Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
J Med Virol ; 95(2): e28447, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2269954

ABSTRACT

Omicron BA.2.2 is the dominant variant in the Hong Kong outbreak since December 31, 2021. There is no study reporting the weekly symptom profile after infection. In this retrospective study, participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after December 31, 2021, and registered in the telemedicine system between March 14 and May 6, 2022, were analyzed. Among registered 12 950 self-quarantined COVID-19-positive patients, 11 776 symptomatic patients were included for weekly symptom profile analysis. A total of 4718 (40.1%) patients reported symptoms in the first week after a positive test, 2501 (21.2%) in the second week, 1498 (12.7%) in the third week, 1048 (8.9%) in the fourth week, and 2011 (17.1%) in over 4 weeks. Cough was the most common symptom in all participants. Patients in the first week had higher odds of reporting fever (0.206, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.161-0.263, p < 0.001) and sore throat (0.228, 95% CI: 0.208-0.252, p < 0.001). Patients in over 4 weeks had higher odds of reporting fatigue (1.263, 95% CI: 1.139-1.402, p < 0.001). Further, having at least two vaccine doses linked to lower odds of having fever (0.675, 95% CI: 0.562-0.811, p < 0.001), but not associated with the presence of cough and fatigue. Diabetic patients had higher odds of reporting diarrhea (1.637, 95% CI: 1.351-1.982, p < 0.001). Symptoms from Omicron infection may last for more than 4 weeks and symptom profiles vary from week to week. Vaccination and comorbidity affect the symptom profiles.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Cough , Hong Kong , Retrospective Studies , Disease Outbreaks , Fatigue , Fever
2.
J Transl Med ; 21(1): 48, 2023 01 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2234832

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Drug-target interaction (DTI) prediction has become a crucial prerequisite in drug design and drug discovery. However, the traditional biological experiment is time-consuming and expensive, as there are abundant complex interactions present in the large size of genomic and chemical spaces. For alleviating this phenomenon, plenty of computational methods are conducted to effectively complement biological experiments and narrow the search spaces into a preferred candidate domain. Whereas, most of the previous approaches cannot fully consider association behavior semantic information based on several schemas to represent complex the structure of heterogeneous biological networks. Additionally, the prediction of DTI based on single modalities cannot satisfy the demand for prediction accuracy. METHODS: We propose a multi-modal representation framework of 'DeepMPF' based on meta-path semantic analysis, which effectively utilizes heterogeneous information to predict DTI. Specifically, we first construct protein-drug-disease heterogeneous networks composed of three entities. Then the feature information is obtained under three views, containing sequence modality, heterogeneous structure modality and similarity modality. We proposed six representative schemas of meta-path to preserve the high-order nonlinear structure and catch hidden structural information of the heterogeneous network. Finally, DeepMPF generates highly representative comprehensive feature descriptors and calculates the probability of interaction through joint learning. RESULTS: To evaluate the predictive performance of DeepMPF, comparison experiments are conducted on four gold datasets. Our method can obtain competitive performance in all datasets. We also explore the influence of the different feature embedding dimensions, learning strategies and classification methods. Meaningfully, the drug repositioning experiments on COVID-19 and HIV demonstrate DeepMPF can be applied to solve problems in reality and help drug discovery. The further analysis of molecular docking experiments enhances the credibility of the drug candidates predicted by DeepMPF. CONCLUSIONS: All the results demonstrate the effectively predictive capability of DeepMPF for drug-target interactions. It can be utilized as a useful tool to prescreen the most potential drug candidates for the protein. The web server of the DeepMPF predictor is freely available at http://120.77.11.78/DeepMPF/ , which can help relevant researchers to further study.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Deep Learning , Humans , Molecular Docking Simulation , Semantics , Drug Discovery/methods , Proteins
3.
Front Public Health ; 10: 1061486, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2199546

