-
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 -
Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi = Zhongguo... Aug 2022This study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of Lianhua Qingwen preparations combined with Oseltamivir in the treatment of influenza patients. PubMed, Cochrane... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of Lianhua Qingwen preparations combined with Oseltamivir in the treatment of influenza patients. PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP were searched for the randomized controlled trials(RCTs) involving the comparison between the influenza patients treated with Lianhua Qingwen preparations combined with Oseltamivir and those treated with Oseltamivir alone. Fever clearance time was taken as the primary outcome indicator. Clinical effective rate(markedly effective and effective), time to muscle pain relief, time to sore throat relief, time to cough relief, time to nasal congestion and runny nose relief, time to negative result of viral nucleic acid test, and adverse reactions were taken as the secondary outcome indicators. The data were extracted based on the outcome indicators and then combined. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate the quality of a single RCT, and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluations(GRADE) system to assess the quality of a single outcome indicator. RevMan 5.3 was employed to analyze data and test heterogeneity. Finally, 16 RCTs involving 1 629 patients were included for analysis. The Meta-analysis showed that Lianhua Qingwen preparations combined with Oseltamivir was superior to Oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza in terms of clinical effective rate(RR=1.16, 95%CI [1.12, 1.20], P<0.000 01), fever clearance time(SMD=-2.02, 95%CI [-2.62,-1.41], P<0.000 01), time to muscle pain relief(SMD=-2.50, 95%CI [-3.84,-1.16], P=0.000 2), time to sore throat relief(SMD=-1.40, 95%CI [-1.93,-0.85], P<0.000 01), time to cough relief(SMD=-1.81, 95%CI [-2.44,-1.19], P<0.000 01), time to nasal congestion and runny nose(SMD=-2.31, 95%CI [-3.61,-1.01], P=0.000 5), and time to negative result of viral nucleic acid test(SMD=-0.68, 95%CI [-1.19,-0.16], P=0.01). However, due to the low quality of the trials, the above conclusions need to be proved by more high-quality clinical studies. In addition, we still need to attach importance to the adverse reactions of the integrated application of Chinese and western medicines.
Topics: Cough; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Influenza, Human; Myalgia; Nucleic Acids; Oseltamivir; Pharyngitis; Rhinorrhea
PubMed: 36046914
DOI: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20220512.501 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022As a cause of respiratory tract infections in humans, influenza remains with high morbidity and mortality, with associated significant healthcare burden and increased...
As a cause of respiratory tract infections in humans, influenza remains with high morbidity and mortality, with associated significant healthcare burden and increased financial burden. Traditional Chinese medicine injections (TCMIs) combined with oseltamivir (TCMIs + oseltamivir) are the representative therapeutic strategies for influenza, which is a compliant with clinical applications in China. The aim of this study was to describe the comparative efficacy and safety of TCMIs + oseltamivir in patients with influenza, based on the current evidence. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, VIP information resource integration service platform databases, and the Chinese biomedical literature service system were searched to find randomized controlled trials where TCMIs + oseltamivir are the representative therapeutic strategies for influenza, from inception until October 2021, without language restriction. Two investigators independently screened eligibility criteria, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias with the same criteria. We conducted a network meta-analysis using the Bayesian random method for each outcome and performed the sensitivity analysis, meta-regression, and Egger's and Begg's tests for the reliability and robustness of our results. Thirty-one trials including 2,893 participants proved eligible and reported on four TCMIs + oseltamivir oseltamivir. Network meta-analysis showed Yanhuning (YHN) +oseltamivir (MD = -1.7, 95% CrI: -2.5 to -0.88; SUCRA = 0.89; low certainty of evidence) in fever disappearance time, Tanreqing (TRQ) +oseltamivir (MD = -1.9, 95% CrI: -2.8 to -1; SUCRA = 0.97; low certainty of evidence) in cough disappearance time, and Xiyanping (XYP) +oseltamivir (OR = 5.9, 95% CrI: 3.1 to 11; SUCRA = 0.82; very low certainty of evidence) in the response rate to be more efficacious than oseltamivir alone with the best SUCRA. Based on the combined SUCRA value for primary outcomes, TRQ + oseltamivir is probably better in cough disappearance time, and XYP + oseltamivir and YHN + oseltamivir may be better in fever disappearance time than others. No significant difference in safety between the treatments. In patients with influenza, TCMIs + oseltamivir only partially improve flu symptoms. Overall therapeutic efficacy and safety are inconclusive, based on low to very low certainty of evidence. However, the safety remains uncertain, and TCMI treatments for influenza should be considered with caution. More high-quality studies examining the efficacy and safety of TCMIs are needed. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021286994.
PubMed: 35935865
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.848770 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2022The Coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically impacted liver organ transplantation. The American Society of Transplantation recommends a minimum of 28 days... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The Coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically impacted liver organ transplantation. The American Society of Transplantation recommends a minimum of 28 days after symptom resolution for organ donation. However, the exact time for transplantation for recipients is unknown. Considering that mortality on the waiting list for patients with MELD >25 or fulminant hepatitis is higher than that of COVID-19, the best time for surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection remains undetermined. This study aims to expand the current knowledge regarding the Liver Transplantation (LT) time for patients after COVID-19 and to provide transplant physicians with essential decision-making tools to manage these critically ill patients during the pandemic.
