-
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 -
Revista Cientifica Odontologica... 2021To assess the prevalence of taste disorders in children and adolescents diagnosed with coronavirus infection according to the evidence reported in the scientific...
AIM
To assess the prevalence of taste disorders in children and adolescents diagnosed with coronavirus infection according to the evidence reported in the scientific literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of articles published between December 19, 2019, and December 20, 2020 in the Medline, Lilacs, BVS, Cochrane, SCOPUS and ScienceDirect databases. The information search strategy was based on the classic PRISMA flow diagram. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
443 articles were found in six databases, and a total of 7 articles were included after evaluation according to the selection criteria. The articles addressed the variable of taste disorders in three ways: ageusia, dysgeusia and hypogeusia; finding that this clinical manifestation was present from the beginning of the infection.
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of taste disorders in children and adolescents diagnosed with coronavirus infection is from 3.3% to 26.9%.
PubMed: 38465279
DOI: 10.21142/2523-2754-0902-2021-061 -
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 -
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 -
F1000Research 2021: The present study aimed to determine the global prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to assess their association... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Anosmia and dysgeusia in SARS-CoV-2 infection: incidence and effects on COVID-19 severity and mortality, and the possible pathobiology mechanisms - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
: The present study aimed to determine the global prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to assess their association with severity and mortality of COVID-19. Moreover, this study aimed to discuss the possible pathobiological mechanisms of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19. : Available articles from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and preprint databases (MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and Researchsquare) were searched on November 10th, 2020. Data on the characteristics of the study (anosmia, dysgeusia, and COVID-19) were extracted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess research quality. Moreover, the pooled prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia were calculated, and the association between anosmia and dysgeusia in presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was assessed using the Z test. : Out of 32,142 COVID-19 patients from 107 studies, anosmia was reported in 12,038 patients with a prevalence of 38.2% (95% CI: 36.5%, 47.2%); whereas, dysgeusia was reported in 11,337 patients out of 30,901 COVID-19 patients from 101 studies, with prevalence of 36.6% (95% CI: 35.2%, 45.2%), worldwide. Furthermore, the prevalence of anosmia was 10.2-fold higher (OR: 10.21; 95% CI: 6.53, 15.96, < 0.001) and that of dysgeusia was 8.6-fold higher (OR: 8.61; 95% CI: 5.26, 14.11, < 0.001) in COVID-19 patients compared to those with other respiratory infections or COVID-19 like illness. To date, no study has assessed the association of anosmia and dysgeusia with severity and mortality of COVID-19. : Anosmia and dysgeusia are prevalent in COVID-19 patients compared to those with the other non-COVID-19 respiratory infections. Several possible mechanisms have been hypothesized; however, future studies are warranted to elucidate the definitive mechanisms of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19. PROSPERO CRD42020223204.
Topics: Anosmia; COVID-19; Dysgeusia; Humans; Incidence
PubMed: 33824716
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.28393.1 -
Reviews in the Neurosciences Apr 2021The ongoing pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 27 million confirmed cases and 8,90,000 deaths all around the world. Verity of viral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The ongoing pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 27 million confirmed cases and 8,90,000 deaths all around the world. Verity of viral infections can infect the nervous system; these viral infections can present a wide range of manifestation. The aim of the current study was to systematically review the COVID-19 associated central nervous system manifestations, mental and neurological symptoms. For that we conducted a comprehensive systematic literature review of four online databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Embase. All relevant articles that reported psychiatric/psychological symptoms or disorders in COVID-19 without considering time and language restrictions were assessed. All the study procedures were performed based on the PRISMA criteria. Due to the screening, 14 studies were included. The current study result indicated that, the pooled prevalence of CNS or mental associated disorders with 95% CI was 50.68% (6.68-93.88). The most prevalence symptoms were hyposmia/anosmia/olfactory dysfunction (number of study: 10) with 36.20% (14.99-60.51). Only one study reported numbness/paresthesia and dysphonia. Pooled prevalence of numbness/paresthesia and dysphonia was 5.83% (2.17-12.25) and 2.39% (10.75-14.22). The pooled prevalence of depression and anxiety was 3.52% (2.62-4.54) and 13.92% (9.44-19.08). Our findings demonstrate that COVID-19 has a certain relation with neurological symptoms. The hypsomia, anosmia or olfactory dysfunction was most frequent symptom. Other symptoms were headache or dizziness, dysgeusia or ageusia, dysphonia and fatigue. Depression, anxiety, and confusion were less frequent symptoms.
Topics: Anosmia; Anxiety; COVID-19; Depression; Dysgeusia; Dysphonia; Fatigue; Headache; Humans; Hypesthesia; Nervous System Diseases; Paresthesia; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33618441
DOI: 10.1515/revneuro-2020-0108 -
The Egyptian Journal of Neurology,... 2021COVID-19 infection can show various manifestation, including neurologic manifestations, such as , , or , and causes the neurologic disorder such as stroke,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 infection can show various manifestation, including neurologic manifestations, such as , , or , and causes the neurologic disorder such as stroke, Guillain-Barre syndrome, encephalopathy, and many more.
AIM
To briefly review neurologic manifestation in COVID-19 infection in the Asia region (South East Asia and the Western Pacific Region).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This review uses the PRISMA statement and checklist. The source for reviewed article was performed in PubMed that were published between December 2019 to September 2020 with the latest 1 year of publication. Study titles were first screened, then reviewed by title and abstract and then the last review, we tested full text and applied eligibility criteria.
