Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr ; : 1-19, 2023 Feb 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2246451

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Micronutrients are clinically important in managing COVID-19, and numerous studies have been conducted, but inconsistent findings exist. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between micronutrients and COVID-19. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus for study search on July 30, 2022 and October 15, 2022. Literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed in a double-blinded, group discussion format. Meta-analysis with overlapping associations were reconsolidated using random effects models, and narrative evidence was performed in tabular presentations. RESULTS: 57 reviews and 57 latest original studies were included. 21 reviews and 53 original studies were of moderate to high quality. Vitamin D, vitamin B, zinc, selenium, and ferritin levels differed between patients and healthy people. Vitamin D and zinc deficiencies increased COVID-19 infection by 0.97-fold/0.39-fold and 1.53-fold. Vitamin D deficiency increased severity 0.86-fold, while low vitamin B and selenium levels reduced severity. Vitamin D and calcium deficiencies increased ICU admission by 1.09 and 4.09-fold. Vitamin D deficiency increased mechanical ventilation by 0.4-fold. Vitamin D, zinc, and calcium deficiencies increased COVID-19 mortality by 0.53-fold, 0.46-fold, and 5.99-fold, respectively. CONCLUSION: The associations between vitamin D, zinc, and calcium deficiencies and adverse evolution of COVID-19 were positive, while the association between vitamin C and COVID-19 was insignificant.REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022353953.

2.
Front Pharmacol ; 11: 615972, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1004690

ABSTRACT

Background: Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is known to be detrimental in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) because of its involvement in driving cytokine storm. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of anti-IL-6 signaling (anti-IL6/IL-6R/JAK) agents on COVID-19 based on the current evidence. Methods: Studies were identified through systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane library, ongoing clinical trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov), and preprint servers (medRxiv, ChinaXiv) on August 10, 2020, as well as eligibility checks according to predefined selection criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3) and STATA 12.0. Results: Thirty-one studies were included in the pooled analysis of mortality, and 12 studies were identified for the analysis of risk of secondary infections. For mortality analysis, 5630 COVID-19 cases including 2,132 treated patients and 3,498 controls were analyzed. Anti-IL-6 signaling agents plus standard of care (SOC) significantly decreased the mortality rate compared to SOC alone (pooled OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.84, p = 0.002). For the analysis of secondary infection risk, 1,624 patients with COVID-19 including 639 treated patients and 985 controls were included, showing that anti-IL-6 signaling agents did not increase the rate of secondary infections (pooled OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.70-2.08, p = 0.50). By contrast, for patients with critical COVID-19 disease, anti-IL-6 signaling agents failed to reduce mortality compared to SOC alone (pooled OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.42-1.33, p = 0.33), but they tended to increase the risk of secondary infections (pooled OR = 1.85, 95% CI 0.95-3.61, p = 0.07). A blockade of IL-6 signaling failed to reduce the mechanical ventilation rate, ICU admission rate, or elevate the clinical improvement rate. Conclusion: IL-6 signaling inhibitors reduced the mortality rate without increasing secondary infections in patients with COVID-19 based on current studies. For patients with critical disease, IL-6 signaling inhibitors did not exhibit any benefit.

3.
Build Environ ; 187: 107368, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-844143

ABSTRACT

Various organizations and societies around the globe have issued guidelines in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and virus (SARS-CoV-2). In this paper, heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning-related guidelines or documents in several major countries and regions have been reviewed and compared, including those issued by the American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, the Federation of European Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Associations, the Society of Heating, Air-Conditioning and Sanitary Engineers of Japan, Architectural Society of China, and the Chinese Institute of Refrigeration. Most terms and suggestions in these guidelines are consistent with each other, although there are some conflicting details, reflecting the underlying uncertainty surrounding the transmission mechanism and characteristics of COVID-19 in buildings. All guidelines emphasize the importance of ventilation, but the specific ventilation rate that can eliminate the risk of transmission of airborne particulate matter has not been established. The most important countermeasure, commonly agreed countermeasures, the conflicting content from different guidelines, and further work have been summarized in this paper.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL