Researcher:
Özlüşen, Batu

Profile Picture
ORCID

Job Title

Undergraduate Student

First Name

Batu

Last Name

Özlüşen

Name

Name Variants

Özlüşen, Batu

Email Address

Birth Date

Filters

2021 - 20232

Advanced Search

Filter by

Settings

Researcher Of Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.4113a0d4-0fc6-4e32-b2b7-b22be362b44e

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Placeholder
    PublicationMetadata only
    Metabolically healthy obesity: misleading phrase or healthy phenotype?
    (Elsevier B.V., 2023) Gaipov, Abduzhappar; Kuwabara, Masanari; Hornum, Mads; Van Raalte, Daniel H.; Tanrıöver, Cem; Çöpür, Sidar; Özlüşen, Batu; Akcan, Rüştü Emre; Kanbay, Mehmet; Undergraduate Student; Researcher; Undergraduate Student; Undergraduate Student; Faculty Member; School of Medicine; School of Medicine; School of Medicine; School of Medicine; School of Medicine; N/A; 368625; N/A; N/A; 110580
    Obesity is a heterogenous condition with multiple different phenotypes. Among these a particular subtype exists named as metabolically healthy obesity (MHO). MHO has multiple definitions and its prevalence varies according to study. The potential mechanisms underlying the pathophysiology of MHO include the different types of adipose tissue and their distribution, the role of hormones, inflammation, diet, the intestinal microbiota and genetic factors. In contrast to the negative metabolic profile associated with metabolically unhealthy obesity (MUO), MHO has relatively favorable metabolic characteristics. Nevertheless, MHO is still associated with many important chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease as well as certain types of cancer and has the risk of progression into the unhealthy phenotype. Therefore, it should not be considered as a benign condition. The major therapeutic alternatives include dietary modifications, exercise, bariatric surgery and certain medications including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogs, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and tirzepatide. In this review, we discuss the significance of MHO while comparing this phenotype with MUO.
  • Placeholder
    PublicationMetadata only
    Effectiveness of favipiravir in COVID-19: a live systematic review
    (Springer, 2021) N/A; N/A; N/A; N/A; N/A; N/A; N/A; N/A; Department of Industrial Engineering; N/A; Özlüşen, Batu; Kozan, Şima; Akcan, Rüştü Emre; Kalender, Mekselina; Yaprak, Doğukan; Peltek, İbrahim Batuhan; Keske, Şiran; Gönen, Mehmet; Ergönül, Önder; Undergraduate Student; PhD Student; Undergraduate Student; Undergraduate Student; Undergraduate Student; Undergraduate Student; Faculty Member; Faculty Member; Faculty Member; Department of Industrial Engineering; Koç Üniversitesi İş Bankası Enfeksiyon Hastalıkları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi (EHAM) / Koç University İşbank Center for Infectious Diseases (KU-IS CID); School of Medicine; School of Medicine; School of Medicine; School of Medicine; School of Medicine; School of Medicine; School of Medicine; College of Engineering; School of Medicine; N/A; N/A; N/A; N/A; N/A; N/A; 125555; 237468; 110398
    We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for the effectiveness of Favipiravir on the fatality and the requirement of mechanical ventilation for the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. We searched available literature and reported it by using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Until June 1, 2021, we searched PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar by using the keywords "Favipiravir" and terms synonymous with COVID-19. Studies for Favipiravir treatment compared to standard of care among moderate and severe COVID-19 patients were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and ROBINS-I assessment tool for non-randomized studies. We defined the outcome measures as fatality and requirement for mechanical ventilation. A total of 2702 studies were identified and 12 clinical trials with 1636 patients were analyzed. Nine out of 12 studies were randomized controlled trials. Among the randomized studies, one study has low risk of bias, six studies have moderate risk of bias, and 2 studies have high risk of bias. Observational studies were identified as having moderate risk of bias and non-randomized study was found to have serious risk of bias. Our meta-analysis did not reveal any significant difference between the intervention and the comparator on fatality rate (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.64-1.94) and mechanical ventilation requirement (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13-1.95). There is no significant difference in fatality rate and mechanical ventilation requirement between Favipiravir treatment and the standard of care in moderate and severe COVID-19 patients.