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to public health problems, including depression. There has been a significant increase in research on depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, little attention has been paid to the overall trend in this field based on bibliometric analyses. Methods: Co-Occurrence (COOC) and VOSviewer bibliometric methods were utilized to analyze depression in COVID-19 literature in the core collection of the Web of Science (WOS). The overall characteristics of depression during COVID-19 were summarized by analyzing the number of published studies, keywords, institutions, and countries. Results: A total of 9,694 English original research articles and reviews on depression during COVID-19 were included in this study. The United States, China, and the United Kingdom were the countries with the largest number of publications and had close cooperation with each other. Research institutions in each country were dominated by universities, with the University of Toronto being the most productive institution in the world. The most frequently published author was Ligang Zhang. Visualization analysis showed that influencing factors, adverse effects, and coping strategies were hotspots for research. Conclusion: The results shed light on the burgeoning research on depression during COVID-19, particularly the relationship between depression and public health. In addition, future research on depression during COVID-19 should focus more on special groups and those at potential risk of depression in the general population, use more quantitative and qualitative studies combined with more attention to scale updates, and conduct longitudinal follow-ups of the outcomes of interventions. In conclusion, this study contributes to a more comprehensive view of the development of depression during COVID-19 and suggests a theoretical basis for future research on public health.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Pandemics , Adaptation, Psychological , Bibliometrics
4.
J Tradit Chin Med ; 40(6): 891-896, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-952512

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practice in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and provide timely clinical practice guidance. METHODS: The guidelines were developed in accordance with the World Health Organization rapid guideline process. The evidence on TCM for COVID-19 from published guidelines, direct and indirect published clinical evidence, first hand clinical data, and expert experience and consensus were collected. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) method was used to grade the evidence and make the recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the available evidence, the guidelines recommended 17 Chinese medicines for COVID-19: 2 Chinese herbal granules, 7 Chinese patent medicines, and 8 Chinese herbal injections. CONCLUSION: As the literature search was conducted on March, any subsequent versions of these guidelines require an up-to-date literature review. We hope that the evidence summary in these will be helpful in global efforts to address COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use , Medicine, Chinese Traditional/methods , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , COVID-19 Drug Treatment
5.
Am J Chin Med ; 48(7): 1511-1521, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-910319

ABSTRACT

The worldwide spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus has become a profound threat to human health. As the use of medication without established effectiveness may result in adverse health consequences, the development of evidence-based guidelines is of critical importance for the clinical management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This research presents methods used to develop rapid advice guidelines on treating COVID-19 with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). We have followed the basic approach for developing WHO rapid guidelines, including preparing, developing, disseminating and updating each process. Compared with general guidelines, this rapid advice guideline is unique in formulating the body of evidence, as the available evidence for the treatment of COVID-19 with TCM is from either indirect or observational studies, clinical first-hand data together with expert experience in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, our search of evidence not only focuses on clinical studies of treating COVID-19 with TCM but also of similar diseases, such as pneumonia and influenza. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology was adopted to rate the quality of evidence and distinguish the strength of recommendations. The overall certainty of the evidence is graded as either high, moderate, low or very low, and to give either "strong" or "weak" recommendations of each TCM therapy. The output of this paper will produce the guideline on TCM for COVID-19 and will also provide some ideas for evidence collection and synthesis in the future development of rapid guidelines for COVID-19 in TCM as well as other areas.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use , Medicine, Chinese Traditional/methods , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/physiology
6.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(10): 621, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-628365

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Supportive treatment is an important and effective part of the management for patients with life-threatening diseases. This study aims to identify and evaluate the forms of supportive care for patients with respiratory diseases. METHODS: An umbrella review of supportive care for patient with respiratory diseases was undertaken. We comprehensively searched the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Data and CBM (SinoMed) from their inception to 31 March 2020, and other sources to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to supportive treatments for patient with respiratory diseases including Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and influenza. We assessed the methodological quality using the AMSTAR score and the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of each included systematic review and meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 18 systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this study. Most studies focused on the respiratory and circulatory support. Ten studies were of high methodological quality, five studies of medium quality, and three studies of low quality. According to four studies extracorporeal membrane oxygenation did not reduce mortality in adults [odds ratio/relative risk (OR/RR) ranging from 0.71 to 1.28], but two studies reported significantly lower mortality in patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation than in the control group (OR/RR ranging from 0.38 to 0.73). Besides, monitoring of vital signs and increasing the number of medical staff may also reduce the mortality in patients with respiratory diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Our overview suggests that supportive care may reduce the mortality of patients with respiratory diseases to some extent. However, the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes in the included studies was low to moderate. Further systematic reviews and meta-analyses are needed to address the evidence gap regarding the supportive care for SARS, MERS and COVID-19.

