-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Jellyfish envenomation is common in many coastal regions and varies in severity depending upon the species. Stings cause a variety of symptoms and signs including pain,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Jellyfish envenomation is common in many coastal regions and varies in severity depending upon the species. Stings cause a variety of symptoms and signs including pain, dermatological reactions, and, in some species, Irukandji syndrome (which may include abdominal/back/chest pain, tachycardia, hypertension, cardiac phenomena, and, rarely, death). Many treatments have been suggested for these symptoms, but their effectiveness is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms associated with the use of any intervention, in both adults and children, for the treatment of jellyfish stings, as assessed by randomised and quasi-randomised trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 27 October 2022. We searched clinical trials registers and the grey literature, and conducted forward-citation searching of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention given to treat stings from any species of jellyfish stings. Interventions were compared to another active intervention, placebo, or no treatment. If co-interventions were used, we included the study only if the co-intervention was used in each group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies (six RCTs and three quasi-RCTs) involving a total of 574 participants. We found one ongoing study. Participants were either stung accidentally, or were healthy volunteers exposed to stings in a laboratory setting. Type of jellyfish could not be confirmed in beach settings and was determined by investigators using participant and local information. We categorised interventions into comparison groups: hot versus cold applications; topical applications. A third comparison of parenteral administration included no relevant outcome data: a single study (39 participants) evaluated intravenous magnesium sulfate after stings from jellyfish that cause Irukandji syndrome (Carukia). No studies assessed a fourth comparison group of pressure immobilisation bandages. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious and very serious imprecision, and serious inconsistency in some results. Application of heat versus application of cold Four studies involved accidental stings treated on the beach or in hospital. Jellyfish were described as bluebottles (Physalia; location: Australia), and box jellyfish that do not cause Irukandji syndrome (Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) and major box jellyfish (Chironex fleckeri, location: Australia)). Treatments were applied with hot packs or hot water (showers, baths, buckets, or hoses), or ice packs or cold packs. The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we are unsure whether heat compared to cold leads to at least a clinically significant reduction in pain within six hours of stings from Physalia (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.56; 2 studies, 142 participants) or Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.94; 2 studies, 71 participants). We are unsure whether there is a difference in adverse events due to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.19; 2 studies, 142 participants); these were minor adverse events reported for Physalia stings. We are also unsure whether either treatment leads to a clinically significant reduction in pain in the first hour (Physalia: RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.15; 1 study, 88 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 1 study, 42 participants) or cessation of pain at the end of treatment (Physalia: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.27; 1 study, 54 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.82 to 15.31; 1 study, 29 participants). Evidence for retreatment with the same intervention was only available for Physalia, with similar uncertain findings (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.90; 1 study, 96 participants), as was the case for retreatment with the alternative hot or cold application after Physalia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.82; 1 study, 54 participants) and Chironex fleckeri stings (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.17; 1 study, 42 participants). Evidence for dermatological signs (itchiness or rash) was available only at 24 hours for Physalia stings (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.65; 2 studies, 98 participants). Topical applications One study (62 participants) included accidental stings from Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) treated on the beach with fresh water, seawater, Sting Aid (a commercial product), or Adolph's (papain) meat tenderiser. In another study, healthy volunteers (97 participants) were stung with an Indonesian sea nettle (Chrysaora chinensis from Malaysia) in a laboratory setting and treated with isopropyl alcohol, ammonia, heated water, acetic acid, or sodium bicarbonate. Two other eligible studies (Carybdea alata and Physalia stings) did not measure the outcomes of this review. The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we could not be certain whether or not topical applications provided at least a clinically significant reduction in pain (1 study, 62 participants with Carybdea alata stings, reported only as cessation of pain). For adverse events due to treatment, one study (Chrysaora chinensis stings) withdrew ammonia as a treatment following a first-degree burn in one participant. No studies evaluated clinically significant reduction in pain, retreatment with the same or the alternative treatment, or dermatological signs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Few studies contributed data to this review, and those that did contribute varied in types of treatment, settings, and range of jellyfish species. We are unsure of the effectiveness of any of the treatments evaluated in this review given the very low certainty of all the evidence. This updated review includes two new studies (with 139 additional participants). The findings are consistent with the previous review.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Ammonia; Acetic Acid; Pain
