-
Emerging Infectious Diseases Jul 2020A high prevalence rate of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) has been reported in Asia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A high prevalence rate of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) has been reported in Asia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of macrolide resistance on the manifestations and clinical judgment during M. pneumoniae infections. We found no difference in clinical severity between MRMP and macrolide-sensitive Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MSMP) infections. However, in the pooled data, patients infected with MRMP had a longer febrile period (1.71 days), length of hospital stay (1.61 day), antibiotic drug courses (2.93 days), and defervescence time after macrolide treatment (2.04 days) compared with patients infected with MSMP. The risk of fever lasting for >48 hours after macrolide treatment was also significantly increased (OR 21.24), and an increased proportion of patients was changed to second-line treatment (OR 4.42). Our findings indicate diagnostic and therapeutic challenges after the emergence of MRMP. More precise diagnostic tools and clearly defined treatment should be appraised in the future.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Asia; Child; Community-Acquired Infections; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Macrolides; Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Pneumonia, Mycoplasma
PubMed: 32568052
DOI: 10.3201/eid2607.200017 -
JAMA Network Open Jul 2022The proportion of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) infections has changed, and it differs according to geographical region. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The proportion of macrolide-resistant Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MRMP) infections has changed, and it differs according to geographical region.
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the global patterns, including the temporal trends, regional variations, and variant types, in the proportion of MRMP infections in this systematic review and meta-anaysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for observational studies from inception to September 10, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational studies reporting the proportion of MRMP infections were screened independently by 2 authors. The presence of MRMP infection was defined as any case of M pneumoniae infection positive for any variants associated with macrolide resistance identified using respiratory samples.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by 2 reviewers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was used. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate the proportion of MRMP infections.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The global patterns in the proportion of MRMP infections were estimated, and the temporal trends and variant types of MRMP infection with regional differences were investigated.
RESULTS
This study included 153 studies from 150 articles (27 408 samples in 26 countries) in the meta-analysis. The global patterns in the proportion of MRMP infections showed an increasing trend with regional differences. The proportion of MRMP infections was highest in the Western Pacific regions (53.4%; 95% CI, 47.4%-60.3%), followed by the South East Asian region (9.8%; 95% CI, 0.8%-100%), the region of the Americas (8.4%; 95% CI, 6.1%-11.6%), and the European region (5.1%; 95% CI, 3.3%-8.0%). The most commonly identified variant of MRMP infection was A2063G (96.8%; 95% CI, 95.8%-97.7%), followed by A2064G (4.8%; 95% CI, 3.5%-6.7%). The proportion of MRMP infections was the highest in studies including only children (37.0%; 95% CI, 29.8%-46.1%), followed by those including only adults (15.9%; 95% CI, 6.4%-39.7%) and those including both children and adults (16.7%; 95% CI, 10.1%-27.6%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study provides global trends in the proportion of MRMP infections and suggests that strategies to prevent the spread of MRMP infection and to treat MRMP infections are needed to decrease disease burden.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Macrolides; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Pneumonia, Mycoplasma; United States
PubMed: 35816304
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.20949 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2022One of the public health issues faced worldwide is antibiotic resistance (AR). During the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, AR has increased. Since some studies... (Review)
Review
One of the public health issues faced worldwide is antibiotic resistance (AR). During the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, AR has increased. Since some studies have stated AR has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and others have stated otherwise, this study aimed to explore this impact. Seven databases-PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL-were searched using related keywords to identify studies relevant to AR during COVID-19 published from December 2019 to May 2022, according to PRISMA guidelines. Twenty-three studies were included in this review, and the evidence showed that AR has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The most commonly reported resistant Gram-negative bacteria was , followed by , , and . and were highly resistant to tested antibiotics compared with and . Moreover, showed high resistance to colistin. Commonly reported Gram-positive bacteria were and . The resistance of to ampicillin, erythromycin, and Ciprofloxacin was high. Self-antibiotic medication, empirical antibiotic administration, and antibiotics prescribed by general practitioners were the risk factors of high levels of AR during COVID-19. Antibiotics' prescription should be strictly implemented, relying on the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) and guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) or Ministry of Health (MOH).
Topics: Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ciprofloxacin; Colistin; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Erythromycin; Escherichia coli; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Pandemics; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36231256
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191911931 -
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Aug 2023Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, bilateral corneal and conjunctival problem which typically presents in young individuals. VKC is characterized by... (Review)
Review
Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, bilateral corneal and conjunctival problem which typically presents in young individuals. VKC is characterized by itching, photophobia, white mucous discharge, lacrimation, foreign body sensation, and pain due to corneal involvement of shield ulcers. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis is categorized within ocular diseases. The diagnosis is clinical, as no sure biomarkers pathognomonic of the disease have yet been identified. The VKC therapy relies on different types of drugs, from antihistamines and topical steroids to cyclosporine or tacrolimus eye drops. In extremely rare cases, there is also the need for surgical treatment for the debridement of ulcers, as well as for advanced glaucoma and cataracts, caused by excessive prolonged use of steroid eye drops. We performed a systematic review of the literature, according to PRISMA guideline recommendations. We searched the PubMed database from January 2016 to June 2023. Search terms were Vernal, Vernal keratoconjunctivitis, and VKC. We initially identified 211 articles. After the screening process, 168 studies were eligible according to our criteria and were included in the review. In this study, we performed a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive overview of currently available diagnostic methods, management of VKC, and its treatments.
