-
Frontiers in Oncology 2022This article is based on recommendations from the 12 WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of...
DISCLAIMER
This article is based on recommendations from the 12 WALT Congress, Nice, October 3-6, 2018, and a follow-up review of the existing data and the clinical observations of an international multidisciplinary panel of clinicians and researchers with expertise in the area of supportive care in cancer and/or PBM clinical application and dosimetry. This article is informational in nature. As with all clinical materials, this paper should be used with a clear understanding that continued research and practice could result in new insights and recommendations. The review reflects the collective opinion and, as such, does not necessarily represent the opinion of any individual author. In no event shall the authors be liable for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the proposed protocols.
OBJECTIVE
This position paper reviews the potential prophylactic and therapeutic effects of photobiomodulation (PBM) on side effects of cancer therapy, including chemotherapy (CT), radiation therapy (RT), and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).
BACKGROUND
There is a considerable body of evidence supporting the efficacy of PBM for preventing oral mucositis (OM) in patients undergoing RT for head and neck cancer (HNC), CT, or HSCT. This could enhance patients' quality of life, adherence to the prescribed cancer therapy, and treatment outcomes while reducing the cost of cancer care.
METHODS
A literature review on PBM effectiveness and dosimetry considerations for managing certain complications of cancer therapy were conducted. A systematic review was conducted when numerous randomized controlled trials were available. Results were presented and discussed at an international consensus meeting at the World Association of photobiomoduLation Therapy (WALT) meeting in 2018 that included world expert oncologists, radiation oncologists, oral oncologists, and oral medicine professionals, physicists, engineers, and oncology researchers. The potential mechanism of action of PBM and evidence of PBM efficacy through reported outcomes for individual indications were assessed.
RESULTS
There is a large body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of PBM for preventing OM in certain cancer patient populations, as recently outlined by the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). Building on these, the WALT group outlines evidence and prescribed PBM treatment parameters for prophylactic and therapeutic use in supportive care for radiodermatitis, dysphagia, xerostomia, dysgeusia, trismus, mucosal and bone necrosis, lymphedema, hand-foot syndrome, alopecia, oral and dermatologic chronic graft-versus-host disease, voice/speech alterations, peripheral neuropathy, and late fibrosis amongst cancer survivors.
CONCLUSIONS
There is robust evidence for using PBM to prevent and treat a broad range of complications in cancer care. Specific clinical practice guidelines or evidence-based expert consensus recommendations are provided. These recommendations are aimed at improving the clinical utilization of PBM therapy in supportive cancer care and promoting research in this field. It is anticipated these guidelines will be revised periodically.
PubMed: 36110957
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.927685 -
Cureus Aug 2021Intranasal form of esketamine, the S-enantiomer of racemic ketamine, was approved by the US FDA in 2019 for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in adults. Since... (Review)
Review
Intranasal form of esketamine, the S-enantiomer of racemic ketamine, was approved by the US FDA in 2019 for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in adults. Since intranasal esketamine is a newly approved drug with a novel mechanism of action, much still remains unknown in regard to its use in TRD. The objective of this study is to systematically review the latest existing evidence on intranasal esketamine, and provide a better insight into its safety and efficacy in TRD in adults. PubMed, MEDLINE (through PubMed), and Google Scholar were systematically searched from 2016 to 2021, using automation tools. After removal of duplicates and screening on the basis of title/abstract, eligibility criteria were applied and quality appraisal was done independently by two reviewers. A total of 10 studies were selected for the final review which included five clinical trials (three short-term trials, one withdrawal design relapse prevention study, and one long-term study), three post hoc studies, one case/non-case study, and one review article. Out of three short-term clinical trials, only one demonstrated a statistically significant difference between treatment with esketamine plus oral antidepressant (OAD) vs placebo plus OAD. The result of the relapse prevention study showed significantly delayed relapse of depressive symptoms in esketamine plus OAD arm when compared to placebo plus OAD arm. Similarly, the result of the long-term clinical trial showed that the improvement in depressive symptoms was found to be sustained in those using esketamine. The most common adverse effects of esketamine included nausea, dizziness, dissociation, headache, vertigo, somnolence, and dysgeusia (altered sense of taste); most were mild-moderate in severity. One case/non-case study reported rare adverse effects including panic attacks, mania, ataxia, akathisia, self-harm ideation, increased loquacity (talkativeness), and autoscopy. Intranasal esketamine has shown efficacy in reducing depressive symptoms in clinical trials, but the clinical meaningfulness of the treatment effect in the real-world population still needs to be explored. Although the safety profile of esketamine appears to be favorable in most clinical trials, some serious side effects are being reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, and therefore requires further investigation. More robust clinical trials, especially long-term randomized controlled trials are needed which can help provide a better assessment on the efficacy and safety of intranasal esketamine in the treatment of TRD.