PubMed: 37272501
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009688.pub3 -
Acta Pharmaceutica (Zagreb, Croatia) Jun 2022The novel SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus) has emerged as a significant threat to public health with startling drawbacks in all sectors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The novel SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus) has emerged as a significant threat to public health with startling drawbacks in all sectors globally. This study investigates the practicality of some medicinal plants for SARS-CoV-2 therapy using a systematic review and meta-analysis of their reported SARS-CoV-1 inhibitory potencies. Relevant data were systematically gathered from three databases, , Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus. The information obtained included botanical information, extraction method and extracts concentrations, as well as the proposed mechanisms. Fourteen articles describing 30 different plants met our eligibility criteria. Random effects model and subgroup analysis were applied to investigate heterogeneity. According to subgroup analysis, the substantial heterogeneity of the estimated mean based on the values reporting the most potent anti-SARS-CoV 3C--like protease (3CLpro) inhibitors (10.07 %, < 0.0001), was significantly higher compared to the most active anti-SARS-CoV papain-like protease (PLpro) inhibitors (6.12 %, < 0.0001). More importantly, the literature analysis revealed that fruit extracts of L. and the compound cryptotanshinone isolated from the root of ( = 0.8 ± 0.2 μmol L) were excellent candidates for anti--SARS-CoV targeting PLpro. Meanwhile, iguesterin ( = 2.6 ± 0.6 μmol L) isolated from the bark of emerged as the most excellent candidate for anti-SARS--CoV targeting 3CLpro. The present systematic review and meta-analysis provide valuable and comprehensive information about potential medicinal plants for SARS-CoV-2 inhibition. The chemotypes identified herein can be adopted as a starting point for developing new drugs to contain the novel virus.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Plants, Medicinal; Drug Repositioning; Protease Inhibitors; Peptide Hydrolases; Antiviral Agents
PubMed: 36651508
DOI: 10.2478/acph-2022-0021 -
Neurotoxicity Research Oct 2022Since the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic, the search for new approaches to treat this disease took place in the scientific community. The in silico... (Review)
Review
Since the appearance of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic, the search for new approaches to treat this disease took place in the scientific community. The in silico approach has gained importance at this moment, once the methodologies used in this kind of study allow for the identification of specific protein-ligand interactions, which may serve as a filter step for molecules that can act as specific inhibitors. In addition, it is a low-cost and high-speed technology. Molecular docking has been widely used to find potential viral protein inhibitors for structural and non-structural proteins of the SARS-CoV-2, aiming to block the infection and the virus multiplication. The papain-like protease (PLpro) participates in the proteolytic processing of SARS-CoV-2 and composes one of the main targets studied for pharmacological intervention by in silico methodologies. Based on that, we performed a systematic review about PLpro inhibitors from the perspective of in silico research, including possible therapeutic molecules in relation to this viral protein. The neurological problems triggered by COVID-19 were also briefly discussed, especially relative to the similarities of neuroinflammation present in Alzheimer's disease. In this context, we focused on two molecules, curcumin and glycyrrhizinic acid, given their PLpro inhibitory actions and neuroprotective properties and potential therapeutic effects on COVID-19.
Topics: Curcumin; Glycyrrhizic Acid; Humans; Ligands; Molecular Docking Simulation; Pandemics; Papain; Peptide Hydrolases; SARS-CoV-2; Viral Proteins; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35917086
DOI: 10.1007/s12640-022-00542-2 -
Bioorganic Chemistry Jan 2021Since the beginning of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease outbreak, there has been an increasing interest in finding a potential therapeutic agent for the...
BACKGROUND
Since the beginning of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease outbreak, there has been an increasing interest in finding a potential therapeutic agent for the disease. Considering the matter of time, the computational methods of drug repurposing offer the best chance of selecting one drug from a list of approved drugs for the life-threatening condition of COVID-19. The present systematic review aims to provide an overview of studies that have used computational methods for drug repurposing in COVID-19.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic search in five databases and included original articles in English that applied computational methods for drug repurposing in COVID-19.
