Clinical efficacy and safety of interleukin-1 blockade in the treatment of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of interleukin-1 (IL-1) blockade for patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles from their inception to 25 September 2022. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of IL-1 blockade in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 were included. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included seven RCTs. No significant difference in the all-cause mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 was observed between the IL-1 blockade and control groups (7.7 vs. 10.5%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-1.22; I2 = 18%). However, the study group was at significantly lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) compared with the control group (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.86; I2 = 24%). Finally, the risk of adverse events was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: IL-1 blockade does not provide increased survival benefits in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but it may reduce the need for MV. Furthermore, it is a safe agent for use in the treatment of COVID-19.>.

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of interleukin-1 (IL-1) blockade for patients with COVID-19.Based on the analysis of six RCTs, no significant difference in the all-cause mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 was observed between the IL-1 blockade and control groups.The study group using IL1 was associated with a significantly lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation compared with the control group.The risk of adverse events was similar between the study and the control groups.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults: Characteristics, treatment, and outcomes.

Following the rapidly increasing number of multisystem inflammatory syndromes in children (MIS-C), a similar clinical scenario has been observed in adult patients. Although its prevalence is low and probably related to underdiagnosis, its development can be associated with high mortality. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A) can develop following both asymptomatic and symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and in previously healthy people. Like MIS-C, MIS-A is a multisystem disease that can involve the cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal, dermatologic, hematologic, and neurologic systems. In addition to the clinical manifestations, the diagnosis of MIS-A requires laboratory evidence of inflammation and SARS-CoV-2 infection. The appropriate treatment for MIS-A remains unclear; anti-inflammatory agents, including intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids, are commonly used. However, there are still many unknowns regarding MIS-A. Further studies are needed to determine the true prevalence, pathogenesis, and effective treatment for MIS-A.

Long COVID: An inevitable sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

At present, there are more than 560 million confirmed cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. Although more than 98% of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can survive acute COVID, a significant portion of survivors can develop residual health problems, which is termed as long COVID. Although severe COVID-19 is generally associated with a high risk of long COVID, patients with asymptomatic or mild disease can also show long COVID. The definition of long COVID is inconsistent and its clinical manifestations are protean. In addition to general symptoms, such as fatigue, long COVID can affect many organ systems, including the respiratory, neurological, psychosocial, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and metabolic systems. Moreover, patients with long COVID may experience exercise intolerance and impaired daily function and quality of life. Long COVID may be caused by SARS-CoV-2 direct injury or its associated immune/inflammatory response. Assessment of patients with long COVID requires comprehensive evaluation, including history taking, physical examination, laboratory tests, radiography, and functional tests. However, there is no known effective treatment for long COVID. Based on the limited evidence, vaccines may help to prevent the development of long COVID. As long COVID is a new clinical entity that is constantly evolving, there are still many unknowns, and further investigation is warranted to enhance our understanding of this disease.

Monkeypox: An emerging global threat during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The emergence of the monkeypox outbreak in early 2022 has posed a new global health threat. As of July 8, 2022, 9069 laboratory-confirmed cases have been reported, and most of them are from non-endemic countries. The monkeypox virus is an enveloped double-stranded DNA virus, and preliminary genetic data suggest that the 2022 monkeypox virus belongs to the West African clade. In the current outbreak, human-to-human transmission has been the primary transmission mode. Although direct skin-to-skin contact with lesions during sexual activities can spread the virus, it remains unclear whether monkeypox can spread through sexual contact, specifically through contaminated body fluids. The typical presentation of monkeypox includes prodromal symptoms, followed by a rash that usually begins within 1-3 days of symptom onset, and the skin lesions can last for 2-4 weeks and then gradually resolve. However, the monkeypox outbreak in 2022 may exhibit atypical features. A definite diagnosis of monkeypox virus infection requires nucleic acid amplification testing via the polymerase chain reaction method. Supportive care is essential, and antiviral therapy is not considered for all affected patients, but recommended for those at highrisk for severe diseases. The mitigation of monkeypox outbreaks include enhanced case detection, case isolation, contact tracing, and post-exposure vaccination. In conclusion, the current monkeypox outbreak is a new threat during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians should be aware of this new situation, which presents a different scenario from those of prior outbreaks. Global health systems should develop effective strategies to mitigate the spread of monkeypox.

The clinical efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stromal cells for patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the usefulness of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) to treat patients with COVID-19. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs published before November 7, 2021. Only RCTs that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of MSCs with other alternative treatments or placebos in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 were included. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included, in which the MSC and control groups consisted of 158 and 135 patients, respectively. The patients who received MSCs had a significantly lower 28-day mortality rate (7.6% vs 21.5%; OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.52; I2 = 0%) and significantly higher clinical improvement rate (OR, 6.05; 95% CI, 2.31-15.83; I2 = 0%) than the controls. The patients who received MSCs were associated with a similar risk of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs to the control group (AEs: OR, 33; 95% CI, 0.09-1.18; I2 = 59%; serious AEs: OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.02-4.41; I2 = 53%). CONCLUSIONS: MSC treatment may help to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19. In addition, MSC treatment appears to be a safe therapeutic option for patients with COVID-19.