PubMed: 34447651
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.17352 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022. This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.
MAIN RESULTS
As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID-19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers. We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high-risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence, and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance. Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient. The outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID-19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID-19 and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF.
Topics: Aged; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inducers; Humans; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36126225
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015395.pub2 -
Cancer Cell International Sep 2023In recent years, several bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) have been introduced that revolutionized the treatment approach for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). In the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In recent years, several bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) have been introduced that revolutionized the treatment approach for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). In the present study, we sought for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of evaluating the safety and efficacy of BsAbs in MM patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases were systematically searched on June 10, 2022. Two steps of title/abstract and full-text screening were performed for selecting the relevant articles. The primary endpoint was considered to evaluate the safety of BsAbs by examining the rate of hematologic and non-hematologic adverse effects (AEs). The secondary outcome was set at the efficacy of BsAbs through pooling objective response rate (ORR), (stringent) complete response (sCR/CR), very good partial response (VGPR), and partial response (PR).
RESULTS
Eleven publications with a total of nine evaluable BsAbs were included for qualitative and quantitative data synthesis. Hematologic AEs were more common among patients than non-hematologic events, with the most frequent events being anemia (41.4%), neutropenia (36.4%), and thrombocytopenia (26.3%). The most common non-hematological AE was infection, which occurred in 39.9% of patients, followed by dysgeusia (28.3%), fatigue (26.5%), and diarrhea (25.8%). Besides, 8.1% of patients experienced immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome and neurotoxicity occurred in 5.1% of them. Moreover, 59.8% of patients experienced cytokine release syndrome. The pooled rate of deaths attributable to BsAbs was estimated at 0.1%. In terms of efficacy measures, the ORR was achieved in 62.6% of MM patients, and the pooled rates of sCR/CR, VGPR, and PR were 22.7%, 23.0%, and 12.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
In an era with several emerging promising treatments for MM, BsAbs have achieved a high ORR and tolerable AEs in heavily pretreated patients. However, there is still room for developing BsAbs with a lower rate of AEs and capable of bypassing tumor evasion mechanisms.
PubMed: 37670301
DOI: 10.1186/s12935-023-03045-y -
Wellcome Open Research 2020This systematic review had three aims: i) to determine the frequency of anosmia (or other smell disorders) and dysgeusia (or other taste disorders) in COVID-19...
This systematic review had three aims: i) to determine the frequency of anosmia (or other smell disorders) and dysgeusia (or other taste disorders) in COVID-19 patients; ii) to determine whether anosmia or dysgeusia are independently associated with COVID-19 diagnosis; and iii) to determine whether anosmia or dysgeusia are prognostic factors for impaired outcomes among COVID-19 patients. On April 20 , 2020, we search MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science and MedXriv. We used terms related to COVID-19, smell and taste disorders. We selected case series, cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies. We included studies with COVID-19 patients describing their symptoms; studies that compared smell and taste disorders between COVID-19 patients and otherwise healthy subjects; and studies comparing smell and taste disorders between COVID-19 severe and mild/moderate cases. Because of methodological heterogeneity and the limited number of results, a qualitative synthesis is presented. From 31 reports, we selected six (n=2,757). Six studies reported the proportion of smell and taste disorders among COVID-19 patients. Two reports studied whether smell and taste disorders were independently associated with COVID-19 diagnosis. No reports studied the association with impaired outcomes among COVID-19 patients. The frequency of anosmia ranged between 22%-68%. The definition of taste disorders varied greatly, with dysgeusia present in 33% and ageusia in 20%. People who reported loss of smell and taste had six-fold higher odds of being COVID-19 positive; similarly, anosmia and ageusia were associated with 10-fold higher odds of COVID-19 diagnosis. The frequency of smell and taste disorders is as high as other symptoms, thus, at least anosmia for which the definition was more consistent, could be included in lists of COVID-19 symptoms. Although there is promising evidence, it is premature to conclude that smell and taste disorders are strongly associated with COVID-19 diagnosis. PROSPERO CRD42020181308.
PubMed: 32587902
DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15917.1 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Lung cancer (LC) is highly prevalent worldwide, with elevated mortality. In this population, taste and smell alterations (TSAs) are frequent but overlooked symptoms. The...
INTRODUCTION
Lung cancer (LC) is highly prevalent worldwide, with elevated mortality. In this population, taste and smell alterations (TSAs) are frequent but overlooked symptoms. The absence of effective therapeutic strategies and evidence-based guidelines constrain TSAs' early recognition, prevention and treatment (Tx), promoting cancer-related malnutrition and jeopardizing survival outcomes and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the literature on TSAs in LC patients, understand the physiopathology, identify potential preventive and Tx strategies and to further encourage research in this area.
