Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-309454

ABSTRACT

Background: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was identified as the cause of an acute respiratory disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the lack of validated treatments, there is an urgent need for the high-quality management of COVID-19. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are one tool that healthcare providers may use to enhance patient care. As such, it is necessary that they have access to high-quality evidence-based CPGs upon which they may base decisions regarding the management and use of therapeutic interventions (TI) for COVID-19. The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the quality of CPGs that make management or TI recommendations for COVID-19 using the AGREE II instrument. Methods: ‌ The proposed systematic review will identify CPGs for TI use and/or the management of COVID-19. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science will be searched from December 2019 up to December 2020. The primary outcome of this study is the assessed quality of the CPGs. The quality of eligible CPGs will be assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Descriptive statistics will be used to quantify the quality of the CPGs. The secondary outcomes of this study are the types of management and/or TI recommendations made. Inconsistent and duplicate TI and/or management recommendations made between CPGs will be compared across guidelines. Discussion: The results of this study will be of utmost importance to enhancing clinical decision-making among healthcare providers caring for patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the results of this study will be relevant to guideline developers in the creation of CPGs or improvement of existing ones, researchers who want to identify gaps in knowledge, and policy-makers looking to encourage and endorse the adoption of CPGs into clinical practice. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. Systematic Review ‌Registration‌ ‌International‌ ‌Prospective‌ ‌Register‌ ‌for‌ ‌Systematic‌ ‌Reviews‌ ‌(PROSPERO)‌ ‌—‌ ‌CRD42020219944

2.
Future virology ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1678760

ABSTRACT

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lopinavir–ritonavir (LPV/r) therapy in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Materials & methods: Data from randomized and observational studies were included in meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were length of stay, time for SARS-CoV-2 test conversion, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation, time to body temperature normalization and incidence of adverse events. Results: Twenty-four studies (n = 10,718) were included. LPV/r demonstrated no significant benefit over the control groups in all efficacy outcomes. The use of LPV/r was associated with a significant increase in the odds of adverse events. Conclusion: Given the lack of efficacy and increased incidence of adverse events, the clinical use of LPV/r in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is not recommended.

3.
Future Virol ; 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1666912

ABSTRACT

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) therapy in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Materials & methods: Data from randomized and observational studies were included in meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were length of stay, time for SARS-CoV-2 test conversion, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation, time to body temperature normalization and incidence of adverse events. Results: Twenty-four studies (n = 10,718) were included. LPV/r demonstrated no significant benefit over the control groups in all efficacy outcomes. The use of LPV/r was associated with a significant increase in the odds of adverse events. Conclusion: Given the lack of efficacy and increased incidence of adverse events, the clinical use of LPV/r in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is not recommended.

4.
Syst Rev ; 10(1): 317, 2021 12 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1631694

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was identified as the cause of an acute respiratory disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the lack of validated treatments, there is an urgent need for a high-quality management of COVID-19. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are one tool that healthcare providers may use to enhance patient care. As such, it is necessary that they have access to high-quality evidence-based CPGs upon which they may base decisions regarding the management and use of therapeutic interventions (TI) for COVID-19. The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the quality of CPGs that make management or TI recommendations for COVID-19 using the AGREE II instrument. METHODS: The proposed systematic review will identify CPGs for TI use and/or the management of COVID-19. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, as well as the Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the World Health Organization websites, will be searched from December 2019 onwards. The primary outcome of this study is the assessed quality of the CPGs. The quality of eligible CPGs will be assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Descriptive statistics will be used to quantify the quality of the CPGs. The secondary outcomes of this study are the types of management and/or TI recommendations made. Inconsistent and duplicate TI and/or management recommendations made between CPGs will be compared across guidelines. To summarize and explain the findings related to the included CPGs, a narrative synthesis will also be provided. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will be of utmost importance to enhancing clinical decision-making among healthcare providers caring for patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the results of this study will be relevant to guideline developers in the creation of CPGs or improvement of existing ones, researchers who want to identify gaps in knowledge, and policy-makers looking to encourage and endorse the adoption of CPGs into clinical practice. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)- CRD42020219944.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Databases, Factual , Evidence-Based Practice , Humans , Review Literature as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic
5.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med ; : 1-7, 2021 Dec 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1561950

