Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 67
Filter
1.
Front Pharmacol ; 13: 906764, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1924140

ABSTRACT

Background: Integrative herbal medicine has been reported to have beneficial effects in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Aim: To compile up-to-date evidence of the benefits and risks of herbal medicine for the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms. Methods: Eleven databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (VIP), Research Information Service System (RISS), Korean Medical database (KMBase), Korean Association of Medical Journal database (KoreaMed), and OASIS database, were searched from 15 June, 2020, until 28 March 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in any language, reporting the efficacy and safety outcomes of herbal medicine in patients of all ages with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were included in this analysis. Data extraction and quality assessments were performed independently. Results: Random-effects meta-analyses showed evidence of favorable effects of treatment with herbal medicine when added to standard treatment, versus standard treatment alone, on the total effective rate (p = 0.0001), time to remission from fever (p < 0.00001), rate of remission from coughing (p < 0.0001), fatigue (p = 0.02), sputum production (p = 0.004), improvement of manifestations observed on chest computed tomography scans (p < 0.00001), incidence of progression to severe COVID-19 (p = 0.003), all-cause mortality (p = 0.003), time to a negative COVID-19 coronavirus test (p < 0.0001), and duration of hospital stay (p = 0.0003). There was no evidence of a difference between herbal medicine added to standard treatment, versus standard treatment alone, on the rate of remission from symptoms such as a fever, sore throat, nasal congestion and discharge, diarrhea, dry throat, chills, and the rate of conversion to a negative COVID-19 coronavirus test. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a significant difference in adverse events between the two groups. There was an unclear risk of bias across the RCTs included in this analysis, indicating that most studies had methodological limitations. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that herbal medicine added to standard treatment has potential benefits in the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms but the certainty of evidence was low.

3.
EClinicalMedicine ; 46: 101373, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1850961

ABSTRACT

Background: There are concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase the risk of adverse outcomes among patients with coronavirus COVID-19. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on associations between the use of NSAIDs and adverse outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of WHO COVID-19 Database, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database for all articles published from January 1, 2020, to November 7, 2021, as well as a supplementary search of Google Scholar. We included all comparative studies that enrolled patients who took NSAIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data extraction and quality assessment of methodology of included studies were completed by two reviewers independently. We conducted a meta-analysis on the main adverse outcomes, as well as selected subgroup analyses stratified by the type of NSAID and population (both positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or not). Findings: Forty comparative studies evaluating 4,867,795 adult cases were identified. Twenty-eight (70%) of the included studies enrolled patients positive to SARS-CoV-2 tests. The use of NSAIDs did not reduce mortality outcomes among people with COVID-19 (number of studies [N] = 29, odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.14, I2  = 89%). Results suggested that the use of NSAIDs was not significantly associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with or without COVID-19 (N = 10, OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.07, I2  = 78%; N = 8, aOR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.09, I2  = 26%), or an increased probability of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (N = 12, OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.75, I2  = 82% ; N = 4, aOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.22, I2  = 60%), requiring mechanical ventilation (N = 11, OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.54, I2  = 63%; N = 5, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 66%), or administration of supplemental oxygen (N = 5, OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 63%; N = 2, aOR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.12, I2  = 0%). The subgroup analysis revealed that, compared with patients not using any NSAIDs, the use of ibuprofen (N = 5, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.39; N = 4, aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.16) and COX-2 inhibitor (N = 4, OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11; N = 2, aOR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.18) were not associated with an increased risk of death. Interpretation: Data suggests that NSAIDs such as ibuprofen, aspirin and COX-2 inhibitor, can be used safely among patients positive to SARS-CoV-2. However, for some of the analyses the number of studies were limited and the quality of evidence was overall low, therefore more research is needed to corroborate these findings. Funding: There was no funding source for this study.