RESULTS
Twenty-one original articles utilizing computational drug methods for COVID-19 drug repurposing were included in the systematic review. Regarding the quality of eligible studies, high-quality items including the use of two or more approved drug databases, analysis of molecular dynamic simulation, multi-target assessment, the use of crystal structure for the generation of the target sequence, and the use of AutoDock Vina combined with other docking tools occurred in about 52%, 38%, 24%, 48%, and 19% of included studies. Studies included repurposed drugs mainly against non-structural proteins of SARS-CoV2: the main 3C-like protease (Lopinavir, Ritonavir, Indinavir, Atazanavir, Nelfinavir, and Clocortolone), RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (Remdesivir and Ribavirin), and the papain-like protease (Mycophenolic acid, Telaprevir, Boceprevir, Grazoprevir, Darunavir, Chloroquine, and Formoterol). The review revealed the best-documented multi-target drugs repurposed by computational methods for COVID-19 therapy as follows: antiviral drugs commonly used to treat AIDS/HIV (Atazanavir, Efavirenz, and Dolutegravir Ritonavir, Raltegravir, and Darunavir, Lopinavir, Saquinavir, Nelfinavir, and Indinavir), HCV (Grazoprevir, Lomibuvir, Asunaprevir, Ribavirin, and Simeprevir), HBV (Entecavir), HSV (Penciclovir), CMV (Ganciclovir), and Ebola (Remdesivir), anticoagulant drug (Dabigatran), and an antifungal drug (Itraconazole).
CONCLUSIONS
The present systematic review provides a list of existing drugs that have the potential to influence SARS-CoV2 through different mechanisms of action. For the majority of these drugs, direct clinical evidence on their efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19 is lacking. Future clinical studies examining these drugs might come to conclude, which can be more useful to inhibit COVID-19 progression.
Topics: Animals; Antiviral Agents; Cell Line, Tumor; Computational Chemistry; Drug Discovery; Drug Repositioning; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33261845
DOI: 10.1016/j.bioorg.2020.104490 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2013Jellyfish envenomations are common amongst temperate coastal regions and vary in severity depending on the species. Stings result in a variety of symptoms and signs,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Jellyfish envenomations are common amongst temperate coastal regions and vary in severity depending on the species. Stings result in a variety of symptoms and signs, including pain, dermatological reactions and, in some species, Irukandji syndrome (including abdominal/back/chest pain, tachycardia, hypertension, sweating, piloerection, agitation and sometimes cardiac complications). Many treatments have been suggested for the symptoms and signs of jellyfish stings. However, it is unclear which interventions are most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms associated with the use of any intervention, in both adults and children, for the treatment of jellyfish stings, as assessed from randomised trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases in October 2012 and again in October 2013: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL;The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2013); MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1948 to 22 October 2013); EMBASE via Ovid SP (1980 to 21 October 2013); and Web of Science (all databases; 1899 to 21 October 2013). We also searched reference lists from eligible studies and guidelines, conference proceedings and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and contacted content experts to identify trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that compared any intervention(s) to active and/or non-active controls for the treatment of symptoms and signs of jellyfish sting envenomation. No language, publication date or publication status restrictions were applied.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction and assessed risk of bias using a standardised form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with a third review author when necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials with a total of 435 participants. Three trials focused on Physalia (Bluebottle) jellyfish, one trial on Carukia jellyfish and three on Carybdea alata (Hawaiian box) jellyfish. Two ongoing trials were identified.Six of the seven trials were judged as having high risk of bias. Blinding was not feasible in four of the included trials because of the nature of the interventions. A wide range of interventions were assessed across trials, and a wide range of outcomes were measured. We reported results from the two trials for which data were available and reported the effects of interventions according to our definition of primary or secondary outcomes.Hot water immersion was superior to ice packs in achieving clinically significant (at least 50%) pain relief at 10 minutes (one trial, 96 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 2.72; low-quality evidence) and 20 minutes (one trial, 88 participants, RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.15; low-quality evidence). No statistically significant differences between hot water immersion and ice packs were demonstrated for dermatological outcomes.Treatment with vinegar or Adolph's meat tenderizer compared with hot water made skin appear worse (one trial, 25 participants, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.72; low-quality evidence).Adverse events due to treatment were not reported in any trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review located a small number of trials that assessed a variety of different interventions applied in different ways and in different settings. Although heat appears to be an effective treatment for Physalia (Bluebottle) stings, this evidence is based on a single trial of low-quality evidence. It is still unclear what type of application, temperature, duration of treatment and type of water (salt or fresh) constitute the most effective treatment. In addition, these results may not apply to other species of jellyfish with different envenomation characteristics. Future research should further assess the most effective interventions using standardised research methodology.
