-
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2022Fever is one of the most common causes of medical evaluation of children, and early discrimination between viral and bacterial infection is essential to reduce... (Review)
Review
Fever is one of the most common causes of medical evaluation of children, and early discrimination between viral and bacterial infection is essential to reduce inappropriate prescriptions. This study aims to systematically review the effects of point-of-care tests (POCTs) and rapid tests for respiratory tract infections on changing antibiotic prescription rate, length of stay, duration of therapy, and healthcare costs. Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. All randomized control trials and non-randomized observational studies meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated using the NIH assessment tool. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effects of rapid influenza diagnostic tests and film-array respiratory panel implementation on selected outcomes. From a total of 6440 studies, 57 were eligible for the review. The analysis was stratified by setting and POCT/rapid test type. The most frequent POCTs or rapid tests implemented were the Rapid Influenza Diagnostic Test and film-array and for those types of test a separate meta-analysis assessed a significant reduction in antibiotic prescription and an improvement in oseltamivir prescription. Implementing POCTs and rapid tests to discriminate between viral and bacterial infections for respiratory pathogens is valuable for improving appropriate antimicrobial prescriptions. However, more studies are needed to assess these findings in pediatric settings.
PubMed: 36139971
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11091192 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018The consequences of influenza in adults are mainly time off work. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally. This is an update of a review published... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The consequences of influenza in adults are mainly time off work. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally. This is an update of a review published in 2014. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated due to their lack of influence on the review conclusions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults, including pregnant women.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 31 December 2016), Embase (1990 to 31 December 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017), as well as checking the bibliographies of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. Previous versions of this review included observational comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms cohort and case-control studies. Due to the uncertain quality of observational (i.e. non-randomised) studies and their lack of influence on the review conclusions, we decided to update only randomised evidence. The searches for observational comparative studies are no longer updated.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence for key outcomes (influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospitalisation, and adverse effects) using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 people assessing the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccines. We have presented findings from 25 studies comparing inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine against placebo or do-nothing control groups as the most relevant to decision-making. The studies were conducted over single influenza seasons in North America, South America, and Europe between 1969 and 2009. We did not consider studies at high risk of bias to influence the results of our outcomes except for hospitalisation.Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.47; 71,221 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and they probably reduce ILI from 21.5% to 18.1% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 25,795 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; 71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza, and 29 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing an ILI). The difference between the two number needed to vaccinate (NNV) values depends on the different incidence of ILI and confirmed influenza among the study populations. Vaccination may lead to a small reduction in the risk of hospitalisation in healthy adults, from 14.7% to 14.1%, but the CI is wide and does not rule out a large benefit (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.08; 11,924 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vaccines may lead to little or no small reduction in days off work (-0.04 days, 95% CI -0.14 days to 0.06; low-certainty evidence). Inactivated vaccines cause an increase in fever from 1.5% to 2.3%.We identified one RCT and one controlled clinical trial assessing the effects of vaccination in pregnant women. The efficacy of inactivated vaccine containing pH1N1 against influenza was 50% (95% CI 14% to 71%) in mothers (NNV 55), and 49% (95% CI 12% to 70%) in infants up to 24 weeks (NNV 56). No data were available on efficacy against seasonal influenza during pregnancy. Evidence from observational studies showed effectiveness of influenza vaccines against ILI in pregnant women to be 24% (95% CI 11% to 36%, NNV 94), and against influenza in newborns from vaccinated women to be 41% (95% CI 6% to 63%, NNV 27).Live aerosol vaccines have an overall effectiveness corresponding to an NNV of 46. The performance of one- or two-dose whole-virion 1968 to 1969 pandemic vaccines was higher (NNV 16) against ILI and (NNV 35) against influenza. There was limited impact on hospitalisations in the 1968 to 1969 pandemic (NNV 94). The administration of both seasonal and 2009 pandemic vaccines during pregnancy had no significant effect on abortion or neonatal death, but this was based on observational data sets.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Healthy adults who receive inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine rather than no vaccine probably experience less influenza, from just over 2% to just under 1% (moderate-certainty evidence). They also probably experience less ILI following vaccination, but the degree of benefit when expressed in absolute terms varied across different settings. Variation in protection against ILI may be due in part to inconsistent symptom classification. Certainty of evidence for the small reductions in hospitalisations and time off work is low. Protection against influenza and ILI in mothers and newborns was smaller than the effects seen in other populations considered in this review.Vaccines increase the risk of a number of adverse events, including a small increase in fever, but rates of nausea and vomiting are uncertain. The protective effect of vaccination in pregnant women and newborns is also very modest. We did not find any evidence of an association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events in the comparative studies considered in this review. Fifteen included RCTs were industry funded (29%).
Topics: Absenteeism; Adult; Drug Industry; Female; Health Status; Hospitalization; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza B virus; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Male; Nausea; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Publication Bias; Research Support as Topic; Vomiting
PubMed: 29388196
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub6 -
Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis May 2022Interest revolving around coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reinfection is escalating rapidly. By definition, reinfection denotes severe acute respiratory syndrome... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Interest revolving around coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reinfection is escalating rapidly. By definition, reinfection denotes severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), PCR redetection, and COVID-19 recurrence within three months of the initial symptoms. The main aim of the current systematic review was to evaluate the features of COVID-19 relapse patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
For this study, we used a string of terms developed by a skilled librarian and through a systematical search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase for eligible studies. Clinical surveys of any type were included from January 2019 to March 2021. Eligible studies consisted of two positive assessments separated by a negative result via RT-PCR.
RESULTS
Fifty-four studies included 207 cases of COVID-19 reinfection. Children were less likely to have COVID-19 relapse. However, the most patients were in the age group of 20-40 years. Asthenia (66.6%), headache (66.6%), and cough (54.7%) were prevalent symptoms in the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Asthenia (62.9%), myalgia (62.9%), and headache (61.1%) were most frequent in the second one. The most common treatment options used in first COVID-19 infection were lopinavir/ritonavir (80%), oxygen support (69.2%), and oseltamivir (66.6). However, for the treatment of second infection, mostly antibiotics (100%), dexamethasone (100%), and remdesivir (80%) were used. In addition, obesity (32.5%), kidney failure (30.7%), and hypertension (30.1%) were the most common comorbidities. Unfortunately, approximately 4.5% of patients died.
CONCLUSION
We found the potency of COVID-19 recurrence as an outstanding issue. This feature should be regarded in the COVID-19 management. Furthermore, the first and second COVID-19 are similar in clinical features. For clinically practical comparison of the symptoms severity between two epochs of infection, uniform data of both are required. We suggest that future studies undertake a homogenous approach to establish the clinical patterns of the reinfection phenomena.
Topics: Adult; Asthenia; COVID-19; Child; Headache; Humans; Reinfection; SARS-CoV-2; Young Adult
PubMed: 35396748
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.24402 -
Infection Prevention in Practice Sep 2020Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which was declared a global pandemic by the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020. The treatment guidelines for COVID-19 vary between countries, yet there is no approved treatment to date.
AIM
To report any evidence of therapeutics used for the management of patients with COVID-19 in clinical practice since emergence of the virus.
METHODS
A systematic review protocol was developed based on the PRISMA statement. Articles for review were selected from Embase, Medline and Google Scholar. Readily accessible peer-reviewed, full articles in English published from 1 December 2019 to 26 March 2020 were included. The search terms included combinations of: COVID, SARS-COV-2, glucocorticoids, convalescent plasma, antiviral and antibacterial. There were no restrictions on the types of study eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
Four hundred and forty-nine articles were identified in the literature search; of these, 41 studies were included in this review. These were clinical trials (=3), case reports (=7), case series (=10), and retrospective (=11) and prospective (=10) observational studies. Thirty-six studies were conducted in China (88%). Corticosteroid treatment was reported most frequently (=25), followed by lopinavir (=21) and oseltamivir (=16).
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first systematic review to date related to medication used to treat patients with COVID-19. Only 41 studies were eligible for inclusion, most of which were conducted in China. Corticosteroid treatment was reported most frequently in the literature.