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: While research has examined the mental health of general population samples of postpartum women during the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic's impact on women seeking treatment for postpartum depression (PPD) is not well known. This study compared levels of depression and anxiety, the quality of social relationships, and the temperament of infants of treatment-seeking mothers in Ontario, Canada prior to and during the pandemic. METHODS: Mothers with Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale scores ≥10 and seeking treatment for PPD prior to COVID-19 (n = 100) were compared to those who sought treatment during the pandemic (n = 120). Mothers self-reported symptoms of depression, worry/anxiety, partner relationship quality, social support, as well as aspects of the mother-infant relationship and infant temperament. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in symptoms of depression, anxiety, or the quality of social relationships between women seeking treatment for PPD before or during the pandemic. However, mothers reported poorer relationships with their infants, and there was evidence of more negative emotionality in their infants during COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic may not have worsened depression, anxiety, relationships with partners, or social support in mothers seeking treatment for PPD, but appears to have contributed to poorer mother-infant interactions and maternal reports of more negative emotionality in their infants. These findings highlight the importance of identifying women with possible PPD, supporting mother-infant interactions, and monitoring their infants during COVID-19 and beyond.

6.
Future Virol ; 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1561748

ABSTRACT

Aims: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, with or without azithromycin, in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Materials & methods: Data from randomized and observational studies were included in a random-effects meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included time to negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 tests, length of stay, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation, time to normalization of body temperature, incidence of adverse events and incidence of QT prolongations. Results: Fifty-one studies (n = 61,221) were included. Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine showed no efficacy in all primary efficacy outcomes, but was associated with increased odds of QT prolongations. Conclusion: Due to a lack of efficacy and increased odds of cardiac adverse events, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine should not be used for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

7.
Psychiatry Res ; 301: 113863, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1474998

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic and its accompanying infection control measures introduced significant disruptions to the routines of many higher education students around the world. It also deprived them of in-person counselling services and social support. These changes have put students at a greater risk of developing mental illness. The objective of this review is to assess the prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and sleep disturbances in higher education students during the pandemic. A systematic search of English and Chinese databases was conducted current to January 1st, 2021. The quality of included studies was evaluated using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and sleep disturbances were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Eighty-nine studies (n=1,441,828) were included. The pooled prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbances was 34%, 32% and 33%, respectively. The prevalence values differ based on geographical regions, diagnostic criteria, education level, undergraduate year of study, financial situation, living arrangements and gender. Overall, the prevalence of depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms synthesized in this study was higher compared to pre-pandemic prevalence in similar populations. Evidently, mental health screening and intervention should be a top priority for universities and colleges during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Depression/epidemiology , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology , Students/psychology , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Sleep/physiology , Universities
8.
Ann N Y Acad Sci ; 1486(1): 90-111, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1263856

ABSTRACT

Evidence from previous coronavirus outbreaks has shown that infected patients are at risk for developing psychiatric and mental health disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances. To construct a comprehensive picture of the mental health status in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances in this population. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Wanfang Data, Wangfang Med Online, CNKI, and CQVIP for relevant articles, and we included 31 studies (n = 5153) in our analyses. We found that the pooled prevalence of depression was 45% (95% CI: 37-54%, I2  = 96%), the pooled prevalence of anxiety was 47% (95% CI: 37-57%, I2  = 97%), and the pooled prevalence of sleeping disturbances was 34% (95% CI: 19-50%, I2  = 98%). We did not find any significant differences in the prevalence estimates between different genders; however, the depression and anxiety prevalence estimates varied based on different screening tools. More observational studies assessing the mental wellness of COVID-19 outpatients and COVID-19 patients from countries other than China are needed to further examine the psychological implications of COVID-19 infections.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/etiology , COVID-19/complications , Depression/etiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sleep Wake Disorders/etiology , Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Depression/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Health , Prevalence , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL