Clinical outcomes of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron and Delta variant: systematic review and meta-analysis of 33 studies covering 6 037 144 coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients.

BACKGROUND: Although the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is considered to induce less severe disease, there have been no consistent results on the extent of the decrease in severity. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical outcomes of COVID-19-positive patients with Omicron and Delta variant infection. DATA SOURCES: Searches were implemented up to 8 November 2022 in PubMed, Web of Science, BioRvix, and MedRvix. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were cohort studies reporting the clinical outcomes of COVID-19-positive patients with Omicron and Delta variant infection, including hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and death. PARTICIPANTS: COVID-19-positive patients with Omicron and Delta variant infection. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Risk of bias was assessed employing the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effect models were employed to pool the ORs and 95% CIs to compare the risk of clinical outcome. I2 was employed to evaluate the heterogeneity between studies. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies with 6 037 144 COVID-19-positive patients were included in this meta-analysis. In the general population of COVID-19-positive patients, compared with Delta, Omicron variant infection resulted in a decreased risk of hospitalization (10.24% vs. 4.14%, OR = 2.91, 95% CI = 2.35-3.60), ICU admission (3.67% vs. 0.48%, OR = 3.64, 95% CI = 2.63-5.04), receiving IMV (3.93% vs. 0.34%, OR = 3.11, 95% CI = 1.76-5.50), and death (2.40% vs. 0.46%, OR = 2.97, 95% CI = 2.17-4.08). In the hospitalized patients with COVID-19, compared with Delta, Omicron variant infection resulted in a decreased risk of ICU admission (20.70% vs. 12.90%, OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.32-2.02), receiving IMV (10.90% vs. 5.80%, OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.28-2.14), and death (10.72% vs. 7.10%, OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.22-1.71). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Delta, the severity of Omicron variant infection decreased.

Traditional Chinese medicine as an adjunctive therapy for mild and common COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in many countries is still very serious. At present, there is no specific and effective drug for this disease. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has played a great role in fighting against COVID-19. However, their effectiveness and safety are still obscure and deserve further investigation. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM assisted in conventional treatment in the treatment of mild and common COVID-19. METHODS: PubMed, EMbase, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, WANFANG DATA, and VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials of TCM assisted in conventional treatment. The RCT research quality was evaluated by Cochrane 5.1.0 bias risk scale and the non-randomized controlled trial research quality was evaluated by Newcastle Ottawa scale, and the statistical analysis was conducted by Revman 5.3 and R software. The bias and sensitivity of the statistical results were analyzed by STATA 14.0. Registration number: CRD42020210619. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included with 7 RCT studies and 8 retrospective cohort studies, involving a total of 1623 patients. Compared with the control group, TCM can improve the main index clinical effective rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.64, 95% Confidence interval (CI) [1.94,3.59], P < .00001). The results of Begg test (Pr > z = 0.266) and sensitivity analysis showed that the results were relatively stable. Toujie Quwen (OR = 4.9, 95%CI [1.9,14.0]), Shufeng Jiedu (OR = 2.9, 95%CI [1.5,5.7]), and Lianhua Qingwen (OR = 2.4, 95%CI [1.6,3.6]) were with the best. It can also improve the main clinical symptoms (fever, cough, fatigue, and the regression time of the 3 symptoms), severe conversion rate, and computed tomography improvement rate. Its safety was not significantly compared with conventional treatment. However, in terms of safety of a single TCM, Shufeng Jiedu (OR = -0.86, 95%CI [-1.89,0.09]) and Lianhua Qingwen (OR = -0.49, 95%CI[-0.94,-0.05]) were lower than those of conventional treatment. CONCLUSION: TCM as an adjuvant therapy combined with conventional treatment has good curative effect on mild and common type of COVID-19 patients. Its advantages lie in clinical efficacy and improvement of symptom group, and can prevent patients from transforming to severe disease. In terms of clinical efficacy and safety, Shufeng Jiedu and Lianhua Qingwen have obvious advantages, which are worthy of clinical promotion.

COVID-19 in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review.