7.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(10): 627, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-609913

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids are widely used in the treatment of various pulmonary inflammatory diseases, but they are also often accompanied by significant adverse reactions. Published guidelines point out that low dose and short duration systemic glucocorticoid therapy may be considered for patients with rapidly progressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) while the evidence is still limited. METHODS: We comprehensively searched electronic databases and supplemented the screening by conducting a manual search. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of glucocorticoids in children and adults with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and conducted meta-analyses of the main indicators that were identified in the studies. RESULTS: Our search retrieved 23 studies, including one RCT and 22 cohort studies, with a total of 13,815 patients. In adults with COVID-19, the use of systemic glucocorticoid did not reduce mortality [risk ratio (RR) =2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69 to 5.75, I2=90.9%] or the duration of lung inflammation [weighted mean difference (WMD) =-1 days, 95% CI: -2.91 to 0.91], while a significant reduction was found in the duration of fever (WMD =-3.23 days, 95% CI: -3.56 to -2.90). In patients with SARS, glucocorticoids also did not reduce the mortality (RR =1.52, 95% CI: 0.89 to 2.60, I2=84.6%), duration of fever (WMD =0.82 days, 95% CI: -2.88 to 4.52, I2=97.9%) or duration of lung inflammation absorption (WMD =0.95 days, 95% CI: -7.57 to 9.48, I2=94.6%). The use of systemic glucocorticoid therapy prolonged the duration of hospital stay in all patients (COVID-19, SARS and MERS). CONCLUSIONS: Glucocorticoid therapy was found to reduce the duration of fever, but not mortality, duration of hospitalization or lung inflammation absorption. Long-term use of high-dose glucocorticoids increased the risk of adverse reactions such as coinfections, so routine use of systemic glucocorticoids for patients with COVID-19 cannot be recommend.

8.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(10): 622, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-609911

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a massive impact on the whole world. Computed tomography (CT) has been widely used in the diagnosis of this novel pneumonia. This study aims to understand the role of CT for the diagnosis and the main imaging manifestations of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review and meta-analysis on studies about the use of chest CT for the diagnosis of COVID-19. We comprehensively searched databases and preprint servers on chest CT for patients with COVID-19 between 1 January 2020 and 31 March 2020. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of chest CT imaging. We also conducted subgroup analyses and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: A total of 103 studies with 5,673 patients were included. Using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results as reference, a meta-analysis based on 64 studies estimated the sensitivity of chest CT imaging in COVID-19 was 99% (95% CI, 0.97-1.00). If case reports were excluded, the sensitivity in case series was 96% (95% CI, 0.93-0.99). The sensitivity of CT scan in confirmed patients under 18 years old was only 66% (95% CI, 0.15-1.00). The most common imaging manifestation was ground-glass opacities (GGO) which was found in 75% (95% CI, 0.68-0.82) of the patients. The pooled probability of bilateral involvement was 84% (95% CI, 0.81-0.88). The most commonly involved lobes were the right lower lobe (84%, 95% CI, 0.78-0.90) and left lower lobe (81%, 95% CI, 0.74-0.87). The quality of evidence was low across all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicated that chest CT scan had a high sensitivity in diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Therefore, CT can potentially be used to assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19.

9.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(10): 624, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-609910

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak presents a new, life-threatening disease. Our aim was to assess the potential effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for COVID-19 in children. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane library, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang Data) from their inception to March 31, 2020 were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical controlled trials and cohort studies of interventions with antiviral agents for children (less than 18 years of age) with COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies with 6,008 patients were included. There was no direct evidence and all of evidence were indirect. The risks of bias in all studies were moderate to high in general. The effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for children with COVID-19 is uncertain: For adults with COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir had no effect on mortality [risk ratio (RR) =0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45 to 1.30]. Arbidol and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had no benefit on probability of negative PCR test (RR =1.27; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.73; RR =0.93; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.18) respectively. For adults with SARS, interferon was associated with reduced corticosteroid dose [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.14 g; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.07] but had no effect on mortality (RR =0.72; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.88); ribavirin did not reduce mortality (RR =0.68; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.06) and was associated with high risk of severe adverse reactions; and oseltamivir had no effect on mortality (RR =0.87; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.38). Ribavirin combined with interferon was also not effective in adults with MERS and associated with adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence showing the effectiveness of antiviral agents for children with COVID-19, and the clinical efficacy of existing antiviral agents is still uncertain. We do not suggest clinical routine use of antivirals for COVID-19 in children, with the exception of clinical trials.

