Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications. Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Differential Psychological Factors Associated With Unnecessary Dental Avoidance and Attendance Behavior During the Early COVID-19 Epidemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is challenging the dental community to an unprecedented degree. Knowledge of the increased risk of infection in dental settings has been disseminated to the public and guidelines have been formulated to assist dental attendance decision-making. However, dental attendance behaviors incompatible with treatment need is not uncommon in clinical settings. Important gaps remain in the knowledge about how psychological factors are affecting dental attendance behaviors during the COVID-19 epidemic. In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire survey was performed during February and March 2020. A total of 342 and 294 dental patients who attended and avoided dental visits, respectively, were included. The participants were classified into four groups based on dental attendance behavior and emergent/urgent dental treatment need. Bivariate analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with dental attendance. Multivariable logistic regression based on principal component scores was performed to identify major psychological constructs associated with unnecessary dental avoidance and attendance. Among all the factors explored, inability to wear masks during dental treatment (P < 0.001; effect size: 0.32) was most closely associated with the overall pattern of dental attendance among participants. Multivariable regression suggested that unnecessary dental avoidance was associated with perceived risk of infection in general and in dental settings (odds ratio [95% CI]: 0.62 [0.53, 0.72]; p < 0.001), perceived impact of COVID-19 and dental problems on general health (0.79 [0.65, 0.97]; 0.021), and personal traits such as trust and anxiety (0.77 [0.61, 0.98]; 0.038). Unnecessary dental attendance was associated with optimism toward the epidemic (1.68 [1.42, 2.01]; <0.001) and trust (1.39 [1.13, 1.74]; 0.002). Multidisciplinary efforts involving dental and medical professionals as well as psychologists are warranted to promote more widespread adoption, among the general public, of dental attendance behaviors compatible with dental treatment need during the COVID-19 epidemic.