RESULTS
We found a total of 9 retrieved articles from the electronic database. Among these 9 articles, 5 of them are case report, 1 case series, 1 prospective multi-center cohort study, 1 retrospective multi-center study, and 1 retrospective observational study. All articles reported confirmed COVID-19, confirmation by positive swab test using the real-time RT-PCR method, with neurologic manifestations, disorder, or syndrome on presentation or found during hospital stay. In case of neurologic disorder or syndrome, the studies reported encephalitis and ADEM, acute cerebrovascular disease, acute symptomatic seizure, and Guillain-Barré syndrome with acute cerebrovascular disease as the most common neurologic disorder associated with COVID-19 infection, followed by encephalitis.
CONCLUSION
COVID-19 also affects the brain, which may result in a global or focal neurologic manifestation. Healthcare provider treating patient with COVID-19 infection should also be aware of neurologic manifestation associated with COVID-19 infection to improve patient's outcome.Guillain-Barre syndrome, encephalopathy, and many more. This review will briefly review neurologic manifestation in COVID-19 infection in the Asian region (South East Asia and the Western Pacific Region. A total of 9 retrieved articles from the electronic database reported confirmed COVID-19, confirmation by RT-PCR method, with neurologic manifestation, disorder, or syndrome on presentation or found during hospital stay. Healthcare provider treating patient with COVID-19 infection should also be aware of neurologic manifestation associated with COVID-19 infection to improve patient's outcome.
PubMed: 33613024
DOI: 10.1186/s41983-021-00279-3 -
PloS One 2021Bisphosphonate drugs can be used to improve the outcomes of women with breast cancer. Whilst many meta-analyses have quantified their potential benefits for patients,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonate drugs can be used to improve the outcomes of women with breast cancer. Whilst many meta-analyses have quantified their potential benefits for patients, attempts at comprehensive quantification of potential adverse effects have been limited. We undertook a meta-analysis with novel methodology to identify and quantify these adverse effects.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials in breast cancer where at least one of the treatments was a bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid, ibandronate, pamidronate, alendronate or clodronate). Neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic settings were examined. Primary outcomes were adverse events of any type or severity (excluding death). We carried out pairwise and network meta-analyses to estimate the size of any adverse effects potentially related to bisphosphonates. In order to ascertain whether adverse effects differed by individual factors such as age, or interacted with other common adjuvant breast cancer treatments, we examined individual-level patient data for one large trial, AZURE.
FINDINGS
We identified 56 trials that reported adverse data, which included a total of 29,248 patients (18,301 receiving bisphosphonate drugs versus 10,947 not). 24 out of the 103 different adverse outcomes analysed showed a statistically and practically significant increase in patients receiving a bisphosphonate drug compared with those not (2 additional outcomes that appeared statistically significant came only from small studies with low event counts and no clinical suspicion so are likely artifacts). Most of these 24 are already clinically recognised: 'flu-like symptoms, fever, headache and chills; increased bone pain, arthralgia, myalgia, back pain; cardiac events, thromboembolic events; hypocalcaemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw; as well as possibly stiffness and nausea. Oral clodronate appeared to increase the risk of vomiting and diarrhoea (which may also be increased by other bisphosphonates), and there may be some hepatotoxicity. Four additional potential adverse effects emerged for bisphosphonate drugs in this analysis which have not classically be recognised: fatigue, neurosensory problems, hypertonia/muscle spasms and possibly dysgeusia. Several symptoms previously reported as potential side effects in the literature were not significantly increased in this analysis: constipation, insomnia, respiratory problems, oedema or thirst/dry mouth. Individual patient-level data and subgroup analysis revealed little variation in side effects between women of different ages or menopausal status, those with metastatic versus non-metastatic cancer, or between women receiving different concurrent breast cancer therapies.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis has produced estimates for the absolute frequencies of a range of side effects significantly associated with bisphosphonate drugs when used by breast cancer patients. These results show good agreement with previous literature on the subject but are the first systematic quantification of side effects and their severities. However, the analysis is limited by the availability and quality of data on adverse events, and the potential for bias introduced by a lack of standards for reporting of such events. We therefore present a table of adverse effects for bisphosphonates, identified and quantified to the best of our ability from a large number of trials, which we hope can be used to improve the communication of the potential harms of these drugs to patients and their healthcare providers.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 33544765
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246441 -
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 -
Journal of Medical Virology May 2021A meta-analysis was performed to identify patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presenting with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during the first and second... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A meta-analysis was performed to identify patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presenting with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during the first and second pandemic waves and investigate their association with the disease outcomes. A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EMBASE was performed up to July 25, 2020. The pooled prevalence of the GI presentations was estimated using the random-effects model. Pairwise comparison for the outcomes was performed according to the GI manifestations' presentation and the pandemic wave of infection. Data were reported as relative risk (RR), or odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. Of 125 articles with 25,252 patients, 20.3% presented with GI manifestations. Anorexia (19.9%), dysgeusia/ageusia (15.4%), diarrhea (13.2%), nausea (10.3%), and hematemesis (9.1%) were the most common. About 26.7% had confirmed positive fecal RNA, with persistent viral shedding for an average time of 19.2 days before being negative. Patients presenting with GI symptoms on admission showed a higher risk of complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (RR = 8.16), acute cardiac injury (RR = 5.36), and acute kidney injury (RR = 5.52), intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR = 2.56), and mortality (RR = 2.01). Although not reach significant levels, subgroup-analysis revealed that affected cohorts in the first wave had a higher risk of being hospitalized, ventilated, ICU admitted, and expired. This meta-analysis suggests an association between GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients and unfavorable outcomes. The analysis also showed improved overall outcomes for COVID-19 patients during the second wave compared to the first wave of the outbreak.
Topics: Ageusia; Anorexia; COVID-19; Databases, Factual; Diarrhea; Dysgeusia; Feces; Gastroenterology; Hematemesis; Hospitalization; Humans; Nausea; Pandemics; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Virus Shedding; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33527440
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26836