10.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(10): 618, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-594639

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Existing recommendations on whether mothers with COVID-19 should continue breastfeeding are still conflicting. We aimed to conduct a rapid review of mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19 during breastfeeding. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and preprint articles up to March 2020. We included studies relevant to transmission through milk and respiratory droplets during breastfeeding of mothers with COVID-19, SARS, MERS and influenza. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 4,481 records were identified in our literature search. Six studies (five case reports and one case series) involving 58 mothers (16 mothers with COVID-19, 42 mothers with influenza) and their infants proved eligible. Five case reports showed that the viral nucleic acid tests for all thirteen collected samples of breast milk from mothers with COVID-19 were negative. A case series of 42 influenza infected postpartum mothers taking precautions (hand hygiene and wearing masks) before breastfeeding showed that no neonates were infected with influenza during one-month of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 viral nucleic acid has not been detected in breast milk. The benefits of breastfeeding may outweigh the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in infants. Mothers with COVID-19 should take appropriate precautions to reduce the risk of transmission via droplets and close contact during breastfeeding.

11.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(10): 625, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-594638

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is usually used as supportive therapy, but the treatment of COVID-19 by IVIG is controversial. This rapid review aims to explore the clinical effectiveness and safety of IVIG in the treatment of children with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature on the use of IVIG in patients with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), including both adults and children. We assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence and reported the main findings descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 1,519 articles were identified by initial literature search, and finally six studies met our inclusion criteria, included one randomized controlled trial (RCT), four case series and one case report involving 198 patients. One case series showed the survival of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was not improved by IVIG. One case report showed high-dose IVIG could improve the outcome of COVID-19 adults. Three observational studies showed inconsistent results of the effect of IVIG on SARS patients. One RCT showed that IVIG did not reduce mortality or the incidence of nosocomial infection in adults with severe SARS. The quality of evidence was between low and very low. CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence is insufficient to support the efficacy or safety of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19.

12.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(10): 629, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-594637

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, has now spread to most countries and regions of the world. As patients potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2 need to visit hospitals, the incidence of nosocomial infection can be expected to be high. Therefore, a comprehensive and objective understanding of nosocomial infection is needed to guide the prevention and control of the epidemic. METHODS: We searched major international and Chinese databases: Medicine, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CBM (China Biology Medicine disc), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang database for case series or case reports on nosocomial infections of COVID-19, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndromes) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) from their inception to March 31st, 2020. We conducted a meta-analysis of the proportion of nosocomial infection patients in the diagnosed patients, occupational distribution of nosocomial infection medical staff. RESULTS: We included 40 studies. Among the confirmed patients, the proportions of nosocomial infections with early outbreaks of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS were 44.0%, 36.0%, and 56.0%, respectively. Of the confirmed patients, the medical staff and other hospital-acquired infections accounted for 33.0% and 2.0% of COVID-19 cases, 37.0% and 24.0% of SARS cases, and 19.0% and 36.0% of MERS cases, respectively. Nurses and doctors were the most affected among the infected medical staff. The mean numbers of secondary cases caused by one index patient were 29.3 and 6.3 for SARS and MERS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of nosocomial infection in patients with COVID-19 was 44% in the early outbreak. Patients attending hospitals should take personal protection. Medical staff should be awareness of the disease to protect themselves and the patients.

13.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(10): 626, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-594423

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As COVID-19 has become a global pandemic, early prevention and control of the epidemic is extremely important. Telemedicine, which includes medical advice given over telephone, Internet, mobile phone applications or other similar ways, may be an efficient way to reduce transmission and pressure on medical institutions. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang databases for literature on the use of telemedicine for COVID-19, SARS and MERS from their inception to March 31st, 2020. We included studies about the content of the consultation (such as symptoms, therapy and prevention, policy, public service), screening of suspected cases, the provision of advice given to those people who may have symptoms or contact history. We conducted meta-analyses on the main outcomes of the studies. RESULTS: A total of 2,041 articles were identified after removing duplicates. After reading the full texts, we finally included nine studies. People were most concerned about symptoms (64.2%), epidemic situation and public problems (14.5%), and psychological problems (10.3%) during COVID-19 epidemic. During the SARS epidemic, the proportions of people asking for consultation for symptoms, prevention and therapy, and psychological problems were 35.0%, 22.0%, and 23.0%, respectively. Two studies demonstrated that telemedicine can be used to screen the suspected patients and give advice. One study emphasized the limited possibilities to follow up people calling hotlines and difficulties in identifying all suspect cases. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine services should focus on the issues that the public is most concerned about, such as the symptoms, prevention and treatment of the disease, and provide reasonable advice to patients with symptoms or people with epidemic history.

