-
Ear, Nose, & Throat Journal Jun 2024To systematically review the cases of anosmia or ageusia after receiving the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. A systematic search was conducted in... (Review)
Review
To systematically review the cases of anosmia or ageusia after receiving the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and PubMed, to identify any published study that evaluated the anosmia or ageusia after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, including case reports, case series, letter to editor articles with reported cases regarding our topic, or observational studies with at least 1 eligible patient consisted with our criteria. We excluded the studies that reported anosmia or ageusia due to COVID-19 infection and non-COVID-19 vaccines. Five studies consisting of 11 patients were included in this systematic review. Of the 11 patients, 5 patients had received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and 6 patients received the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, of which 6 patients developed symptoms after the first dose of vaccination and 5 patients were symptomatic after the second vaccine dose. Most of the patients developed symptoms within 1 week after the vaccination. The disorders of the patients included partial or total anosmia, parosmia, phantosmia, hyposmia, ageusia, and dysgeusia. Also, the patients had symptoms other than smell or taste disorders, including arthralgia, fever, chills, rhinorrhea, myalgia, abdominal pain, fatigue, muscle weakness, altered bowel pattern, aural fullness, tinnitus, and headache. Most of the evaluated patients did not receive any treatment as for their disorders. However, in some cases, treatment with oral corticosteroids or dietary supplementation was required. Anosmia and ageusia are important symptoms of COVID-19 vaccination. These symptoms will resolve without any treatment in most cases, although some interventions may be needed in some patients.
Topics: Humans; Ageusia; Anosmia; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Female; Male; Vaccination; SARS-CoV-2; Middle Aged; Adult; BNT162 Vaccine; Aged
PubMed: 38411125
DOI: 10.1177/01455613241233098 -
Clinical and Experimental... Aug 2021This study evaluated the diagnostic value of various symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in screening for this disease.
OBJECTIVES
This study evaluated the diagnostic value of various symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in screening for this disease.
METHODS
Two authors (working independently) comprehensively reviewed six databases (PubMed, Cochrane Database, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) from their dates of inception until November 2020. The predictive value of patient-reported symptoms, including otolaryngologic and general symptoms, was evaluated in adults who underwent testing for COVID-19. True-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative data were extracted from each study. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (ver. 2).
RESULTS
Twenty-eight prospective and retrospective studies were included in the meta-analysis. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of a change in olfaction and/or taste was 10.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.43-12.34). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.8. Olfactory and/or taste changes had a low sensitivity (0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.66) but moderate negative (0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.85] and positive (0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87) predictive values and a high specificity (0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96). Olfactory and/or taste changes had a higher diagnostic value than the other otolaryngologic symptoms, a higher DOR and specificity, and a similar or higher diagnostic value than the other general symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Among otolaryngologic symptoms, olfactory and/or taste dysfunction was the most closely associated with COVID-19 and its general symptoms, and should therefore be considered when screening for the disease.
PubMed: 33541033
DOI: 10.21053/ceo.2020.02369 -
Reviews in Medical Virology Sep 2021In a large-scale study, 128176 non-pregnant patients (228 studies) and 10000 pregnant patients (121 studies) confirmed COVID-19 cases included in this Meta-Analysis. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In a large-scale study, 128176 non-pregnant patients (228 studies) and 10000 pregnant patients (121 studies) confirmed COVID-19 cases included in this Meta-Analysis. The mean (confidence interval [CI]) of age and gestational age of admission (GA) in pregnant women was 33 (28-37) years old and 36 (34-37) weeks, respectively. Pregnant women show the same manifestations of COVID-19 as non-pregnant adult patients. Fever (pregnant: 75.5%; non-pregnant: 74%) and cough (pregnant: 48.5%; non-pregnant: 53.5%) are the most common symptoms in both groups followed by myalgia (26.5%) and chill (25%) in pregnant and dysgeusia (27%) and fatigue (26.5%) in non-pregnant patients. Pregnant women are less probable to show cough (odds ratio [OR] 0.7; 95% CI 0.67-0.75), fatigue (OR: 0.58; CI: 0.54-0.61), sore throat (OR: 0.66; CI: 