4.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 22(1): 89, 2022 04 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846794

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Rapid Advice Guidelines (RAG) provide decision makers with guidance to respond to public health emergencies by developing evidence-based recommendations in a short period of time with a scientific and standardized approach. However, the experience from the development process of a RAG has so far not been systematically summarized. Therefore, our working group will take the experience of the development of the RAG for children with COVID-19 as an example to systematically explore the methodology, advantages, and challenges in the development of the RAG. We shall propose suggestions and reflections for future research, in order to provide a more detailed reference for future development of RAGs. RESULT: The development of the RAG by a group of 67 researchers from 11 countries took 50 days from the official commencement of the work (January 28, 2020) to submission (March 17, 2020). A total of 21 meetings were held with a total duration of 48 h (average 2.3 h per meeting) and an average of 16.5 participants attending. Only two of the ten recommendations were fully supported by direct evidence for COVID-19, three recommendations were supported by indirect evidence only, and the proportion of COVID-19 studies among the body of evidence in the remaining five recommendations ranged between 10 and 83%. Six of the ten recommendations used COVID-19 preprints as evidence support, and up to 50% of the studies with direct evidence on COVID-19 were preprints. CONCLUSIONS: In order to respond to public health emergencies, the development of RAG also requires a clear and transparent formulation process, usually using a large amount of indirect and non-peer-reviewed evidence to support the formation of recommendations. Strict following of the WHO RAG handbook does not only enhance the transparency and clarity of the guideline, but also can speed up the guideline development process, thereby saving time and labor costs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Disease Outbreaks , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Public Health
5.
Am J Public Health ; 112(6): 913-922, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1817598

ABSTRACT

We analyzed COVID-19 influences on the design, implementation, and validity of assessing the quality of primary health care using unannounced standardized patients (USPs) in China. Because of the pandemic, we crowdsourced our funding, removed tuberculosis from the USP case roster, adjusted common cold and asthma cases, used hybrid online-offline training for USPs, shared USPs across provinces, and strengthened ethical considerations. With those changes, we were able to conduct fieldwork despite frequent COVID-19 interruptions. Furthermore, the USP assessment tool maintained high validity in the quality checklist (criteria), USP role fidelity, checklist completion, and physician detection of USPs. Our experiences suggest that the pandemic created not only barriers but also opportunities to innovate ways to build a resilient data collection system. To build data system reliance, we recommend harnessing the power of technology for a hybrid model of remote and in-person work, learning from the sharing economy to pool strengths and optimize resources, and dedicating individual and group leadership to problem-solving and results. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(6):913-922. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306779).


Subject(s)
Acacia , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Quality of Health Care
6.
EClinicalMedicine ; 46:101373-101373, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1782304

ABSTRACT

Background There are concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase the risk of adverse outcomes among patients with coronavirus COVID-19. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on associations between the use of NSAIDs and adverse outcomes. Methods A systematic search of WHO COVID-19 Database, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database for all articles published from January 1, 2020, to November 7, 2021, as well as a supplementary search of Google Scholar. We included all comparative studies that enrolled patients who took NSAIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data extraction and quality assessment of methodology of included studies were completed by two reviewers independently. We conducted a meta-analysis on the main adverse outcomes, as well as selected subgroup analyses stratified by the type of NSAID and population (both positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or not). Findings Forty comparative studies evaluating 4,867,795 adult cases were identified. Twenty-eight (70%) of the included studies enrolled patients positive to SARS-CoV-2 tests. The use of NSAIDs did not reduce mortality outcomes among people with COVID-19 (number of studies [N] = 29, odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.14, I2 = 89%). Results suggested that the use of NSAIDs was not significantly associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with or without COVID-19 (N = 10, OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.07, I2 = 78%;N = 8, aOR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.09, I2 = 26%), or an increased probability of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (N = 12, OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.75, I2 = 82% ;N = 4, aOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.22, I2 = 60%), requiring mechanical ventilation (N = 11, OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.54, I2 = 63%;N = 5, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2 = 66%), or administration of supplemental oxygen (N = 5, OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2 = 63%;N = 2, aOR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.12, I2 = 0%). The subgroup analysis revealed that, compared with patients not using any NSAIDs, the use of ibuprofen (N = 5, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.39;N = 4, aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.16) and COX-2 inhibitor (N = 4, OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11;N = 2, aOR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.18) were not associated with an increased risk of death. Interpretation Data suggests that NSAIDs such as ibuprofen, aspirin and COX-2 inhibitor, can be used safely among patients positive to SARS-CoV-2. However, for some of the analyses the number of studies were limited and the quality of evidence was overall low, therefore more research is needed to corroborate these findings. Funding There was no funding source for this study.