14.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(10): 628, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-594422

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It is well-known that public health education plays a crucial role in the prevention and control of emerging infectious diseases, but how health providers should advise families and parents to obtain health education information is a challenging question. With coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreading around the world, this rapid review aims to answer that question and thus to promote evidence-based decision making in health education policy and practice. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature on health education during COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) epidemics in Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data from their inception until March 31, 2020. The potential bias of the studies was assessed by Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: Of 1,067 papers found, 24 cross-sectional studies with a total of 35,967 participants were included in this review. The general public lacked good knowledge of SARS and MERS at the early stage of epidemics. Some people's knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of COVID-19 had been improved, but the health behaviors of some special groups including children and their parents need to be strengthened. Negative emotions including fear and stigmatization occurred during the outbreaks. Reliable health information was needed to improve public awareness and mental health for infectious diseases. Health information from nonprofit, government and academic websites was more accurate than privately owned commercial websites and media websites. CONCLUSIONS: For educating and cultivating children, parents should obtain information from the official websites of authorities such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and national Centers for Disease Control, or from other sources endorsed by these authorities, rather than from a general search of the internet or social media.

15.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(10): 619, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-594419

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antibiotic agents in children with COVID-19, as well as to introduce the present situation of antibiotics use and bacterial coinfections in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched Cochrane library, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, Wanfang Data and CNKI from their inception to March 31, 2020. In addition, we searched related studies on COVID-19 published before March 31, 2020 through Google Scholar. We evaluated the risk of bias of included studies, and synthesized the results using a qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: Six studies met our inclusion criteria. Five studies on SARS showed an overall risk of death of 7.2% to 20.0%. One study of SARS patients who used macrolides, quinolones or beta lactamases showed that the mean duration of hospital stay was 14.2, 13.8 and 16.2 days, respectively, and their average duration of fever was 14.3, 14.0 and 16.2 days, respectively. One cohort study on MERS indicated that macrolide therapy was not associated with a significant reduction in 90-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.47-1.51, P=0.56) and improvement in MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted HR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.47-1.64, P=0.68). According to the findings of 33 studies, the proportion of antibiotics use ranged from 19.4% to 100.0% in children and 13.2% to 100.0% in adults, despite the lack of etiological evidence. The most commonly used antibiotics in adults were quinolones, cephalosporins and macrolides and in children meropenem and linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of antibiotic agents for adults with SARS or MERS were questionable in the absence of bacterial coinfections. There is no evidence to support the use of antibiotic agents for children with COVID-19 in the absence of bacterial coinfection.

16.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(10): 620, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-594418

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Most guidelines on COVID-19 published so far include recommendations for patients regardless of age. Clinicians need a more accurate understanding of the clinical characteristics of children with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched studies reporting clinical characteristics in children with COVID-19 published until March 31, 2020. We screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias and quality of evidence of the included studies. We combined some of the outcomes (symptoms) in a single-arm meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Our search retrieved 49 studies, including 25 case reports, 23 case series and one cohort study, with a total of 1,667 patients. Our meta-analysis showed that most children with COVID-19 have mild symptoms. Eighty-three percent of the children were within family clusters of cases, and 19% had no symptoms. At least 7% with digestive symptoms. The main symptoms of children were fever [48%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 39%, 56%] and cough (39%, 95% CI: 30%, 48%). The lymphocyte count was below normal level in only 15% (95% CI: 8%, 22%) of children which is different from adult patients. 66% (95% CI: 55%, 77%) of children had abnormal findings in CT imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Most children with COVID-19 have only mild symptoms, and many children are asymptomatic. Fever and cough are the most common symptoms in children. Vomiting and diarrhea were not common in children. The lymphocyte count is usually within the normal range in children.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL