ABSTRACT
Background: Multi system symptoms such as gastrointestinal tract and respiratory tract exist in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. There is a lack of reliable evidence to prove that probiotics are effective in improving these symptoms. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in meta-analysis. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to February 15, 2023. Randomized controlled trials or high quality retrospective studies comparing the efficacy of probiotics as supplementation with non-probiotics in improving symptoms for patients with COVID-19 were included. This meta-analysis assessed endpoints using Review Manager 5.3. Result: Ten citations comprising 1198 patients with COVID-19 were included. The results showed that probiotics could increase the number of people with overall symptom improvement (RR = 1.62, 95% CI [1.10, 2.38], P = 0.01) and shorten the duration (days) of overall symptoms (MD = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.36, -0.16], P = 0.02). For the duration (days) of specific symptoms, probiotics could improve diarrhea (MD = -2.12, 95% CI [-2.41, -1.83], P < 0.00001), cough (MD = -2.21, 95% CI [-4.56, 0.13], P = 0.06) and shortness of breath (MD = -1.37, 95% CI [-2.22, -0.53], P = 0.001). Probiotics had no obvious effect on fever, headache and weakness. For inflammation, probiotics could effectively reduce C-reactive Protein (CRP) serum level (mg/L) (MD = -4.03, 95% CI [-5.12, -2.93], P < 0.00001). Regarding hospital stay (days), probiotics group was shorter than non-probiotics group (MD = -0.98, 95% CI [-1.95, -0.01], P = 0.05). Conclusion: To some extent probiotics could improve the overall symptoms, inflammatory reaction and shorten hospital stay of patients with COVID-19. Probiotics may improve gastrointestinal symptoms (such as improving intestinal flora and reducing the duration of diarrhea) and further improve respiratory symptoms through the gut-lung axis. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=398309, identifier: CRD42023398309.
ABSTRACT
A high rate of thromboembolism and a high risk of death have been reported regarding hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Recently, we noticed that clinicians in some comparative studies used direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19. However, it is uncertain whether DOACs are better than recommended heparin for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Therefore, a direct comparison of the prophylactic effects and safety between DOACs and heparin is needed. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 2019 to December 1, 2022. Randomized controlled trials or retrospective studies comparing the efficacy or safety of DOACs with that of heparin in preventing thromboembolism for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. We assessed endpoints and publication bias using Stata 14.0. Five studies comprising 1360 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate cases were identified in the databases. Comparing the embolism incidence, we found that DOACs had a better effect than heparin, mainly low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), in preventing thromboembolism (risk ratio [RR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.43-0.91], P = 0.014). Considering safety, DOACs resulted in less bleeding than heparin during hospitalization (RR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.11-2.44], P = 0.411). Similar mortality was discovered in the 2 groups (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.59-1.51], P = 0.797). In noncritically hospitalized patients with COVID-19, DOACs are superior to heparin, even LMWH, in preventing thromboembolism. Compared with heparin, DOACs have a lower trend of bleeding and yield a similar mortality rate. Therefore, DOACs may be a better alternative for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.