7.
Int J Infect Dis ; 118: 270-276, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1751049

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission on aircraft. METHODS: We obtained data on all international flights to Lanzhou, China, from June 1, 2020, to August 1, 2020, through the Gansu Province National Health Information Platform and the official website of the Gansu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention. We then performed the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Three international flights arrived in Lanzhou. The flights had a total of 700 passengers, of whom 405 (57.9%) were male, and 80 (11.4%) were children under the age of 14 years. Twenty-seven (3.9%) passengers were confirmed to have COVID-19. Confirmed patients were primarily male (17, 65.4%) with a median age of 27.0 years. Most confirmed cases were seated in the middle rows of economy class or near public facility areas such as restrooms and galleys. The prevalence of COVID-19 did not differ between passengers sitting in the window, aisle, or middle seats. However, compared with passengers sitting in the same row up to 2 rows behind a confirmed case, passengers seated in the 2 rows in front of a confirmed case were at a slightly higher risk of being infected. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 may be transmitted during a passenger flight, although there is still no direct evidence.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Aircraft , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , China/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Research Design
8.
Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban ; 46(12): 1386-1391, 2021 Dec 28.
Article in English, Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1726803

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread around the world, and how to build an immune barrier against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the population is the work we need to do for a long time in the future. The vaccination is an important strategy to construct and improve the herd immunity barrier. Therefore, our country is currently actively and extensively implementing the anti-epidemic policy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, because of insufficient data on the safety of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in the population, especially the lack of clinical research in pregnant and lactating women, China has adopted a conservative approach on whether women in this special physiological period receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccine based on the safe consideration. However, with the widespread application of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in the prevention and control of the global epidemic, and the emergence of a large number of clinical research evidences at home and abroad, if we still exclude pregnant and lactating women from the vaccinated population, this part of the population will be fully exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 threat, which will weak the national prevention and control policy. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the vaccination of people in this special physiological period based on the experience of vaccination at home and abroad.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , China/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Lactation , Pregnancy , Vaccination
9.
Eur J Pediatr ; 181(5): 2135-2146, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1699807

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using potential drugs: remdesivir and glucocorticoid in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19 and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in treating MIS-C. We searched seven databases, three preprint platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google from December 1, 2019, to August 5, 2021, to collect evidence of remdesivir, glucocorticoid, and IVIG which were used in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C. A total of nine cohort studies and one case series study were included in this systematic review. In terms of remdesivir, the meta-analysis of single-arm cohort studies have shown that after the treatment, 54.7% (95%CI, 10.3 to 99.1%) experienced adverse events, 5.6% (95%CI, 1.2 to 10.1%) died, and 27.0% (95%CI, 0 to 73.0%) needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or invasive mechanical ventilation. As for glucocorticoids, the results of the meta-analysis showed that the fixed-effect summary odds ratio for the association with mortality was 2.79 (95%CI, 0.13 to 60.87), and the mechanical ventilation rate was 3.12 (95%CI, 0.80 to 12.08) for glucocorticoids compared with the control group. In terms of IVIG, most of the included cohort studies showed that for MIS-C patients with more severe clinical symptoms, IVIG combined with methylprednisolone could achieve better clinical efficacy than IVIG alone. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the current evidence in the included studies is insignificant and of low quality. It is recommended to conduct high-quality randomized controlled trials of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and IVIG in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C to provide substantial evidence for the development of guidelines. WHAT IS KNOWN: • The efficacy and safety of using potential drugs such as remdesivir, glucocorticoid, and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19/MIS-C are unclear. WHAT IS NEW: • Overall, the current evidence cannot adequately demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of using remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and IVIG in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C. • We are calling for the publication of high-quality clinical trials and provide substantial evidence for the development of guidelines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adolescent , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , Child , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome
10.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-325364