Topics: Humans; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Ulcer; Cyclosporine; Tacrolimus; Ophthalmic Solutions
PubMed: 37658939
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-023-08970-4 -
Gut Microbes 2021Antibiotics in childhood have been linked with diseases including asthma, juvenile arthritis, type 1 diabetes, Crohn's disease and mental illness. The underlying... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Antibiotics in childhood have been linked with diseases including asthma, juvenile arthritis, type 1 diabetes, Crohn's disease and mental illness. The underlying mechanisms are thought related to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome. We conducted a systematic review of the association between antibiotics and disruption of the pediatric gut microbiome. Searches used MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. Eligible studies: association between antibiotics and gut microbiome dysbiosis; children 0-18 years; molecular techniques of assessment; outcomes of microbiome richness, diversity or composition. Quality assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analysis where possible. A total of 4,668 publications identified: 12 in final analysis (5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 5 cohort studies, 2 cross-sectional studies). Microbiome richness was measured in 3 studies, species diversity in 6, and species composition in 10. Quality of evidence was good or fair. 5 studies found a significant reduction in diversity and 3 a significant reduction in richness. Macrolide exposure was associated with reduced richness for twice as long as penicillin. Significant reductions were seen in (5 studies) and (2 studies), and significant increases in Proteobacteria such as (4 studies). A meta-analysis of RCTs of the effect of macrolide (azithromycin) exposure on the gut microbiome found a significant reduction in alpha-diversity (Shannon index: mean difference -0.86 (95% CI -1.59, -0.13). Antibiotic exposure was associated with reduced microbiome diversity and richness, and with changes in bacterial abundance. The potential for dysbiosis in the microbiome should be taken into account when prescribing antibiotics for children.: CRD42018094188.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Child; Child, Preschool; Dysbiosis; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn
PubMed: 33651651
DOI: 10.1080/19490976.2020.1870402 -
Gastroenterologia Y Hepatologia May 2022Helicobacter pylori infection is very common in the Spanish population and represents the main cause of chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer, and gastric cancer. The last...
Helicobacter pylori infection is very common in the Spanish population and represents the main cause of chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer, and gastric cancer. The last iteration of Spanish consensus guidelines on H. pylori infection was conducted in 2016. Recent changes in therapeutic schemes along with increasing supporting evidence were key for developing the V Spanish Consensus Conference (May 2021). Fourteen experts performed a systematic review of the scientific evidence and developed a series of recommendations that were subjected to an anonymous Delphi process of iterative voting. Scientific evidence and the strength of the recommendation were classified using GRADE guidelines. An eradication therapy, when prescribed empirically, is considered acceptable when it reliably achieves, or preferably surpass, 90% cure rates. Currently, only quadruple therapies (with or without bismuth) and generally lasting 14 days, accomplish this goal in first- and second-line therapies. A non-bismuth quadruple concomitant regimen (proton pump inhibitor, clarithromycin, amoxicillin, and metronidazole) or a quadruple bismuth-based combination (proton pump inhibitor, bismuth, tetracycline, and metronidazole), are recommended as first-line regimens. Rescue therapies after eradication failure and management of H. pylori infection in peptic ulcer disease were also reviewed.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bismuth; Clarithromycin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Metronidazole; Peptic Ulcer; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 34629204
DOI: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2021.07.011 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Sep 2021Mycoplasma pneumoniae is a common pathogen that causes community-acquired pneumonia in school-age children. Macrolides are considered a first-line treatment for M.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones for the treatment of macrolide-refractory Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Mycoplasma pneumoniae is a common pathogen that causes community-acquired pneumonia in school-age children. Macrolides are considered a first-line treatment for M. pneumoniae infection in children, but macrolide-refractory M. pneumoniae (MRMP) strains have become more common. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones in MRMP treatment in children through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Two reviewers individually searched 10 electronic databases (Medline/Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and core Korean, Chinese, and Japanese journals) for papers published from January 1, 1990 to March 8, 2018. The following data for each treatment group were extracted from the selected studies: intervention (tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones/comparator), patient characteristics (age and sex), and outcomes (fever duration, hospital stay length, treatment success rate, and defervescence rates 24, 48, and 72 h after starting treatment).