METHODS
Literature search on English language articles indexed to PubMed, CINALH, SCOPUS and Web of Science using MeSH terms "Lung neoplasms","Dysgeusia", "Olfaction Disorders", "Carcinoma, Small Cell","Carcinoma, Non- Small-Cell Lung "Adenocarcinoma of Lung","Carcinoma, Large Cell", and non-MeSH terms "Parageusia", "Altered Taste", "Smell Disorder", "Paraosmia", "Dysosmia","Lung Cancer" and "Oat Cell Carcinoma".
RESULTS
Thirty-four articles were reviewed. TSAs may follow the diagnosis of LC or develop during cancer Tx. The estimated prevalence of self-reported dysgeusia is 35-38% in treatment-naïve LC patients, and 35-69% in those undergoing Tx, based on studies involving LC patients only.One prospective pilot trial and 1 RCT demonstrated a clinically significant benefit in combining flavor enhancement, smell and taste training and individualized nutritional counselling; a systematic review, 1 RCT and 1 retrospective study favored using intravenous or oral zinc-based solutions (150mg 2-3 times a day) for the prevention and Tx of chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT) -induced mucositis and subsequent dysgeusia.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first review on dysgeusia and dysosmia in LC patients to our knowledge. We propose combining taste and smell training, personalized dietary counselling and flavor enhancement with oral zinc-based solutions (150mg, 2-3 times a day) during CT and/or RT in this population, in order to prevent and help ameliorate Tx-induced dysgeusia and mucositis. However due to study heterogeneity, the results should be interpreted with caution. Developing standardized TSA measurement tools and performing prospective randomized controlled trials to evaluate their effect are warranted.
PubMed: 34881185
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.774081 -
International Journal of Preventive... 2021Evidence showed that partial or complete loss of smell and taste might be a possible primary symptom of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). This study aimed to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence showed that partial or complete loss of smell and taste might be a possible primary symptom of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). This study aimed to systematically review and pool all available evidence on the olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
In this systematic review, a comprehensive search was carried out systematically through e-databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS); that was limited to English-language studies published from 2019 up to 6 May 2020. Afterward, all studies reported the taste and smell dysfunction in the COVID-19 patients were included. The quality of the studies was assessed by the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The pooled prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction was estimated using the random effects meta-analysis method.
RESULTS
Among 28 eligible included studies in this systematic review, finally, 22 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. According to the random effect meta-analysis, the global pooled prevalence (95% confidence interval) of any olfactory dysfunction, anosmia, and hyposmia was 55% (40%-70%), 40% (22%-57%), and 40% (20%-61%) respectively. The pooled estimated prevalence of any gustatory dysfunction, ageusia, and dysgeusia was 41% (23%-59%), 31% (3%-59%), and 34% (19%-48%) respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Olfactory and gustatory dysfunction is prevalent among COVID-19 patients. Therefore, olfactory and gustatory dysfunction seems to be part of important symptoms and notify for the diagnosis of COVID-19, especially in the early phase of the infection.
PubMed: 35070203
DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_484_20 -
World Journal of Clinical Cases Aug 2023It is common for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection to occur in the gastrointestinal tract, which can present itself as an initial...
BACKGROUND
It is common for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection to occur in the gastrointestinal tract, which can present itself as an initial symptom. The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is often reflected in the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms. COVID-19 can damage the nerve supply to the digestive system, leading to gastrointestinal autonomic dysfunction. There is still much to learn about how COVID-19 affects the autonomic nervous system and the gastrointestinal tract.
AIM
To thoroughly explore the epidemiology and clinical aspects of COVID-19-induced gastrointestinal autonomic dysfunction, including its manifestations, potential mechanisms, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, impact on quality of life, prognosis, and management and prevention strategies.
METHODS
We conducted a thorough systematic search across various databases and performed an extensive literature review. Our review encompassed 113 studies published in English from January 2000 to April 18, 2023.
RESULTS
According to most of the literature, gastrointestinal autonomic dysfunction can seriously affect a patient's quality of life and ultimate prognosis. Numerous factors can influence gastrointestinal autonomic nervous functions. Studies have shown that SARS-CoV-2 has a well-documented affinity for both neural and gastrointestinal tissues, and the virus can produce various gastrointestinal symptoms by reaching neural tissues through different pathways. These symptoms include anorexia, dysgeusia, heartburn, belching, chest pain, regurgitation, vomiting, epigastric burn, diarrhea, abdominal pain, bloating, irregular bowel movements, and constipation. Diarrhea is the most prevalent symptom, followed by anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Although COVID-19 vaccination may rarely induce autonomic dysfunction and gastrointestinal symptoms, COVID-19-induced autonomic effects significantly impact the patient's condition, general health, prognosis, and quality of life. Early diagnosis and proper recognition are crucial for improving outcomes. It is important to consider the differential diagnosis, as these symptoms may be induced by diseases other than COVID-19-induced autonomic dysfunction. Treating this dysfunction can be a challenging task.