ABSTRACT

Background: There are concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase the risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, this study aimed to synthesize the existing evidence on associations between the use of NSAIDs and adverse outcomes among patients with COVID-19.Methods: Systematic search of WHO COVID-19 Database, Medline, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database for all articles published from January 1, 2020, to August 10, 2021, as well as a supplementary search of Google Scholar. We included comparative observational studies and randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with COVID-19 who took NSAIDs before or after diagnosis of COVID-19. Data extraction and quality assessment of methodology of included studies were completed by two reviewers independently. We conducted a meta-anlysis on the main outcomes, as well as selected subgroup analyses stratified by the type of NSAID.Fingings: Fifteen non-randomized studies evaluating 24700 adult COVID-19 patients were identified. The use of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, compared with no use of NSAIDs, was not significantly associated with an elevated mortality (odds ratio [OR]=0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87 to 1.02), or an increased probability of ICU admission (OR=1.35, 95% CI: 0.73 to 2.49), requiring mechanical ventilation (OR=1.23, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.13), or administration of supplemental oxygen (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.08). The subgroup analyses revealed that the use of ibuprofen (OR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.32 to 4.60), etoricoxib (OR=0.36, 95% CI: 0.02 to 6.49) or celecoxib (zero deaths in both groups) were not associated with an increased risk of death in COVID-19 patients, compared with not using any NSAID.Interpretation: Fever is one of the main clinical symptoms of COVID-19. According to our findings, NSAIDs such as ibuprofen can be used to treat fever in COVID-19 patients safely.Funding: None to declare. Declaration of Interest: None to declare.

11.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-324425

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study is to explore the patient characteristics and transmission chains of COVID-19 in the population of Gansu province, and support decision-making. Methods: We collected data from Gansu National Health Information Platform. We conducted a case-control study, including patients with COVID-19 confirmed between January 23 and February 6, 2020 as cases, and all inpatients, outpatients and emergency patients except those with COVID-19 during the same period as the control group. We compared the gender and age between two groups. We also described the incubation period, consultation time and sources of infection in the cases, and calculated the secondary cases that occurred within Gansu for each imported case. Results: We found no differences in gender ( P =0.107). COVID-19 cases were more likely to occur among the middle-aged people ( P =0.038). Twenty-eight (41.8%) of the 67 cases had a history of direct exposure in Wuhan. Twenty-five (52.2%) cases came from ten families, and we found no clear reports of modes of transmission other than family clusters. The largest number of secondary cases linked to a single source was nine. Conclusion: There is no difference in gender between the cases and controls. However, COVID-19 patients were slightly younger than those attending for other reasons. The most common suspected mode of transmission was through family cluster. Gansu and other settings worldwide should continue to strengthen the utilization of big data in epidemic control.

12.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-321377

ABSTRACT

Background: The prognosis of children and adolescents with COVID-19 obtain increasing attention worldwide. This study provides the first systematic review and meta-analysis to identify risk factors which predict poor prognosis in this group.Methods: Electronic databases from inception to March, 2021 were searched for cohort studies, case-control studies and case series that investigated risk factors for poor prognosis of children and adolescents with COVID-19. We estimated the summary effect size by use of random-effects models and the 95% confidential interval (CI).Findings: We identified 33 studies, comprising 32,225 individuals. The risk of bias were generally high. In children and adolescents with COVID-19, risk of death was significantly increased in patients with MIS-C complication (odds ratio [OR]=58.00, 95% CI 6.39 to 526.79) and in need for intensive care (OR=15.25, 95% CI 1.98 to 117.44). Congenital heart disease (OR=2.90, 95% CI 1.26 to 6.67), chronic pulmonary disease (OR=3.45, 95% CI 1.47 to 8.07), and gastrointestinal symptoms (OR=2.11, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.12) increased the odds to be admitted to ICU;MIS-C complication (OR=70.00, 95% CI 6.51 to 752.27) and neurological diseases (OR=2.51, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.15) increased the odds of respiratory support;neurological diseases (OR=4.59, 95% CI 1.99 to 10.61), obesity (OR=2.51, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.12), C-reactive protein (CRP) level ≥80mg/L (OR=11.70, 95% CI 4.37 to 31.37) and D-dimer level ≥0.5ug/mL (OR=20.40, 95% CI 1.76 to 236.44) on admission increased the odds of progression to severe/critical disease.Interpretation: Very low to moderate quality evidence found that MIS-C, congenital heart disease, chronic pulmonary disease, neurological diseases, obesity, and gastrointestinal symptoms, in need for intensive care, elevated CRP and D-dimer are risk factors for poor prognosis in children and adolescents with COVID-19.Funding: None.Declaration of Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