PubMed: 34316558
DOI: 10.1016/j.infpip.2020.100061 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018The consequences of influenza in children and adults are mainly absenteeism from school and work. However, the risk of complications is greatest in children and people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The consequences of influenza in children and adults are mainly absenteeism from school and work. However, the risk of complications is greatest in children and people over 65 years of age. This is an update of a review published in 2011. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 12), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016), Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy children under 16 years. Previous versions of this review included 19 cohort and 11 case-control studies. We are no longer updating the searches for these study designs but have retained the observational studies for historical purposes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the key outcomes of influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), complications (hospitalisation, ear infection), and adverse events. Due to variation in control group risks for influenza and ILI, absolute effects are reported as the median control group risk, and numbers needed to vaccinate (NNVs) are reported accordingly. For other outcomes aggregate control group risks are used.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 clinical trials (> 200,000 children). Most of the studies were conducted in children over the age of two and compared live attenuated or inactivated vaccines with placebo or no vaccine. Studies were conducted over single influenza seasons in the USA, Western Europe, Russia, and Bangladesh between 1984 and 2013. Restricting analyses to studies at low risk of bias showed that influenza and otitis media were the only outcomes where the impact of bias was negligible. Variability in study design and reporting impeded meta-analysis of harms outcomes.Live attenuated vaccinesCompared with placebo or do nothing, live attenuated influenza vaccines probably reduce the risk of influenza infection in children aged 3 to 16 years from 18% to 4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.41; 7718 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and they may reduce ILI by a smaller degree, from 17% to 12% (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.80; 124,606 children; low-certainty evidence). Seven children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 20 children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one child experiencing an ILI. Acute otitis media is probably similar following vaccine or placebo during seasonal influenza, but this result comes from a single study with particularly high rates of acute otitis media (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence). There was insufficient information available to determine the effect of vaccines on school absenteeism due to very low-certainty evidence from one study. Vaccinating children may lead to fewer parents taking time off work, although the CI includes no effect (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence). Data on the most serious consequences of influenza complications leading to hospitalisation were not available. Data from four studies measuring fever following vaccination varied considerably, from 0.16% to 15% in children who had live vaccines, while in the placebo groups the proportions ranged from 0.71% to 22% (very low-certainty evidence). Data on nausea were not reported.Inactivated vaccinesCompared with placebo or no vaccination, inactivated vaccines reduce the risk of influenza in children aged 2 to 16 years from 30% to 11% (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.48; 1628 children; high-certainty evidence), and they probably reduce ILI from 28% to 20% (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.79; 19,044 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Five children would need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza, and 12 children would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. The risk of otitis media is probably similar between vaccinated children and unvaccinated children (31% versus 27%), although the CI does not exclude a meaningful increase in otitis media following vaccination (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.40; 884 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was insufficient information available to determine the effect of vaccines on school absenteeism due to very low-certainty evidence from one study. We identified no data on parental working time lost, hospitalisation, fever, or nausea.We found limited evidence on secondary cases, requirement for treatment of lower respiratory tract disease, and drug prescriptions. One brand of monovalent pandemic vaccine was associated with a sudden loss of muscle tone triggered by the experience of an intense emotion (cataplexy) and a sleep disorder (narcolepsy) in children. Evidence of serious harms (such as febrile fits) was sparse.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In children aged between 3 and 16 years, live influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza (moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce ILI (low-certainty evidence) over a single influenza season. In this population inactivated vaccines also reduce influenza (high-certainty evidence) and may reduce ILI (low-certainty evidence). For both vaccine types, the absolute reduction in influenza and ILI varied considerably across the study populations, making it difficult to predict how these findings translate to different settings. We found very few randomised controlled trials in children under two years of age. Adverse event data were not well described in the available studies. Standardised approaches to the definition, ascertainment, and reporting of adverse events are needed. Identification of all global cases of potential harms is beyond the scope of this review.
Topics: Adolescent; Case-Control Studies; Child; Child, Preschool; Cohort Studies; Conflict of Interest; Humans; Infant; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Numbers Needed To Treat; Otitis Media; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Support as Topic; Vaccines, Attenuated; Vaccines, Inactivated
PubMed: 29388195
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004879.pub5 -
Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine... Oct 2014To justify the clinical use of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the treatment of influenza. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To justify the clinical use of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the treatment of influenza.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledgeln-frastructure Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Wanfang Database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from the date of inception until January 1, 2013, for the literature on treatment of influenza with TCM.
