Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Eur J Clin Invest ; 51(9): e13645, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286673

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Colchicine was recently repurposed for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This rapid review and meta-analysis aimed to assess colchicine's impact on mortality outcomes in COVID-19 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar since their inception till 25/03/2021 for observational or controlled studies that reported mortality as an outcome. The mortality odd ratios were generated with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals utilizing the random-effects model. RESULTS: Nine studies comprising 5522 patients met our inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis revealed significantly lower mortality in the colchicine group (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25-0.48, I2 0%) compared with controls. A subgroup analysis limited to hospitalized patients (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25-0.50, I2 0%) revealed similarly lower mortality in the colchicine group. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests a mortality benefit with colchicine when used in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. The majority of included studies were observational; thus, the findings of this review need to be further supported by the results of ongoing trials.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Colchicine/therapeutic use , Tubulin Modulators/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Humans , Odds Ratio , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Front Cardiovasc Med ; 7: 598846, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067650

ABSTRACT

Background: Recent studies revealed a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, especially in those who are critically ill. Available studies report varying prevalence rates. Hence, the exact prevalence remains uncertain. Moreover, there is an ongoing debate regarding the appropriate dosage of thromboprophylaxis. Methods: We performed a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies exploring the prevalence of VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients till 25/07/2020. We pooled the proportion of VTE. Additionally, in a subgroup analysis, we pooled VTE events detected by systematic screening. Finally, in an exploratory analysis, we compared the odds of VTE in patients on prophylactic compared with therapeutic anticoagulation. Results: The review comprised 24 studies and over 2,500 patients. The pooled proportion of VTE prevalence was 0.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24, 0.39; I 2 94%], of VTE utilizing systematic screening was 0.48 (95% CI 0.33, 0.63; I 2 91%), of deep venous thrombosis was 0.23 (95% CI 0.14, 0.32; I 2 96%), and of pulmonary embolism was 0.14 (95% CI 0.09, 0.20; I 2 90%). Exploratory analysis of few studies, utilizing systematic screening, VTE risk increased significantly with prophylactic, compared with therapeutic anticoagulation [odds ratio (OR) 5.45; 95% CI 1.90, 15.57; I 2 0%]. Discussion: Our review revealed a high prevalence of VTE in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Almost 50% of patients had VTE detected by systematic screening. Higher thromboprophylaxis dosages may reduce VTE burden in this patient's cohort compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation; however, this is to be ascertained by ongoing randomized controlled trials.

4.
Am J Trop Med Hyg ; 103(2): 815-821, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-539658

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity, mortality, and strained healthcare systems worldwide. Thus, a search for modalities that can expedite and improve the diagnosis and management of this entity is underway. Recent data suggested the utility of lung ultrasound (LUS) in the diagnosis of COVID-19 by detecting an interstitial pattern (B-pattern). Hence, we aimed to pool the proportion of various reported lung abnormalities detected by LUS in symptomatic COVID-19 patients. We conducted a systematic review (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE until April 25, 2020) and a proportion meta-analysis. We included seven studies examining the role of LUS in 122 COVID-19 patients. The pooled proportion (PP) of B-pattern detected by lung ultrasound (US) was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94-1.00 I 2 0%, Q 4.6). The PP of finding pleural line abnormalities was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.13-1.00 I 2 96%, Q 103.9), of pleural thickening was 0.54 (95% 0.11-0.95 I 2 93%, Q 61.1), of subpleural or pulmonary consolidation was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.21-0.58 I 2 72%, Q 17.8), and of pleural effusion was 0.14 (95% CI: 0.00-0.37 I 2 93%, Q 27.3). Our meta-analysis revealed that almost all SARS-CoV-2-infected patients have abnormal lung US. The most common abnormality is interstitial involvement depicted as B-pattern. The finding from our review highlights the potential role of this modality in the triage, diagnosis, and follow-up of COVID-19 patients. A sizable diagnostic accuracy study comparing LUS, computed tomography scan, and COVID-19-specific tests is warranted to further test this finding and to delineate the diagnostic and prognostic yield of each of these modalities.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Point-of-Care Systems , Ultrasonography , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Lung/pathology , Pandemics , Pleural Effusion , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL