-
Frontiers in Public Health 2023Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is an independent risk factor associated with adverse outcomes in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Due to the wide variety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is an independent risk factor associated with adverse outcomes in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Due to the wide variety of direct-acting antiviral regimens (DAAs) and the factor of renal insufficiency, careless selection of anti-hepatitis C treatment can lead to treatment failure and safety problems. The integrated evidence for optimized therapies for these patients is lacking. This study would conduct comparisons of different DAAs and facilitate clinical decision-making.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search in multiple databases (PubMed, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) up to 7 August 2023. Study data that contained patient characteristics, study design, treatment regimens, intention-to-treat sustained virologic response (SVR), and adverse event (AE) data per regimen were extracted into a structured electronic database and analyzed. The network meta-analysis of the estimation was performed by the Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods.
RESULTS
Our search identified 5,278 articles; removing the studies with duplicates and ineligible criteria, a total of 62 studies (comprising 4,554 patients) were included. Overall, the analyses contained more than 2,489 male individuals, at least 202 patients with cirrhosis, and no less than 2,377 patients under hemodialysis. Network meta-analyses of the DAAs found that receiving ombitasvir (OBV)/paritaprevir (PTV)/ritonavir (R) plus dasabuvir (DSV), glecaprevir (G)/pibrentasvir (P), and sofosbuvir (SOF)/ledipasvir (LDV) ranked as the top three efficacy factors for the HCV-infected ESRD patients. Stratified by genotype, the G/P would prioritize genotype 1 and 2 patients with 98.9%-100% SVR, the SOF/DCV regimen had the greatest SVR rates (98.7%; 95% CI, 93.0%-100.0%) in genotype 3, and the OBV/PTV/R regimen was the best choice for genotype 4, with the highest SVR of 98.1% (95% CI, 94.4%-99.9%). In the pan-genotypic DAAs comparison, the G/P regimen showed the best pooled SVR of 99.4% (95% CI, 98.6%-100%). DAA regimens without Ribavirin or SOF showed the lowest rates of AEs (49.9%; 95% CI, 38.4%-61.5%) in HCV-infected ESRD patients.
CONCLUSION
The G/P could be recommended as the best option for the treatment of pan-genotypic HCV-infected ESRD patients. The OBV/PTV/R plus DSV, SOF/Velpatasvir (VEL), SOF/Ledipasvir (LDV), and SOF/DCV would be reliable alternatives for HCV treatment with comparable efficacy and safety profiles.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced, PROSPERO: CRD42021242359.
Topics: Humans; Male; Antiviral Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Hepacivirus; Bayes Theorem; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Treatment Outcome; Ritonavir; Hepatitis C; Kidney Failure, Chronic
PubMed: 37841743
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1179531 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Aug 2023In a hepatitis C virus (HCV)-controlled human infection model (CHIM), healthy volunteers are inoculated with HCV and then treated. Residual hepatocellular carcinoma...
Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Spontaneous Clearance of Hepatitis C Virus and in Noncirrhosis Chronic Hepatitis C Patients With Sustained Virological Response: A Systematic Review.
In a hepatitis C virus (HCV)-controlled human infection model (CHIM), healthy volunteers are inoculated with HCV and then treated. Residual hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk after viral clearance is an important consideration when evaluating the CHIM. We estimate HCC risk in spontaneously cleared HCV and in noncirrhosis after sustained virological response (SVR) to HCV treatment in a systematic review and using data from 3 cohorts: German anti-D, Taiwan, and US Veterans Affairs (VA). For noncirrhosis SVR, the overall HCC rate is 0.33 per 100 patient-years in meta-analysis. HCC rates for the German, Taiwan, and US Veterans Affairs cohorts are 0, 0.14, and 0.02 per 100 patient-years, respectively. Past hepatitis B virus exposure was not accounted for in the Taiwan cohort, while VA patients were likely tested based on liver disease/risk factors, which may confound HCC outcomes. The German cohort with no HCC after 44 years is most comparable to the CHIM participants. Although it is difficult to precisely estimate HCC risk from an HCV CHIM, the data suggest the risk to be very low or negligible.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Liver Neoplasms; Sustained Virologic Response
PubMed: 37579210
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciad380 -
Human Reproduction Update Jan 2020Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent gynecological disorder that affects at least 10% of women of reproductive age. It may lead to infertility and non-specific... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent gynecological disorder that affects at least 10% of women of reproductive age. It may lead to infertility and non-specific symptoms such as chronic pelvic pain. Endometriosis screening and diagnosis are difficult and time-consuming. Late diagnosis (with a delay ranging from 3.3 to 10.7 years) is a major problem and may contribute to disease progression and a worse response to treatment once initiated. Efficient screening tests might reduce this diagnostic delay. As endometriosis is presumed to be a complex disease with several genetic and non-genetic pathogenic factors, many researchers have sought to identify polymorphisms that predispose to this condition.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the most regularly reported polymorphisms in order to identify those that might predispose to endometriosis and might thus be of value in screening.