METHODS
Systematic review of patients who underwent liver transplantation after diagnosis of COVID-19. The MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane, Lilacs, Embase, and Scielo databases were searched until June 20, 2021. The MESH terms used were "COVID-19" and "Liver transplantation".
RESULTS
558 articles were found; of these 13 articles and a total of 18 cases of COVID-19 prior to liver transplantation were reported. The mean age was 38.7±14.6, with male prevalence. Most had mild symptoms of COVID. Five patients have specific treatment for COVID-19 with convalescent plasm or remdesivir/oseltamivir, just one patient received hydroxychloroquine, and 12 patients received only symptomatic treatment. The median time between COVID-19 to LT was 19 days (13.5‒44.5). Deceased donor liver transplantation accounted for 61% of cases, while living donor transplantation was 39%.
CONCLUSION
Despite the concerns regarding the postoperative evolution, the mortality of patients with high MELD or fulminant hepatitis transplanted shortly after COVID-19 diagnosis does not seem to be higher. (PROSPERO, registration number = CRD42021261790).
Topics: Humans; Male; United States; Young Adult; Adult; Middle Aged; COVID-19; Liver Transplantation; COVID-19 Testing; SARS-CoV-2; Massive Hepatic Necrosis; Living Donors; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 35870265
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2022.100042 -
The American Journal of Chinese Medicine 2022Influenza is a sudden and serious viral breathing and lung-related infectious disease that causes significant deadliness and death worldwide. Now, the international... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Influenza is a sudden and serious viral breathing and lung-related infectious disease that causes significant deadliness and death worldwide. Now, the international treatment is oseltamivir. Chinese patent medicine (CPM) as a kind of different therapy is used in the treatment of influenza in China. The aim of this study was to interpret the clinical efficacy and safety of CPM combined with oseltamivir in the treatment of adult influenza by reviewing all relevant randomized controlled trials, and to provide new ideas and methods for the treatment of influenza. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, and Wanfang Database were searched from the date of beginning until 1 June 2021, for the references on treatment of influenza with CPM. According to standard information extraction tables, two people worked to find and aggregate information independently. Review Manager 5.2 was used to study data carefully and evaluate risk of bias. A total of nine trials of 906 patients were included. Based on the meta-analysis, compared to oseltamivir, CPM combined with oseltamivir had better effect in the time of defervescence [MD = -17.68, 95% CI (-25.93, -9.44), < 0.0001], the time of symptom improvement [MD = -22.28, 95% CI (-26.77, -17.80), < 0.00001], and the time of hospitalization [MD = -2.04, 95% CI (-3.45, -0.63), = 0.005]. Related to safety [RR = 0.69, 95% CI (0.38, 1.23), = 0.21], the experimental group had fewer adverse reactions than the control group, but there is no statistical significance. The findings show that CPM combined with oseltamivir in adult influenza has a better efficacy in shortening the time of defervescence and symptom improvement, reducing the time of hospitalization. However, publication bias is inevitable due to the low methodological quality check of the clinical research about diagnostic criteria, definition of adult influenza, and small number of articles, and further large sample sizes and multi-center clinical trials are needed to give better proof for its efficacy and safety.
Topics: Adult; China; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Influenza, Human; Nonprescription Drugs; Oseltamivir; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35475973
DOI: 10.1142/S0192415X22500422 -
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 -
Annals of Hematology May 2022Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is the most common clinical bleeding disorder with a high mortality rate and poor long-term survival quality in severe patients. There is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is the most common clinical bleeding disorder with a high mortality rate and poor long-term survival quality in severe patients. There is controversy on how to choose the appropriate treatment. We systematically reviewed 19 randomized controlled trials (including 2615 participants) from January 1, 2015, to April 20, 2021. These investigations compared multiple drugs or their combinations in the therapeutic dose range for the treatment of ITP. The primary endpoint was based on the proportion of patients who responded to these therapies. The efficacy of eltrombopag plus rituximab, avatrombopag, dexamethasone plus anti-HP, and dexamethasone plus rhTPO was significantly higher than placebo (OR: 46.66, 29.44, 2.66, 1.86) or dexamethasone alone (OR: 46.22, 29.01, 2.22, 1.40). Placebo, oral immunosuppressants, and dexamethasone plus oseltamivir were less effective than the other ITP therapies tested. Eltrombopag plus rituximab may be the best choice when starting treatment for ITP.