CONCLUSION
To ensure the best possible outcomes for COVID-19 patients, it is essential to take a multidisciplinary approach involving providing supportive care, treating the underlying infection, managing dysfunction, monitoring for complications, and offering nutritional support. Close monitoring of the patient's condition is crucial, and prompt intervention should be taken if necessary. Furthermore, conducting thorough research on the gastrointestinal autonomic dysfunction caused by COVID-19 is vital to manage it effectively.
PubMed: 37621592
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i22.5252 -
Systematic Reviews Apr 2021Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in assessing the quality of health care from a patient perspective and are increasingly used by otologists.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in assessing the quality of health care from a patient perspective and are increasingly used by otologists. However, selecting the right questionnaire has proven to be a difficult and time-consuming task. To facilitate this process, we will provide a comprehensive overview of existing questionnaires.
METHODS
A systematic literature search has been conducted on August 26, 2019, using the EMBASE and PubMed medical databases. 13,345 unique records were extracted. Questionnaires addressing any otologic complaint (tinnitus, hearing loss, earache, otorrhoea, and ear-related pressure sensation, vertigo, itch, or dysgeusia) were identified. All questionnaires were evaluated for eligibility by two independent researchers. Inclusion criteria were adult population, closed-ended questions, English language of the questionnaire, and the availability of the original article describing the development of the instrument or a validation paper describing the validation process written in English.
OBJECTIVE
Create a comprehensive overview of all validated closed-ended otology questionnaires for adults and demonstrate their basic characteristics.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
The number of questionnaires in English literature for the adult population, subdivided per symptom and target population.
RESULTS
A total of 155 unique questionnaires were selected: 33 tinnitus questionnaires, 23 vertigo questionnaires, 84 hearing loss questionnaires, and 15 multiple complaint questionnaires. A protocol for further questionnaire comparison is presented.
DISCUSSION
Two separate sequential searches were needed to identify unique questionnaires and to identify their development/validation paper. Although many ear diseases create multiple symptoms, the majority of the questionnaires were symptom specific.
CONCLUSION
Many questionnaires concerning ear-related symptoms exist and predominantly concern hearing loss, vertigo, or tinnitus. Only a few questionnaires cover the multiple complaints that ear diseases can create. The presented overview is the most comprehensive overview of otology questionnaires in literature to date. It will serve as a basis for questionnaire selection by professionals and could serve as a protocol for questionnaire selection in other fields.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017058155.
Topics: Adult; Hearing Loss; Humans; Otolaryngology; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Surveys and Questionnaires; Tinnitus
PubMed: 33879248
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01659-9 -
Medicine Dec 2021SARS-CoV-2 is the virus responsible for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) disease, which has been shown to trigger multiple affectations. One of the first tissue areas...
BACKGROUND
SARS-CoV-2 is the virus responsible for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) disease, which has been shown to trigger multiple affectations. One of the first tissue areas to come into contact with the virus is the oral cavity, which develops various alterations. Hence, the objective of this systematic review was to identify the main signs and symptoms of this disease in the oral cavity, and the following research question was established: What are the main oral signs and symptoms in COVID-19-positive persons?
METHODS
The electronic databases of PUBMED, SCOPUS, and SCIENCE DIRECT were analyzed, the keywords "ORAL DISEASES," "ORAL MANIFESTACTIONS," and "COVID-19" were used taking into account the following inclusion criteria: studies whose main objective was oral manifestations secondary to the confirmation of COVID-19, plus clinical cases, case series, and retrospective or prospective studies. For the assessment of the risk of bias the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series tool was used.
RESULTS
A total of 18 studies were included, the most common initial signs/symptoms after contagion of SARS-CoV-2 were dysgeusia, dry mouth, and burning mouth, and the main signs/symptoms were the presence of ulcerative lesions, dysgeusia, and Candida albicans infections.
CONCLUSIONS
It is very important to detect any alteration in the mucosa in patients with COVID-19 and to provide assertive treatment to avoid complications, and try to maintain adequate oral hygiene throughout the course of the disease to avoid the colonization of opportunistic microorganisms and to avoid complications both orally and systemically.
Topics: COVID-19; Candidiasis, Oral; Dysgeusia; Humans; Mouth; Mouth Diseases; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34941133
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028327