Effect of colchicine on the outcomes of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIM: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the usefulness of colchicine in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between database inception and November 12, 2021. Only RCTs that compared the clinical efficacy and safety of colchicine with other alternative treatments or placebos in patients with COVID-19 were included. RESULTS: Overall, 7 RCTs involving 16,024 patients were included; 7,794 patients were in the study group receiving colchicine and 8,230 were in the control group receiving placebo or standard treatment. The study and control groups had similar risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.09; I2 = 0%). No significant difference was observed between the study and control groups in terms of the need for non-invasive ventilation (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-1.03; I2 = 0%), the need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.32-1.32; I2 = 58%), and length of hospital stay (mean difference, -0.42 days; 95% CI, -1.95 to 1.11; I2 = 62%). In addition, colchicine was associated with significantly higher risks of gastrointestinal adverse events (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.56-2.11; I2 = 0%) and diarrhoea (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.75-2.56; I2 = 9%). CONCLUSIONS: Colchicine does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, so it did not support the additional use of colchicine in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.Key messageColchicine could not reduce the mortality of patients with COVID-19.No significant difference was observed between the colchicine and comparators in terms of the need for non-invasive ventilation, need for mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay.Colchicine was associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal adverse events.

Effect of sofosbuvir-based treatment on clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy of sofosbuvir-based antiviral treatment against COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 15 August 2021. Studies comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir-based antiviral regimens (study group) with other antivirals or standard of care (control group) in patients with COVID-19 were included. Overall, 687 patients with COVID-19 were included, of which 377 patients received sofosbuvir-based treatment. Mortality was lower in the study group than in the control group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.79; I2 = 0%]. The overall clinical recovery rate was higher in the study group than in the control group (OR = 1.82, 95% CI 1.20-2.76; I2 = 28%). The study group presented a lower requirement for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.89; I2 = 0%) and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.70; I2 = 0%) than the control group. Furthermore, the study group exhibited a shorter hospital length of stay [mean deviation (MD), -1.49, 95% CI -2.62 to -0.37; I2 = 56%] and recovery time (MD, -1.34, 95% CI -2.29 to -0.38; I2 = 46%) than the control group. Sofosbuvir-based treatment may help reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 and improve associated clinical outcomes. Furthermore, sofosbuvir-based treatment was as safe as the comparator in patients with COVID-19. However, further large-scale studies are warranted to validate these findings.

Clinical efficacy and safety of interferon-ß-containing regimens in the treatment of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials(RCTs) was to investigate the efficacy of interferon (IFN)-ß-containing regimens in treating patients with COVID-19. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 17 July 2021. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of IFN-ß-containing regimens (study group) to other antiviral treatment options or placebo (control group) in treating patients with COVID-19 were included. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included. No significant difference in the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was observed between the study and control groups (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.44-1.24; I2 = 51%). The study groups had a lower rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions than the control groups (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95; I2 = 0%). Furthermore, INF-ß was not associated with an increased risk of any adverse event (AE) or serious AE when compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: IFN-ß does not appear to provide an increased survival benefit in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 but may help reduce the risk of ICU admission. Moreover, IFN-ß is a safe agent for use in the treatment of COVID-19.

Clinical efficacy and safety of Janus kinase inhibitors for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for COVID-19 patients. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to July 12, 2021. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors with a placebo or standard care in treating COVID-19 patients were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality rate at day 28. RESULTS: Three RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. The all-cause mortality rate at day 28 was lower among the patients receiving JAK inhibitors than among the controls (4.1% [28/647] versus 7.0% [48/684], OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.92, I2 = 0). The clinical recovery rate was higher among the patients receiving JAK inhibitors than among the controls (85.1% (579/680) versus 80.0% [547/684], OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.09-1.93, I2 = 0). Additionally, the use of JAK inhibitors was associated with a shorter time to recovery than among the controls (MD, -2.84; 95% CI, -5.56 to -0.12; I2 = 50%). The rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) was lower in the patients who used JAK inhibitors than among the controls. Finally, no significant difference was observed between the patients who used JAK inhibitors and the controls in the risk of any adverse events (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64-1.34; I2 = 33%) and serious adverse events (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.45-1.44; I2 = 46%). CONCLUSIONS: JAK inhibitors can lead to a better clinical outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and they are a safe agent in the treatment of COVID-19.