RESULTS
Eight studies involving 537 participants were included. Fever duration and hospital stay length were shorter in the tetracycline group than in the macrolide group (weighted mean difference [WMD] = - 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 2.55 to - 0.36, P = 0.009; and WMD = - 3.33, 95% CI: - 4.32 to - 2.35, P < 0.00001, respectively). The therapeutic efficacy was significantly higher in the tetracycline group than in the macrolide group (odds ratio [OR]: 8.80, 95% CI: 3.12-24.82). With regard to defervescence rate, patients in the tetracycline group showed significant improvement compared to those in the macrolide group (defervescence rate after 24 h, OR: 5.34, 95% CI: 1.81-15.75; after 48 h, OR 18.37, 95% CI: 8.87-38.03; and after 72 h, OR: 40.77, 95% CI: 6.15-270.12). There were no differences in fever improvement within 24 h in patients in the fluoroquinolone group compared to those in the macrolide group (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.25-5.00), although the defervescence rate was higher after 48 h in the fluoroquinolone group (OR: 2.78, 95% CI: 1.41-5.51).
CONCLUSION
Tetracyclines may shorten fever duration and hospital stay length in patients with MRMP infection. Fluoroquinolones may achieve defervescence within 48 h in patients with MRMP infection. However, these results should be carefully interpreted as only a small number of studies were included, and they were heterogeneous.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Fluoroquinolones; Humans; Macrolides; Mycoplasma pneumoniae; Pneumonia, Mycoplasma; Tetracyclines
PubMed: 34563128
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06508-7 -
Revista Do Instituto de Medicina... 2021The aim of this study was to establish an evidence-based guideline for the antibiotic treatment of Corynebacterium striatum infections. Several electronic databases were...
The aim of this study was to establish an evidence-based guideline for the antibiotic treatment of Corynebacterium striatum infections. Several electronic databases were systematically searched for clinical trials, observational studies or individual cases on patients of any age and gender with systemic inflammatory response syndrome, harboring C. striatum isolated from body fluids or tissues in which it is not normally present. C. striatum had to be identified as the only causative agent of the invasive infection, and its isolation from blood, body fluids or tissues had to be confirmed by one of the more advanced diagnostic methods (biochemical methods, mass spectrometry and/or gene sequencing). This systematic review included 42 studies that analyzed 85 individual cases with various invasive infections caused by C. striatum. More than one isolate of C. striatum exhibited 100% susceptibility to vancomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin, piperacillin-tazobactam, amoxicillin-clavulanate and cefuroxime. On the other hand, some strains of this bacterium showed a high degree of resistance to fluoroquinolones, to the majority majority of β-lactams, aminoglycosides, macrolides, lincosamides and cotrimoxazole. Despite the antibiotic treatment, fatal outcomes were reported in almost 20% of the patients included in this study. Gene sequencing methods should be the gold standard for the identification of C. striatum, while MALDI-TOF and the Vitek system can be used as alternative methods. Vancomycin should be used as the antibiotic of choice for the treatment of C. striatum infections, in monotherapy or in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam. Alternatively, linezolid, teicoplanin or daptomycin may be used in severe infections, while amoxicillin-clavulanate may be used to treat mild infections caused by C. striatum.
Topics: Aminoglycosides; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Corynebacterium; Corynebacterium Infections; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 34161555
DOI: 10.1590/S1678-9946202163049 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Sep 2023Guidelines recommend respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy or β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy as first-line options for hospitalized adults with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy vs. β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy for hospitalized adults with community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
INTRODUCTION
Guidelines recommend respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy or β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy as first-line options for hospitalized adults with mild-to-moderate community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Efficacy of these regimens has not been adequately evaluated.
METHODS
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy and β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy in hospitalised adults with CAP was performed. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. The primary outcome was clinical cure rate. Quality of evidence (QoE) was evaluated using GRADE methodology.
RESULTS
A total of 4140 participants in 18 RCTs were included. Levofloxacin (11 trials) or moxifloxacin (6 trials) were the predominant respiratory fluoroquinolones evaluated, and the β-lactam plus macrolide group used ceftriaxone plus a macrolide (10 trials), cefuroxime plus azithromycin (5 trials), and amoxicillin/clavulanate plus a macrolide (2 trials). Patients receiving respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy had a significantly higher clinical cure rate (86.5% vs. 81.5%; odds ratio [OR] 1.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI: 1.17-1.83]; P = 0.0008; I = 0%; 17 RCTs; moderate QoE) and microbiological eradication rate (86.0% vs. 81.0%; OR 1.51 [95% CI: 1.00-2.26]; P = 0.05; I = 0%; 15 RCTs; moderate QoE) than patients receiving β-lactam plus macrolide combination therapy. All-cause mortality (7.2% vs. 7.7%; OR 0.88 [95% CI: 0.67-1.17]; I = 0%; low QoE) and adverse events (24.8% vs. 28.1%; OR 0.87 [95% CI: 0.69-1.09]; I = 0%; low QoE] were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSION
Respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy demonstrated an advantage in clinical cure and microbiological eradication; however, it did not impact mortality.
Topics: Adult; Humans; beta-Lactams; Fluoroquinolones; Macrolides; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Community-Acquired Infections
PubMed: 37385561
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106905 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven 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. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).
MAIN RESULTS
We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Ivermectin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 35726131
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3