RESULTS
A total of 7 randomized controlled trials were identified and reviewed. Of these trials, 2 compared a (modified) prescription of TCM with oseltacmivir and 5 compared a patent traditional Chinese drug with oseltamivir. Based on the Meta-analysis, compared to oseltamivir, the (modified) prescription had similar effect in defervescence [WMD = 5.66, 95% CI (- 32.02, 43.35), P = 0.77] and viral sheddingWMD = - 6.21, 95% CI (- 84.19, 71.76), P = 0.88], and the patent traditional Chinese drug also had similar effect in viral shedding [WMD = - 0.24, 95% CI (- 4.79, 4.31), P = 0.92] but more effective in defervescence [WMD = - 4.65, 95%CI (- 8.91, - 0.38),P = 0.03].
CONCLUSION
TCM has potential positive effects in the treatment of influenza.
Topics: Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Influenza, Human; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25417400
DOI: 10.1016/s0254-6272(15)30057-1 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... May 2018Oseltamivir has been used to treat children with influenza for nearly 2 decades, with treatment currently approved for infants aged ≥2 weeks. However, efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oseltamivir has been used to treat children with influenza for nearly 2 decades, with treatment currently approved for infants aged ≥2 weeks. However, efficacy and safety remain controversial. Newer randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs), not included in previous meta-analyses, can add to the evidence base.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs of oseltamivir therapy in children. We obtained individual patient data and examined protocol-defined outcomes. We then conducted a 2-stage, random-effects meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of treatment in reducing the duration of illness, estimated using differences in restricted mean survival time (RMST) by treatment group. We also examined complications and safety.
RESULTS
We identified 5 trials that included 2561 patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and 1598 in the intention-to-treat infected (ITTI) populations. Overall, oseltamivir treatment significantly reduced the duration of illness in the ITTI population (RMST difference, -17.6 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI], -34.7 to -0.62 hours). In trials that enrolled patients without asthma, the difference was larger (-29.9 hours; 95% CI, -53.9 to -5.8 hours). Risk of otitis media was 34% lower in the ITTI population. Vomiting was the only adverse event with a significantly higher risk in the treatment group.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite substantial heterogeneity in pediatric trials, we found that treatment with oseltamivir significantly reduced the duration of illness in those with influenza and lowered the risk of developing otitis media. Alternative endpoints may be required to evaluate the efficacy of oseltamivir in pediatric patients with asthma.
Topics: Adolescent; Antiviral Agents; Child; Humans; Influenza, Human; Oseltamivir; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29186364
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cix1040 -
Systematic Reviews Feb 2020To assess the benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines.
DATA SOURCES
Clinical study reports obtained from the European Medicines Agency and GlaxoSmithKline from 2014 to 2017.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised trials that compared an HPV vaccine with a placebo or active comparator in healthy participants of all ages.
APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS
Two researchers extracted data and judged risk of bias with the Cochrane tool (version 2011). Risk ratio (RR) estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
OUTCOMES
Clinically relevant outcomes in intention to treat populations-including HPV-related cancer precursors irrespective of involved HPV types, treatment procedures and serious and general harms.
RESULTS
Twenty-four of 50 eligible clinical study reports were obtained with 58,412 pages of 22 trials and 2 follow-up studies including 95,670 participants: 79,102 females and 16,568 males age 8-72; 393,194 person-years; and 49 months mean weighted follow-up. We judged all 24 studies to be at high risk of bias. Serious harms were incompletely reported for 72% of participants (68,610/95,670). Nearly all control participants received active comparators (48,289/48,595, 99%). No clinical study report included complete case report forms. At 4 years follow-up, the HPV vaccines reduced HPV-related carcinoma in situ (367 in the HPV vaccine group vs. 490 in the comparator group, RR 0.73 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.53 to 1.00], number needed to vaccinate [NNV] 387, P = 0.05, I = 67%) and HPV-related treatment procedures (1018 vs. 1416, RR 0.71 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.80], NNV 75, P < 0.00001, I = 45%). The HPV vaccines increased serious nervous system disorders (exploratory analysis: 72 vs. 46, RR 1.49 [1.02 to 2.16], number needed to harm [NNH] 1325, P = 0.040, I = 0%) and general harms (13,248 vs. 12,394, RR 1.07 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.11], NNH 51, P = 0.0002, I = 77%) but did not significantly increase fatal harms (45 vs. 38, RR 1.19 [95% CI 0.65 to 2.19], P = 0.58, I = 30%) or serious harms (1404 vs. 1357, RR 1.01 [95% CI 0.94 to 1.08], P = 0.79, I = 0%).
