cases through different countries has raised serious concerns among public health officials worldwide prompting accelerated investigations aimed to identify the origins and cause of the rapid expansion of cases. The current situation is reminiscent of the very early stages of the still ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Overlapping features between these, two seemingly alike viral entities include the possibility for airborne transmission and the currently unexplained and rapid spread across borders. Early recognition of cases and timely intervention of potential transmission chains are necessary to contain further outbreaks. Measures should include rapid and accurate diagnosis of cases meeting case definitions, active surveillance efforts, and appropriate containment of confirmed cases. Governments and health policymakers must apply lessons learned from previous outbreaks and start taking active steps toward limiting the recent global spread of monkeypox. Herein, we discuss the status of the current monkeypox outbreaks worldwide, the epidemiological and public health situation at a global scale and what can be done to keep at bay its further expansion and future global implications.

Immunotherapy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

e21092

Background: There is an emerging role of immunotherapy plus chemotherapy (ICC) in the front-line setting for the treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) with reported improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). In this review, we highlighted the efficacy and safety of combination regimens as a first-line therapy for NSCLC. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was done on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, WOS, and Scopus until Dec-2021. The outcomes included progression free survival (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). The inverse variance method was used to generate hazard ratios (HR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for the OS and PFS. Meanwhile, Mantle-Hazard variance was used to create risk ratios for TRAEs. Results: The total eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 6,386 patients (pts) were included. 3,850 pts received ICC while 2536 pts received chemotherapy., Four studies each used atezolizumab and pembrolizumab while one study each used nivolumab, tislelizumab, and camrelizumab. The ICC group showed a significant improvement in both PFS (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.54-0.66; p = < 0.00001) and OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.87; p = < 0.0001). Atezolizumab combinations have better PFS and OS compared to the other combinations; HR 0.65 (0.59-0.71) and 0.82 (0.74-0.90), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the ICC and control groups regarding TRAEs (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.99-1.16; p = 0.09). Further subgroup analysis is mentioned in the table. Conclusions: The ICC seems to be a promising front-line therapy for NSCLC with superior PFS and OS compared to chemotherapy alone and without significant increase in TRAES. [Table: see text]