13.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-310365

ABSTRACT

Background: Since December 2019, China has carried out dramatic containment measures to control the spread of COVID-19. As of April 6, 2020, most of the confirmed cases outside Hubei province have been cured or confirmed dead. In this study, we aimed to understand environmental factors leading to COVID-19-related mortality outside of Hubei province, in mainland China. Methods We collected spatial-temporal and environmental data of 99 cases of COVID-19-related deaths outside of Hubei province in Mainland China between January 22, 2020 and April 6, 2020. A descriptive analysis, including a spatial-temporal distribution of daily reported diagnosed cases and related deaths, was conducted. We analyzed the possible environmental factors that affect the provincial-level CFR of COVID-19 outside Hubei, China. Results Among the 99 reported deaths, 59 (59.6%) were male and 40 (40.4%) were female. The mean age at death was 71.30 (SD 12.98) years and 74 deaths were among those 65 years or older. The CFR was negatively correlated with temperature (r=-0.679, P  < 0.001) and humidity (r=-0.607, P  = 0.002), while latitude was positively correlated with the CFR (r = 0.636, P  = 0.001). There were no statistically significant associations between CFR and the social environment factors. Conclusion Higher CFR of COVID-19 was associated with lower temperature, lower humidity, and higher latitude. Continual analysis of daily reported diagnoses and mortality data can help healthcare professionals and policy makers understand the trends within a country in order to better prepare nationwide prevention and care guidelines, along with adequately appropriate funds accordingly.

14.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-309724

ABSTRACT

Background: COVID-19 showed a significant difference in case fatality rate between different regions at the early stage of the epidemic. In addition to the well-known factors such as age structure, detection efficiency, and race, there was also a possibility that medical resource shortage caused the increase of the case fatality rate in some regions. Methods: : Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, and Wan fang of identified articles were searched through 29 June 2020. Cohort studies and case series with duration information on COVID-19 patients were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data using a standardized data collection form and assessed the risk of bias. Data were synthesized through description and analysis methods including a meta-analysis. Results: : A total of 109 articles were retrieved. The time interval from onset to the first medical visit of COVID-19 patients in China was 3.38±1.55 days (corresponding intervals in Hubei province, non-Hubei provinces, Wuhan, Hubei provinces without Wuhan were 4.22±1.13 days, 3.10±1.57 days, 4.20±0.97 days, and 4.34±1.72 days, respectively). The time interval from onset to the hospitalization of COVID-19 patients in China was 8.35±6.83 days (same corresponding intervals were 12.94±7.43 days, 4.17±1.45 days, 14.86±7.12 days, and 5.36±1.19 days, respectively), and when it was outside China, this interval was 5.27±1.19 days. Conclusion: In the early stage of the COVID-19 epidemic, patients with COVID-19 did not receive timely treatment, resulting in a higher case fatality rate in Hubei province, partly due to the relatively insufficient and unequal medical resources. This research suggested that additional deaths caused by the out-of-control epidemic can be avoided if prevention and control work is carried out at the early stage of the epidemic. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020195606.

