Trial Sequential Analysis and Updated Meta-Analysis of Fluvoxamine on Clinical Deterioration in Adult Patients with Symptomatic COVID-19 Infection

Preliminary meta-analyses suggested that fluvoxamine was effective in treating COVID-19 infection. However, the reliability of this evidence has not yet been examined. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the inception of the databases to 5 February 2023. We used trial sequential analysis (TSA) to examine the reliability of the current existing evidence on the benefits of fluvoxamine on COVID-19 infection. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration, as defined in the original study (reported as odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals), and the secondary outcome was hospitalization. In the TSA, we used the relative risk reduction thresholds of 10, 20, and 30%. The updated meta-analysis of the five RCTs showed that fluvoxamine was not associated with lower odds of clinical deterioration when compared with a placebo (OR: 0.81;0.59–1.11). The effect of fluvoxamine lay within the futility boundary (i.e., lack of effect) when using a 30% relative risk reduction threshold. The effect estimates lay between the superiority and futility boundary using the 10% and 20% threshold, and the required size of information was not reached for these two thresholds. The effect of fluvoxamine on the odds of hospitalization was not statistically significant (0.76;0.56–1.03). In conclusion, there is no reliable evidence that fluvoxamine, when compared to a placebo, reduces the relative risk of clinical deterioration among adult patients with COVID-19 infection by 30%, and a relative risk reduction of 20% or 10% is still uncertain. The role of fluvoxamine as a COVID-19 treatment cannot be justified.

Trial Sequential Analysis and Updated Meta-Analysis of Fluvoxamine on Clinical Deterioration in Adult Patients with Symptomatic COVID-19 Infection.

Preliminary meta-analyses suggested that fluvoxamine was effective in treating COVID-19 infection. However, the reliability of this evidence has not yet been examined. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the inception of the databases to 5 February 2023. We used trial sequential analysis (TSA) to examine the reliability of the current existing evidence on the benefits of fluvoxamine on COVID-19 infection. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration, as defined in the original study (reported as odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals), and the secondary outcome was hospitalization. In the TSA, we used the relative risk reduction thresholds of 10, 20, and 30%. The updated meta-analysis of the five RCTs showed that fluvoxamine was not associated with lower odds of clinical deterioration when compared with a placebo (OR: 0.81; 0.59-1.11). The effect of fluvoxamine lay within the futility boundary (i.e., lack of effect) when using a 30% relative risk reduction threshold. The effect estimates lay between the superiority and futility boundary using the 10% and 20% threshold, and the required size of information was not reached for these two thresholds. The effect of fluvoxamine on the odds of hospitalization was not statistically significant (0.76; 0.56-1.03). In conclusion, there is no reliable evidence that fluvoxamine, when compared to a placebo, reduces the relative risk of clinical deterioration among adult patients with COVID-19 infection by 30%, and a relative risk reduction of 20% or 10% is still uncertain. The role of fluvoxamine as a COVID-19 treatment cannot be justified.

Efficacy of blood urea nitrogen-to-albumin ratio for predicting prognostic outcomes of inpatients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The associations between blood urea nitrogen (BUN)/albumin ratio and poor prognosis in patients with diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain to be clarified. METHODS: A search based on 4 electronic databases (i.e., EMBASE, Google scholar, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library) was performed on June 23, 2022. The association of BUN/Albumin ratio with poor prognostic outcomes, defined as patients with mortality/severe illnesses, were analyzed. RESULTS: Results from analysis of 7 cohort studies (3600 individuals with COVID-19) published between 2020 and 2022 showed a higher BUN/Albumin ratio in the poor-prognosis group (Mean difference:  = 2.838, 95% confidence interval: 2.015-3.66, P < .001, I2 = 92.5%) than the good-prognosis group. Additional investigation into the connection between BUN/Albumin ratio as a binary variable (i.e., high or low) and the risk of poor outcome also supported an association between a higher BUN/Albumin ratio and a poor prognostic risk (odd ratio = 3.009, 95% confidence interval: 1.565-5.783, P = .001, I2 = 93.7%, 5 studies). Merged analysis of poor prognosis produced a sensitivity of 0.76, specificity of 0.72, and area under curve of 0.81. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated a positive correlation between BUN/albumin ratio and poor outcome in patients with COVID-19. Additional large-scale prospective studies are needed to verify our findings.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Emergency Department Volume and Acuity in Low Incidence Area: Taiwan's Experience in Three Hospitals.

Background: The decrease in emergency department (ED) patient visits during the COVID-19 pandemic was reported by various studies. Our study aimed to investigate whether a similar trend can be observed in a country with a low incidence of COVID-19 as well as the impact caused by the pandemic on ED patients in different triage levels and categories. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study collected data from three regional hospitals between March 2019 and December 2020. We evaluated the differences between patient volume, disease severity, and patient composition in ED before and after the COVID-19 pandemic among these hospitals. Results: There was a 23% reduction in ED patient volume in the urban hospital (hospital A) as well as a 16% reduction in suburban hospitals (hospitals B and C) during the pandemic period, respectively. The regression analysis showed a high correlation in the change in monthly patient volume among these hospitals. In terms of severity, there was a 24% reduction in ED visits with high severity levels (Taiwan Triage and Acuity Scale [TTAS] I, II) in hospital A, as well as 16% and 12% in hospitals B and C during the pandemic period, respectively. Similarly, there was a 23% reduction in ED visits with low severity levels (TTAS III, IV, V) in hospital A, as well as 20% and 16% in hospitals B and C during the pandemic period, respectively. In terms of patient types, there was a significant decline in non-traumatic adult patients (19%, 17%, and 10%), and pediatric patients (49%, 50%, and 46%) in hospitals A, B, and C, respectively. Conclusions: Despite the low incidence of COVID-19 in Taiwan, a decrease in total ED visits was still found during the pandemic, especially in non-trauma adult visits and pediatric visits. In addition, ED visits in both high and low severity levels decreased in these regional hospitals.

Neurological, Psychiatric, and Psychological Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for a Large-Scale Umbrella Review of Observational Studies.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease (SARS-CoV-2) is the most severe manifestation of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Accruing evidence indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic may have profound deleterious neurological, psychiatric, and psychological outcomes. The number of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) on this topic has grown exponentially. This protocol aims to synthesize all evidence from SRs and MAs on the associations between the COVID-19 pandemic and neuropsychiatric outcomes. The following electronic databases will be systematically searched from inception up to 15 January 2022: PubMed, Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Cochrane Reviews. An umbrella review (UR) of SRs and MAs of observational studies will be conducted. SRs and/or MAs of observational studies examining any direct or indirect association of COVID-19 with the neuropsychiatric outcomes will be deemed eligible for potential inclusion in this UR. The direct associations include the impact on the (1) prognosis of COVID-19 and (2) neuropsychiatric sequelae after COVID-19 infection. The indirect associations include the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the (1) treatments and (2) outcomes of neurological and psychiatric conditions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.