The objectives of the study were to review the articles to identify (a) the epidemiology of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); (b) the clinical characteristics of SLE patients with COVID-19; (c) the treatment of COVID-19 in SLE patients; and (d) the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on SLE patients. PubMed was systematically reviewed for literature published from December 2019 to June 2021. Our search was limited to human studies, with language restriction of English. Studies were included if they reported COVID-19 in SLE patients. Our systematic review included 52 studies. The prevalence of COVID-19 infection ranged from 0.0% to 18.1% in SLE patients, and the hospitalisation rates ranged from 0.24% to 10.6%. COVID-19 infection is likely to mimic SLE flare. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was ineffective in prevention of COVID-19, and SLE patients with COVID-19 faced difficulty in healthcare access, had financial constraints and suffered from psychological distress during the pandemic. The pandemic had a significant effect on mental and physical health. Adequate healthcare access, along with containment policies, social distancing measures and psychological nursing was required.

CRP, SAA, LDH, and DD predict poor prognosis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a meta-analysis from 7739 patients.

Understanding factors associated with disease severity and mortality from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was critical for effective risk stratification. We aimed to investigate the association between biomarkers of clinical laboratory tests, including serum C-reactive protein (CRP), serum amyloid protein (SAA), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and D-dimer (DD) and poor prognosis of COVID-19. We have searched many studies on COVID-19 on PubMed (Medline), Web of Science and Cochrane until 1 March 2021. The interest of this study was original articles reporting on laboratory testing projects and outcome of patients with COVID-19 that comprises mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), need for care in an intensive care unit (ICU), and severe COVID-19. After synthesizing all data, we performed meta-analysis of random effects, and determined mean difference (MD) and standard mean difference at the biomarker level for different disease severity. A total of 7,739 patients with COVID-19 were pooled from 32 studies. CRP was significantly associated with poor prognosis of COVID-19 (SMD = 0.98, 95% CI = (0.85, 1.11), p < .001). Elevated SAA was associated with an increased composite poor outcome in COVID-19 (SMD = 1.06, 95% CI = (0.39, 1.72), p = .002). An elevated LDH was associated with a composite poor outcome (SMD = 1.18, 95% CI = (1.00, 1.36), p < .001). Patients with a composite poor outcome had a higher DD level (SMD = 0.91, 95% CI = (0.79, 1.02), p < .001). This meta-analysis showed that elevated serum CRP, SAA, LDH, and DD were associated with a poor outcome in COVID-19.

Therapeutic targets and interventional strategies in COVID-19: mechanisms and clinical studies.

Owing to the limitations of the present efforts on drug discovery against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the lack of the understanding of the biological regulation mechanisms underlying COVID-19, alternative or novel therapeutic targets for COVID-19 treatment are still urgently required. SARS-CoV-2 infection and immunity dysfunction are the two main courses driving the pathogenesis of COVID-19. Both the virus and host factors are potential targets for antiviral therapy. Hence, in this study, the current therapeutic strategies of COVID-19 have been classified into "target virus" and "target host" categories. Repurposing drugs, emerging approaches, and promising potential targets are the implementations of the above two strategies. First, a comprehensive review of the highly acclaimed old drugs was performed according to evidence-based medicine to provide recommendations for clinicians. Additionally, their unavailability in the fight against COVID-19 was analyzed. Next, a profound analysis of the emerging approaches was conducted, particularly all licensed vaccines and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) enrolled in clinical trials against primary SARS-CoV-2 and mutant strains. Furthermore, the pros and cons of the present licensed vaccines were compared from different perspectives. Finally, the most promising potential targets were reviewed, and the update of the progress of treatments has been summarized based on these reviews.

Bell's Palsy after second dose of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination in a patient with history of recurrent Bell's palsy.

OBJECTIVE: To report a patient with history of recurrent Bell's Palsy who developed Bell's Palsy 36 â€‹h after the administration of the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. CASE: The patient is a 57-year-old female with past medical history of 3 episodes of Bell's Palsy. She responded to prednisone treatment and returned to her baseline after each occurrence. Less than 36 â€‹h following the second dose of the vaccine, the patient developed a left Bell's Palsy. The facial droop progressed in severity over the next 72 â€‹h. CONCLUSION: Given the expedited production of the vaccine and the novelty associated with its production, there may be information pertaining to side effects and individual response that remain to be discovered. Since both the Moderna and Pfizer Vaccine trials reported Bell's Palsy as medically attended adverse events, the association between vaccine administration and onset of symptomatic Bell's Palsy may warrant further investigation.