Topics: Acetic Acid; Adult; Animals; Bites and Stings; Child; Cnidaria; Cryotherapy; Cubozoa; Drug Combinations; Hot Temperature; Humans; Hydrozoa; Pain Management; Papain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium, Dietary
PubMed: 24318773
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009688.pub2 -
European Archives of Paediatric... Dec 2022Chemical-mechanical caries removal (CMCR) products are in constant evolution and were recommended during the COVID-19 pandemic as substitutes for conventional caries...
BACKGROUND
Chemical-mechanical caries removal (CMCR) products are in constant evolution and were recommended during the COVID-19 pandemic as substitutes for conventional caries removal.
AIM
Characterize the worldwide scientific literature about CMCR products, over the years, by means of a critical review.
DESIGN
Electronic search was performed on Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Lilacs, and Embase up to November 2020. Year, journal, country of authors, and type of study were the data extracted from the retrieved studies. Additional data of the clinical studies and systematic reviews were investigated.
RESULTS
2221 records were identified, 397 selected. 2011-2020 period concentrates higher number of publications (n = 169), in the Journal of Dental Research (n = 51), developed in Brazil (n = 45) and India (n = 44). Most studies were in vitro (n = 211) and clinical trials (n = 101). Carisolv™ (n = 48) and Papacarie Duo Gel™ (n = 33) were the most used products, prescript in isolated usage (n = 101), and compared with drills (n = 77). CMCR were more studied in primary teeth (n = 78), receiving glass ionomer cement (GIC) (n = 51) as restorative material. The most evaluated outcomes were time spent (n = 48) and pain (n = 41). Clinical application of CMCR takes more time than other techniques, but can also reduce patient anxiety, pain, and need for anesthesia.
CONCLUSION
In vitro and clinical studies with CMCR products have been increasing, mostly carried out in developing countries, evaluating Carisolv™ and Papacarie Duo Gel™. Clinical studies tend to evaluate the time spent and pain compared to drills for removing caries in primary teeth, posteriorly restored with GIC. CMCR clinical application reduces anxiety, pain, and need for anesthesia, despite increase treatments' time.
Topics: Humans; Tooth, Deciduous; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Pandemics; COVID-19; Dental Caries; Glass Ionomer Cements; Pain
PubMed: 35831699
DOI: 10.1007/s40368-022-00726-6 -
Scientific Reports Jul 2022Strategies aiming to improve the longevity of resin-dentin adhesive interface developed so far have only been able to retard the problem. Different approaches are thus...
Strategies aiming to improve the longevity of resin-dentin adhesive interface developed so far have only been able to retard the problem. Different approaches are thus needed. The objective of this review was to determine whether the use of collagen-depletion strategies after acid-etching procedures may improve the bond strength of resin-based materials to dentin. A systematic review was planned following 2021 PRISMA statement guidelines, with a search strategy performed in five electronic databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, SciELO and IADR Abstract Archive (last search: 17/01/2022). Inclusion criteria encompassed studies which evaluated a collagen-depletion strategy in acid-etched human dentin and tensile/shear bond strength tests. Risk of bias assessment was carried out by two reviewers, working independently on an adapted five-domain risk of bias (RoB) checklist for laboratory studies. Results were synthesized qualitatively, as a meta-analysis was not possible due to limited number of studies and their RoB. A total of eight studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review after inclusion/exclusion criteria application. Out of these, two evaluated the effect of using NaOCl followed by an antioxidant, and the remaining six evaluated different enzymatic treatments (bromelain, chondroitinase ABC, papain, and trypsin). None of the studies reported a decrease of bond strength when a collagen-depletion strategy was used, in comparison to traditional hybrid layers (control). All enzymatic treatment studies which respected the inclusion criteria improved the bond strength to dentin. Some specific collagen-depletion strategies seem to play a favorable role in improving immediate bond strengths to dentin. Further research with sound methodology is required to consolidate these findings, since limitations in RoB and a low number of studies were found. The assessment of further proteolytic agents and long-term outcomes is also required.
Topics: Collagen; Composite Resins; Dentin; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Humans; Materials Testing; Resin Cements; Tensile Strength
PubMed: 35906302
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-17371-0