SEARCH METHODS
The MEDLINE database was searched for English-language publications on DNA polymorphisms in endometriosis, with no date restriction. The PubTator text mining tool was used to extract gene names from the selected publications' abstracts. We only selected polymorphisms reported by at least three studies, having applied strict inclusion and exclusion criteria to their control populations. No stratification based on ethnicity was performed. All steps were carried out according to PRISMA guidelines.
OUTCOMES
The initial selection of 395 publications cited 242 different genes. Sixty-two genes (corresponding to 265 different polymorphisms) were cited at least in three publications. After the application of our other selection criteria (an original case-control study of endometriosis, a reported association between endometriosis and at least one polymorphism, data on women of reproductive age and a diagnosis of endometriosis in the cases established by surgery and/or MRI and confirmed by histology), 28 polymorphisms were eligible for meta-analysis. Only five of the 28 polymorphisms were found to be significantly associated with endometriosis: interferon gamma (IFNG) (CA) repeat, glutathione S-transferase mu 1 (GSTM1) null genotype, glutathione S-transferase pi 1 (GSTP1) rs1695 and wingless-type MMTV integration site family member 4 (WNT4) rs16826658 and rs2235529. Six others showed a significant trend towards an association: progesterone receptor (PGR) PROGINS, interCellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM1) rs1799969, aryl-hydrocarbon receptor repressor (AHRR) rs2292596, cytochrome family 17 subfamily A polypeptide 1 (CYP17A1) rs743572, CYP2C19 rs4244285 and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARG) rs1801282), and 12 showed a significant trend towards the lack of an association: tumor necrosis factor (TNF) rs1799964, interleukin 6 (IL6) rs1800796, transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGFB1) rs1800469, estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) rs2234693, PGR rs10895068, FSH receptor (FSHR) rs6166, ICAM1 rs5498, CYP1A1 rs4646903, CYP19A1 rs10046, tumor protein 53 (TP53) rs1042522, X-ray repair complementing defective repair in Chinese hamster cells 1 (XRCC1) rs25487 and serpin peptidase inhibitor clade E member 1 (SERPINE1) rs1799889; however, for the 18 polymorphisms identified in the latter two groups, further studies of the potential association with the endometriosis risk are needed. The remaining five of the 28 polymorphisms were not associated with endometriosis: glutathione S-transferase theta 1 (GSTT1) null genotype, vascular endothelial growth factor alpha (VEGFA) rs699947, rs833061, rs2010963 and rs3025039.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
By carefully taking account of how the control populations were defined, we identified polymorphisms that might be candidates for use in endometriosis screening and polymorphisms not associated with endometriosis. This might constitute the first step towards identifying polymorphism combinations that predispose to endometriosis (IFNG (CA) repeat, GSTM1 null genotype, GSTP1 rs1695, WNT4 rs16826658 and WNT4 rs2235529) in a large cohort of patients with well-defined inclusion criteria. In turn, these results might improve the diagnosis of endometriosis in primary care. Lastly, our present findings may enable a better understanding of endometriosis and improve the management of patients with this disease.
Topics: Aromatase; Case-Control Studies; Cytochrome P-450 CYP1A1; Early Diagnosis; Endometriosis; Female; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Genotype; Glutathione S-Transferase pi; Glutathione Transferase; Humans; Interferon-gamma; Mass Screening; Polymorphism, Genetic; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Wnt4 Protein
PubMed: 31821471
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmz034 -
RMD Open Mar 2023Type I interferons (IFN-I) contribute to a broad range of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Compelling evidence suggests that the measurement of IFN-I...
Association between type I interferon pathway activation and clinical outcomes in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic literature review informing EULAR points to consider.
BACKGROUND
Type I interferons (IFN-I) contribute to a broad range of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Compelling evidence suggests that the measurement of IFN-I pathway activation may have clinical value. Although several IFN-I pathway assays have been proposed, the exact clinical applications are unclear. We summarise the evidence on the potential clinical utility of assays measuring IFN-I pathway activation.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted across three databases to evaluate the use of IFN-I assays in diagnosis and monitor disease activity, prognosis, response to treatment and responsiveness to change in several RMDs.