Topics: Benzoates; Dexamethasone; Humans; Hydrazines; Network Meta-Analysis; Purpura, Thrombocytopenic, Idiopathic; Rituximab; Thrombopoietin
PubMed: 35149911
DOI: 10.1007/s00277-022-04784-0 -
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy :... Feb 2022The aim of this study was to use a network meta-analysis (NWA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of various neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to use a network meta-analysis (NWA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of various neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing the duration of influenza symptoms, and thereby, informing the selection of suitable therapeutic regimens for patients with influenza. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical effects of four NAIs administered to patients with influenza and placebo. Relevant studies were found in the PubMed and Cochrane databases. Unpublished studies were collected from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and through hand searching. We carried out NWA to compare the different regimens with each other and across subgroups of age and medical status (high-risk patients). A total of 58 two-arm studies were identified. Five regimens were efficacious in reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in all populations; this efficacy was comparable. No significant improvements were seen in combination therapy groups. The mean difference in the time to alleviation of symptoms ranged from 12.78 to 19.51 h. According to the summarized mean difference and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), peramivir (SUCRA = 82.6%), zanamivir (SUCRA = 64%), and oseltamivir (SUCRA = 55.1%) were the three top-ranking drugs for treating influenza. Zanamivir and peramivir were the preferred pharmacologic intervention among all investigated interventions based on the calculated "value preference of SUCRA." This study is a network meta-analysis to explore the therapeutic effects of NAIs in patients with influenza. Peramivir might be the best choice for reducing the time to alleviation of symptoms.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Enzyme Inhibitors; Guanidines; Humans; Influenza, Human; Network Meta-Analysis; Neuraminidase; Oseltamivir; Zanamivir
PubMed: 34840038
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2021.11.014 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2021Antiviral treatment of influenza is recommended for patients with influenza-like illness during periods of community cocirculation of influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antiviral treatment of influenza is recommended for patients with influenza-like illness during periods of community cocirculation of influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2; however, questions remain about which treatment is associated with the best outcomes and fewest adverse events.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of neuraminidase inhibitors and the endonuclease inhibitor for the treatment of seasonal influenza among healthy adults and children.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials were searched from inception to January 2020 (the last search was updated in October 2020).
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies were randomized clinical trials conducted among patients of all ages with influenza treated with neuraminidase inhibitors (ie, oseltamivir, peramivir, zanamivir, or laninamivir) or an endonuclease inhibitor (ie, baloxavir) compared with other active agents or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators identified studies and independently abstracted data. Frequentist network meta-analyses were performed; relative ranking of agents was conducted using P-score probabilities. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria. Data were analyzed in October 2020.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The time to alleviation of influenza symptoms (TTAS), complications of influenza, and adverse events (total adverse events, nausea, and vomiting).
RESULTS
A total of 26 trials were identified that investigated antiviral drugs at high or low doses; these trials included 11 897 participants, among whom 6294 (52.9%) were men and the mean (SD) age was 32.5 (16.9) years. Of all treatments comparing with placebo in efficacy outcomes, high-quality evidence indicated that zanamivir was associated with the shortest TTAS (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.77), while baloxavir was associated with the lowest risk of influenza-related complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80) based on moderate-quality evidence. In safety outcomes, baloxavir was associated with the lowest risk of total adverse events (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96) compared with placebo based on moderate-quality evidence. There was no strong evidence of associations with risk of nausea or vomiting among all comparisons, except for 75 mg oseltamivir, which was associated with greater occurrence of nausea (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.38-2.41) and vomiting (RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.47-2.41).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, all 4 antiviral agents assessed were associated with shortening TTAS; zanamivir was associated with the shortest TTAS, and baloxavir was associated with reduced rate of influenza-related complications.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antiviral Agents; Child; Dibenzothiepins; Endonucleases; Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Network Meta-Analysis; Neuraminidase; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seasons; Triazines; Young Adult; Zanamivir
PubMed: 34387680
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.19151 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2022Influenza infection poses a severe threat to pregnant mothers, and antiviral treatment is recommended. However, the safety of neuraminidase-inhibitor antiviral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Influenza infection poses a severe threat to pregnant mothers, and antiviral treatment is recommended. However, the safety of neuraminidase-inhibitor antiviral medications during pregnancy has not been well described.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the adverse neonatal outcomes associated with exposure to neuraminidase inhibitors during pregnancy. The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify potential studies for inclusion.
RESULTS
Nine cohort studies that estimated adverse neonatal outcomes associated with exposure to neuraminidase-inhibitor medication during pregnancy were included. Exposure to a neuraminidase inhibitor during pregnancy was not associated with an increased risk of congenital malformation (odds ratio [OR] 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-1.12, P = .341), low Apgar score (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77-1.2, P = .733) or preterm birth (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89-1.09, P = .771) compared with no exposure. However, exposure to a neuraminidase inhibitor was associated with a reduced risk of low birth weight (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92, P = .002) and giving birth to a small-for-gestational-age infant (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.88, P < .001). Further analyses limited to oseltamivir exposure were consistent with the overall results.
CONCLUSION
Exposure to neuraminidase-inhibitor medication during pregnancy does not appear to be associated with adverse neonatal outcomes. We recommend further studies to investigate this association, which will help clinicians determine whether to prescribe a neuraminidase inhibitor during pregnancy.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cohort Studies; Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Neuraminidase; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth
PubMed: 34378216
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15033