CONCLUSION
At 4 years follow-up, the HPV vaccines decreased HPV-related cancer precursors and treatment procedures but increased serious nervous system disorders (exploratory analysis) and general harms. As the included trials were primarily designed to assess benefits and were not adequately designed to assess harms, the extent to which the HPV vaccines' benefits outweigh their harms is unclear. Limited access to clinical study reports and trial data with case report forms prevented a thorough assessment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
CRD42017056093. Our systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO in January 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20170030.pdf. Two protocol amendments were registered on PROSPERO on November 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20171116.pdf. Our index of the HPV vaccine studies was published in Systematic Reviews in January 2018: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0675-z. A description of the challenges obtaining the data was published in September 2018: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3694.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Alphapapillomavirus; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Young Adult
PubMed: 32106879
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-0983-y -
Frontiers in Medicine 2020The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been declared a public health emergency worldwide. The objective of this systematic review was to characterize the clinical,...
The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been declared a public health emergency worldwide. The objective of this systematic review was to characterize the clinical, diagnostic, and treatment characteristics of hospitalized patients presenting with COVID-19. We conducted a structured search using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science to collect both case reports and case series on COVID-19 published up to April 24, 2020. There were no restrictions regarding publication language. Eighty articles were included analyzing a total of 417 patients with a mean age of 48 years. The most common presenting symptom in patients who tested positive for COVID-19 was fever, reported in up to 62% of patients from 82% of the analyzed studies. Other symptoms including rhinorrhea, dizziness, and chills were less frequently reported. Additionally, in studies that reported C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements, a large majority of patients displayed an elevated CRP (60%). Progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was the most common complication of patients testing positive for COVID-19 (21%). CT images displayed ground-glass opacification (GGO) patterns (80%) as well as bilateral lung involvement (69%). The most commonly used antiviral treatment modalities included, lopinavir (HIV protease inhibitor), arbidiol hydrochloride (influenza fusion inhibitor), and oseltamivir (neuraminidase inhibitor). Development of ARDS may play a role in estimating disease progression and mortality risk. Early detection of elevations in serum CRP, combined with a clinical COVID-19 symptom presentation may be used as a surrogate marker for the presence and severity of the disease. There is a paucity of data surrounding the efficacy of treatments. There is currently not a well-established gold standard therapy for the treatment of diagnosed COVID-19. Further prospective investigations are necessary.
PubMed: 32574328
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00231 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020The emergence of COVID-19 as a pandemic has resulted in the need for urgent development of vaccines and drugs and the conduction of clinical trials to fight the...
The emergence of COVID-19 as a pandemic has resulted in the need for urgent development of vaccines and drugs and the conduction of clinical trials to fight the outbreak. Because of the time constraints associated with the development of vaccines and effective drugs, drug repurposing and other alternative treatment methods have been used to treat patients that have been infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and have acquired COVID-19. The objective of this systematic scoping review is to provide an overview of the molecular mechanism of action of repurposed drugs or alternative treatment medicines used to attenuate COVID-19 disease. The research articles or gray literature, including theses, government reports, and official news online, were identified from four databases and one search engine. The full content of a total of 160 articles that fulfilled our inclusion criteria was analyzed and information about six drugs (ritonavir, lopinavir, oseltamivir, remdesivir, favipiravir, and chloroquine) and four Traditional Chinese Medicines (, TCM combination of and , and ) was extracted. All of the repurposed drugs and complementary medicine that have been used for the treatment of COVID-19 depend on the ability of the drug to inhibit the proliferation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by binding to enzyme active sites, viral chain termination, or triggering of the molecular pathway, whereas Traditional Chinese Medicine plays a pivotal role in triggering the inflammation pathway, such as the neuraminidase blocker, to fight the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
PubMed: 33746739
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.585331