0.61-0.7), headache (OR: 0.55; CI: 0.55-0.58) and diarrhea (OR: 0.46; CI: 0.4-0.51) than non-pregnant adult patients. The most common imaging found in pregnant women is ground-glass opacity (57%) and in non-pregnant patients is consolidation (76%). Pregnant women have higher proportion of leukocytosis (27% vs. 14%), thrombocytopenia (18% vs. 12.5%) and have lower proportion of raised C-reactive protein (52% vs. 81%) compared with non-pregnant patients. Leucopenia and lymphopenia are almost the same in both groups. The most common comorbidity in pregnant patients is diabetes (18%) and in non-pregnant patients is hypertension (21%). Case fatality rate (CFR) of non-pregnant hospitalized patients is 6.4% (4.4-8.5), and mortality due to all-cause for pregnant patients is 11.3% (9.6-13.3). Regarding the complications of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage (54.5% [7-94]), caesarean delivery (48% [42-54]), preterm labor (25% [4-74]) and preterm birth (21% [12-34]) are in turn the most prevalent complications. Comparing the pregnancy outcomes show that caesarean delivery (OR: 3; CI: 2-5), low birth weight (LBW) (OR: 9; CI: 2.4-30) and preterm birth (OR: 2.5; CI: 1.5-3.5) are more probable in pregnant woman with COVID-19 than pregnant women without COVID-19. The most prevalent neonatal complications are neonatal intensive care unit admission (43% [2-96]), fetal distress (30% [12-58]) and LBW (25% [16-37]). The rate of vertical transmission is 5.3% (1.3-16), and the rate of positive SARS-CoV-2 test for neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 is 8% (4-16). Overall, pregnant patients present with the similar clinical characteristics of COVID-19 when compared with the general population, but they may be more asymptomatic. Higher odds of caesarean delivery, LBW and preterm birth among pregnant patients with COVID-19 suggest a possible association between COVID-19 infection and pregnancy complications. Low risk of vertical transmission is present, and SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in all conception products, particularly placenta and breast milk. Interpretations of these results should be done cautiously due to the heterogeneity between studies; however, we believe our findings can guide the prenatal and postnatal considerations for COVID-19 pregnant patients.
Topics: Adult; COVID-19; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Newborn, Diseases; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Male; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnant Women; Premature Birth; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33387448
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2208 -
F1000Research 2021This study aimed to determine the cumulative prevalence of prolonged gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, lack of appetite,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study aimed to determine the cumulative prevalence of prolonged gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, lack of appetite, abdominal pain, and dysgeusia, in survivors of both mild and severe COVID-19 worldwide and to discuss the potential pathogenesis. Three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched for relevant articles up to January 30, 2021. Data on study characteristics, clinical characteristics during follow-up, the number of patients with prolonged GI symptoms, and total number of COVID-19 survivors were retrieved according to PRISMA guidelines. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The pooled prevalence of specific prolonged GI symptoms was calculated and the association between COVID-19 severity and the occurrence of prolonged GI symptoms was assessed if appropriate. The global prevalence of prolonged nausea was 3.23% (95% CI: 0.54%-16.53%) among 527 COVID-19 survivors. Vomiting persisted in 93 of 2,238 COVID-19 survivors (3.19%, 95% CI: 1.62%-6.17%) and prolonged diarrhea was found in 34 of 1,073 survivors (4.12%, 95% CI: 1.07%-14.64%). A total of 156 patients among 2,238 COVID-19 survivors (4.41%, 95% CI: 1.91%-9.94%) complained of persistent decreased or loss of appetite. The cumulative prevalence of prolonged abdominal pain was 1.68% (95% CI: 0.84%-3.32%), whereas persistent dysgeusia was identified in 130 cases among 1,887 COVID-19 survivors (7.04%, 95% CI: 5.96%-8.30%). Data was insufficient to assess the relationship between COVID-19 severity and the occurrence of all prolonged GI symptoms. Persistent GI symptoms among COVID-19 survivors after discharge or recovery raises a concern regarding the long-term impact of the COVID-19 infection on the quality of life of the survivors. Despite several potential explanations proposed, studies that aim to follow patients after recovery from COVID-19 and determine the pathogenesis of the prolonged symptoms of COVID-19 survivors are warranted. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021239187.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Prevalence; Quality of Life; SARS-CoV-2; Survivors
PubMed: 34131481
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.52216.1 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2022Upper limb motor impairment is one of the main complications of stroke, affecting quality of life both for the patient and their family. The aim of this systematic...