RESULTS
Of 366 screened, 276 studies were selected that reported the use of assays reflecting IFN-I pathway activation for disease diagnosis (n=188), assessment of disease activity (n=122), prognosis (n=20), response to treatment (n=23) and assay responsiveness (n=59). Immunoassays, quantitative PCR (qPCR) and microarrays were reported most frequently, while systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis, myositis, systemic sclerosis and primary Sjögren's syndrome were the most studied RMDs. The literature demonstrated significant heterogeneity in techniques, analytical conditions, risk of bias and application in diseases. Inadequate study designs and technical heterogeneity were the main limitations. IFN-I pathway activation was associated with disease activity and flare occurrence in SLE, but their incremental value was uncertain. IFN-I pathway activation may predict response to IFN-I targeting therapies and may predict response to different treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence indicates potential clinical value of assays measuring IFN-I pathway activation in several RMDs, but assay harmonisation and clinical validation are urged. This review informs the EULAR points to consider for the measurement and reporting of IFN-I pathway assays.
Topics: Humans; Interferon Type I; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Myositis; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic
PubMed: 36882218
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002864 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune response. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory medicine and is thought to improve disease outcomes in COVID-19 through a wide range of anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Patients and healthcare systems need more and better treatment options for COVID-19 and a thorough understanding of the current body of evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of Colchicine as a treatment option for COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard care alone in any setting, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 21 May 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials evaluating colchicine for the treatment of people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating the prophylactic effects of colchicine for people without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to assess bias in included studies and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following prioritised outcome categories considering people with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, worsening and improvement of clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events and for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease: all-cause mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, duration to symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs with 11,525 hospitalised participants (8002 male) and one RCT with 4488 (2067 male) non-hospitalised participants. Mean age of people treated in hospital was about 64 years, and was 55 years in the study with non-hospitalised participants. Further, we identified 17 ongoing studies and 11 studies completed or terminated, but without published results. Colchicine plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo) Treatment of hospitalised people with moderate to severe COVID-19 All-cause mortality: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to 28 days compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 11,445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Worsening of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in worsening of clinical status assessed as new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death compared to standard care alone (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 10,916 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in improvement of clinical status, assessed as number of participants discharged alive up to day 28 without clinical deterioration or death compared to standard care alone (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; 1 RCT, 11,340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.78; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine plus standard care on serious adverse events compared to standard care alone (0 events observed in 1 RCT of 105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment of non-hospitalised people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 All-cause mortality: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality at 28 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.62; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; low-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital or death within 28 days: colchicine probably slightly reduces the need for hospitalisation or death within 28 days compared to placebo (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Symptom resolution: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo . Results are from one RCT reporting treatment-related events only in 4412 participants (low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: colchicine probably slightly reduces serious adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 4412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Colchicine versus another active treatment (e.g. corticosteroids, anti-viral drugs, monoclonal antibodies) No studies evaluated this comparison. Different formulations, doses, or schedules of colchicine No studies assessed this.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current evidence, in people hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 the use of colchicine probably has little to no influence on mortality or clinical progression in comparison to placebo or standard care alone. We do not know whether colchicine increases the risk of (serious) adverse events. We are uncertain about the evidence of the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. However, colchicine probably results in a slight reduction of hospital admissions or deaths within 28 days, and the rate of serious adverse events compared with placebo. None of the studies reported data on quality of life or compared the benefits and harms of colchicine versus other drugs, or different dosages of colchicine. We identified 17 ongoing and 11 completed but not published RCTs, which we expect to incorporate in future versions of this review as their results become available. Editorial note: due to the living approach of this work, we monitor newly published results of RCTs on colchicine on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.
Topics: COVID-19; Cause of Death; Colchicine; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34658014
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015045 -
International Journal of Molecular... Aug 2022Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a viral agent that causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that causes flu-like symptoms... (Review)
Review
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a viral agent that causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that causes flu-like symptoms that, when exacerbated, can have life-threatening consequences. COVID-19 has been linked to persistent symptoms, sequelae, and medical complications that can last months after the initial infection. This systematic review aims to elucidate the innate and adaptive immune mechanisms involved and identify potential characteristics of COVID-19 pathology that may increase symptom duration. We also describe he three different stages of COVID-19-viral replication, immune hyperactivation, and post-acute sequelae-as well as each phase's corresponding immune response. Finally, we use this multiphasic approach to describe different treatment approaches for each of the three stages-antivirals, immunosuppressants and monoclonal antibodies, and continued immunosuppressants-to fully curate the treatment to the stage of disease.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35955740
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23158606 -
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2023Host genetic factors significantly influence susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Among these genetic factors are single-nucleotide variants... (Review)
Review
Host genetic factors significantly influence susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Among these genetic factors are single-nucleotide variants (SNVs). and genes have been associated with severe COVID-19 in populations from the United Kingdom, Africa, and Latin America. IFNAR1 and IFNAR2 are subunits forming the type I interferon receptor (IFNAR). SNVs in the genes impact protein function, affecting antiviral response and disease phenotypes. This systematic review aimed to describe and variants associated with COVID-19 susceptibility and severity. Accordingly, the current review focused on and studies published between January 2021 and February 2023, utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol. The electronic search was conducted in PubMed databases using Boolean operators and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of the 170 literature pieces, 11 studies were included. We include case reports of rare SNVs, defined by minor allele frequency (MAF) < 1%, and genome-wide associated studies (GWAS). Variants in and could potentially be new targets for therapies that limit the infection and the resulting inflammation by SARS-CoV-2 infection.
PubMed: 38003785
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12111320 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) May 2023Colorectal cancer is the most prevalent gastrointestinal neoplasm. When metastatic, the disease has limited systemic treatment options. Novel targeted therapies have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Colorectal cancer is the most prevalent gastrointestinal neoplasm. When metastatic, the disease has limited systemic treatment options. Novel targeted therapies have expanded these options for subsets with specific molecular alterations, such as microsatellite instability (MSI)-high cancers, but additional treatments and combinations are in urgent need to improve outcomes and improve survival of this incurable disease. The fluoropyrimidine-derivative trifluridine, in combination with tipiracil, has been introduced as a third-line treatment, and more recently, it was studied in combination with bevacizumab. This meta-analysis reports on studies with this combination in clinical practice outside clinical trials.
METHODS
A literature search in the Medline/PubMed and Embase databases was executed for finding series of trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis were English or French language of the report, inclusion of twenty or more patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with trifluridine/tipiracil in combination with bevacizumab outside of a trial and containing information regarding response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Information on the demographics of the patients and on adverse effects of treatment was also collected.
RESULTS
Eight series with a total of 437 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The performed meta-analysis discovered a summary response rate (RR) of 2.71% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-4.32%) and a disease control rate (DCR) of 59.63% (95% CI: 52.06-67.21%). Summary PFS was 4.56 months (95% CI: 3.57-5.55 months), and summary OS was 11.17 months (95% CI: 10.15-12.19 months). Common adverse effects identified mirrored the adverse-effect profile of the two components of the combination.
CONCLUSION
The current systematic review and meta-analysis reports the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab in advanced lines of therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in the setting of clinical practice outside clinical trials. Discovery of predictive biomarkers of response to trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab will promote the tailoring of this treatment to individual patients to maximize clinical benefit.
Topics: Humans; Bevacizumab; Uracil; Colorectal Neoplasms; Trifluridine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Colonic Neoplasms; Rectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37366880
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30060397 -
Computational and Structural... 2022Synergistic effects between drugs are rare and highly context-dependent and patient-specific. Hence, there is a need to develop novel approaches to stratify patients for... (Review)
Review
Synergistic effects between drugs are rare and highly context-dependent and patient-specific. Hence, there is a need to develop novel approaches to stratify patients for optimal therapy regimens, especially in the context of personalized design of combinatorial treatments. Computational methods enable systematic screening of combination effects, and can thereby prioritize most potent combinations for further testing, among the massive number of potential combinations. To help researchers to choose a prediction method that best fits for various real-world applications, we carried out a systematic literature review of 117 computational methods developed to date for drug combination prediction, and classified the methods in terms of their combination prediction tasks and input data requirements. Most current methods focus on prediction or classification of combination synergy, and only a few methods consider the efficacy and potential toxicity of the combinations, which are the key determinants of therapeutic success of drug treatments. Furthermore, there is a need to further develop methods that enable dose-specific predictions of combination effects across multiple doses, which is important for clinical translation of the predictions, as well as model-based identification of biomarkers predictive of heterogeneous drug combination responses. Even if most of the computational methods reviewed focus on anticancer applications, many of the modelling approaches are also applicable to antiviral and other diseases or indications.
PubMed: 35685365
DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2022.05.055 -
European Review For Medical and... Sep 2020In December 2019, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection broke out in Wuhan, China. However, we still lack a comprehensive understanding...
OBJECTIVE
In December 2019, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection broke out in Wuhan, China. However, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of this emerging virus. In this manuscript, we collected relevant articles and reviewed the characteristics about SARS-CoV-2.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed an online search on PubMed and Web of Science with the keywords COVID-19, 2019-nCoV and SARS-CoV-2, and summarized the epidemiology, virology, clinical features and treatments of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
RESULTS
We retrieved 157 published papers about SARS-CoV-2 from January, 2020 to April, 2020. We found that SARS-CoV-2 was a kind of virus with low mortality rate and high infectivity. This virus can enter human cells through angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in alveoli and activate immune response in human body. SARS-CoV-2 infection can be classified as asymptomatic, mild, common, severe, and critical. We summarized antiviral drugs against SARS-CoV-2, such as remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and favipiravir. Because the vaccine of SARS-CoV-2 is developing, more clinical studies are needed to verify the safety and efficacy of these treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus that has caused a global pandemic. We should pay more attention to prevent SARS-CoV-2 and try to control it sooner.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Immunotherapy; Pandemics; Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32965016
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202009_22873