BACKGROUND
Upper limb motor impairment is one of the main complications of stroke, affecting quality of life both for the patient and their family. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the scientific evidence on the safety and efficacy of Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) on upper limb motor recovery after stroke.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated the efficacy or safety of VNS in stroke patients was performed. The primary outcome was upper limb motor recovery. A search of articles published on MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EBSCO and LILACS up to December 2021 was performed, and a meta-analysis was developed to calculate the overall effects.
RESULTS
Eight studies evaluating VNS effects on motor function in stroke patients were included, of which 4 used implanted and 4 transcutaneous VNS. It was demonstrated that VNS, together with physical rehabilitation, increased upper limb motor function on average 7.06 points (95%CI 4.96; 9.16) as assessed by the Fugl-Meyer scale. Likewise, this improvement was significantly greater when compared to a control intervention (mean difference 2.48, 95%CI 0.98; 3.98). No deaths or serious adverse events related to the intervention were reported. The most frequent adverse events were dysphonia, dysphagia, nausea, skin redness, dysgeusia and pain related to device implantation.
CONCLUSION
VNS, together with physical rehabilitation, improves upper limb motor function in stroke patients. Additionally, VNS is a safe intervention.
PubMed: 35847207
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.889953 -
Revista Espanola de Enfermedades... Jun 2023vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocking agent, has better clinical outcomes in the treatment of acid-related diseases. However, some adverse events have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
vonoprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocking agent, has better clinical outcomes in the treatment of acid-related diseases. However, some adverse events have been associated with vonoprazan for the treatment of acid-associated diseases. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the safety and tolerability of vonoprazan for acid-associated diseases.
METHODS
electronic databases were retrieved to determine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vonoprazan for acid-associated diseases with any adverse effects and discontinuation.
RESULTS
this systematic review and meta-analysis conforming to the selection criteria included 18 RCTs with a total of 7,932 participants. Compared with proton pump inhibitors, oral vonoprazan treatment showed no significant increase in the incidence of adverse effects (95 % CI = 0.987-1.095, p = 0.141). Diarrhea or loose stools analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference between vonoprazan and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treatment (95 % CI = 0.661-0.966, p = 0.021). However, there was no significant difference in constipation, rash or eruption, nausea or vomiting, bloating or abdominal pain, dysgeusia, nasopharyngitis, neurological disorders, upper respiratory tract infection and abnormal investigations between vonoprazan and PPIs treatment.
CONCLUSION
vonoprazan, which has better tolerability and safety, may significantly decrease diarrhea and loose stools in acid-related patients compared with PPIs. Our meta-analysis led to safer strategies for treating acid-related diseases. More high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to further elucidate its efficacy and safety.
Topics: Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Constipation; Sulfonamides; Pyrroles; Diarrhea
PubMed: 36353962
DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9228/2022 -
Clinical and Experimental Medicine May 2021Zinc is a trace element that plays an important role in the immune system and cell growth. The role of zinc in cancer treatment has been discussed for some time, however...
Zinc is a trace element that plays an important role in the immune system and cell growth. The role of zinc in cancer treatment has been discussed for some time, however without reaching an evidenced-based consensus. Therefore, we aim to critically examine and review existing evidence on the role of zinc during cancer treatment. In January 2019, a systematic search was conducted searching five electronic databases (Embase, Cochrane, PsychINFO, CINAHL and PubMed) to find studies concerning the use, effectiveness and potential harm of zinc therapy on cancer patients. Out of initial 5244 search results, 19 publications concerning 23 studies with 1230 patients were included in this systematic review. The patients treated with zinc were mainly diagnosed with head and neck cancer and underwent chemo-, radio- or concurrent radio-chemotherapy. Interventions included the intake of different amounts of zinc supplements and oral zinc rinses. Outcomes (primary endpoints) investigated were mucositis, xerostomia, dysgeusia, pain, weight, dermatitis and oral intake of nutrients. Secondary endpoints were survival data, quality of life assessments and aspects of fatigue, immune responses and toxicities of zinc. The studies were of moderate quality reporting heterogeneous results. Studies have shown a positive impact on the mucositis after radiotherapy. No protection was seen against mucositis after chemotherapy. There was a trend to reduced loss of taste, less dry mouth and oral pain after zinc substitution. No impact was seen on weight, QoL measurements, fatigue, and survival. The risk of side effects from zinc appears to be relatively small. Zinc could be useful in the prevention of oral toxicities during irradiation. It does not help in chemotherapy-induced side effects.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Complementary Therapies; Dysgeusia; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mucositis; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Xerostomia; Young Adult; Zinc
PubMed: 33496846
DOI: 10.1007/s10238-020-00677-6 -
Gastroenterology Sep 2020
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Dysgeusia; Humans; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32387496
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.003 -
BMJ Open Respiratory Research Apr 2020Acetazolamide (AZM) is used for various conditions (eg, altitude sickness, sleep apnoea, glaucoma), but therapy is often limited by its side effect profile. Our... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Acetazolamide (AZM) is used for various conditions (eg, altitude sickness, sleep apnoea, glaucoma), but therapy is often limited by its side effect profile. Our objective was to estimate the risk of commonly reported side effects based on meta-analyses. We hypothesised that these risks are dose-dependent.
METHODS
We queried MEDLINE/EMBASE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online/Excerpta Medica dataBASE) up until 04/10/2019, including any randomised placebo-controlled trial in which adults received oral AZM versus placebo reporting side effects. Eligibility assessment was performed by two independent reviewers. Data were abstracted by one reviewer who verified key entries at a second time point. For side effects reported by 3 studies a pooled effect estimate was calculated, and heterogeneity assessed via I; for outcomes reported by 5 studies effect modification by total daily dose (EMbyTDD; <400 mg/d, 400-600 mg/d, >600 mg/d) was assessed via meta-regression. For pre-specified, primary outcomes (paraesthesias, taste disturbances, polyuria and fatigue) additional subgroup analyses were performed using demographics, intervention details, laboratory changes and risk of bias.
RESULTS
We included 42 studies in the meta-analyses (N=1274/1211 in AZM/placebo groups). AZM increased the risk of all primary outcomes (p<0.01, I ≤16% and low-to-moderate quality of evidence for all)-the numbers needed to harm (95% CI; n) for each were: paraesthesias 2.3 (95% CI 2 to 2.7; n=39), dysgeusia 18 (95% CI 10 to 38, n=22), polyuria 17 (95% CI 9 to 49; n=22), fatigue 11 (95% CI 6 to 24; n=14). The risk for paraesthesias (beta=1.8 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.9); P=0.01) and dysgeusia (beta=3.1 (95% CI 1.2 to 8.2); P=0.02) increased with higher AZM doses; the risk of fatigue also increased with higher dose but non-significantly (beta=2.6 (95% CI 0.7 to 9.4); P=0.14).
DISCUSSION
This comprehensive meta-analysis of low-to-moderate quality evidence defines risk of common AZM side effects and corroborates dose dependence of some side effects. These results may inform clinical decision making and support efforts to establish the lowest effective dose of AZM for various conditions.
Topics: Acetazolamide; Adult; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Dysgeusia; Fatigue; Humans; Paresthesia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32332024
DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000557 -
European Journal of Oncology Nursing :... Jun 2024Dysgeusia is a common side effect in oncology patients, significantly impacting their quality of life. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of...
PURPOSE
Dysgeusia is a common side effect in oncology patients, significantly impacting their quality of life. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological strategies in treating dysgeusia in patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy.
METHODS
Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across five databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Database. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools to assess the quality of the included studies. A harvest plot was used to synthesise evidence about the differential effects of population-level interventions.
RESULTS
Nine studies of non-pharmacological strategies to manage dysgeusia were included. These studies encompassed a variety of interventions, including oral applications and supplements, instrumental techniques, and educational programs. The review identified promising interventions such as cryotherapy and Miraculine supplementation, which showed potential in mitigating taste alterations. Instrumental techniques like photobiomodulation therapy and complementary and integrative medicine approaches, including acupuncture and herbs, were also found to be beneficial. Educational and self-management strategies emerged as effective interventions for empowering patients to manage dysgeusia. Despite the diversity of interventions and the limitations of the included studies, such as small sample sizes and geographical differences, these findings underscore the potential of non-pharmacological strategies in managing dysgeusia.
CONCLUSION
The results support the integration of these strategies into clinical practice, highlighting the importance of multidisciplinary approaches to improve patient care. Further research should prioritize rigorous studies to enhance evidence and explore long-term effects.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Antineoplastic Agents; Complementary Therapies; Dysgeusia; Neoplasms; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38593535
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102569