15.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 144: 163-172, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1670681

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current status of COVID-19 vaccine guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched databases, Google and guideline platforms to retrieve COVID-19 vaccine guidelines published between January 1, 2020 and July 8, 2021. We worked in pairs to identify the eligible guidelines and extract data of whether the methodology, funding, and conflict of interests were assessed/reported, and so on. Results were presented descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 106 COVID-19 vaccine guidelines were included. In the first half of 2021, on average 15 guidelines were published every month. Fifty (47.2%) guidelines addressed the vaccination of people with specific medical conditions, and 18 (17.0%) guidelines focused on adverse effects after vaccination. Only 28 (26.4%) guidelines reported the methodology they used. Four (3.8%) of guidelines assessed both the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations; 42 (39.6%) and 65 (61.3%) guidelines reported their funding sources and conflict of interest, respectively. Most guidelines were published in English (n = 92, 86.8%). CONCLUSION: A high number of guidelines on COVID-19 vaccines have been published in the recent months, but most of them lack clear and transparent reporting of methodology, funding, and conflicts of interest. Rigorous methodological and reporting quality evaluation of these guidelines is needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Databases, Factual , Humans
16.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-294867

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the type of coronavirus that causes the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), is mainly spread by respiratory droplets and aerosols. This study aims to investigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission on aircraft. This in turn provides the scientific basis for the return of air travel from pandemic to normal conditions. Methods: : We obtained data on all international flights to Lanzhou, China, from June 1 to August 1, 2020, through the Gansu Province National Health Information Platform and the official website of the Gansu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention. We calculated the period prevalence rate of COVID-19 among the passengers of all flights during the 14-day period following the flight, and stratified the prevalence by the seat positions (aisle, middle, window), and the relationship to other confirmed cases (1-2 rows ahead, same row, 1-2 rows behind). Results: : Three international flights arrived in Lanzhou, China, during the study period, from Riyadh (MU7792), Jeddah (MU7790), and Moscow (CA608) each. The flights had a total of 700 passengers, of whom 405 (57.9%) were male and 80 (11.4%) were children below age fourteen. Twenty-seven (3.9%) passengers were confirmed to have COVID-19. There were no fatalities and all patients were cured. We identified three family clusters of cases. Confirmed patients were primarily male (n=17, 65.4%) with a median age of 27.0 years. The majority of confirmed cases were seated in the middle rows of the economy class, or near public facility areas such as restrooms and galleys. The prevalence of COVID-19 did not differ between passengers sitting on window, aisle or middle seats. Compared with passengers sitting on the same row up to two rows behind a confirmed case, passengers seated in the two rows ahead a confirmed case were at a slightly higher risk of being infected. Conclusions: : COVID-19 may possibly be transmitted during a passenger flight, although there is still no direct evidence.

17.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-292562

ABSTRACT

Background: As of April 2020, most of the confirmed cases outside Hubei province have been cured or confirmed dead in China. We aimed to understand environmental factors leading to COVID-19-related mortality in non-Hubei region.Methods:: We collected spatial-temporal and environmental data of 99 cases of COVID-19-related deaths outside of Hubei province in Mainland China between January 22, 2020 and April 6, 2020. A descriptive analysis, including a spatial-temporal distribution of daily reported diagnosed cases and related deaths, was conducted. We analyzed the possible environmental factors that affect the provincial-level case fatality rate (CFR) of COVID-19 outside Hubei, China.Results: Among the 99 reported deaths, 59 (59.6%) were male and 40 (40.4%) were female. The mean age at death was 71.30 (SD 12.98) years and 74 deaths were among those 65 years or older. The CFR was negatively correlated with temperature (r=-0.679, P <0.001) and humidity (r=-0.607, P =0.002), while latitude was positively correlated with the CFR (r=0.636, P =0.001). There were no statistically significant associations between CFR and the social environment factors.Conclusion: Higher CFR of COVID-19 was associated with lower temperature, lower humidity, and higher latitude. Continual analysis of daily reported diagnoses and mortality data can help healthcare professionals and policy makers understand the trends within a country in order to better prepare nationwide prevention and care guidelines, along with adequately appropriate funds accordingly.

18.
Ann Palliat Med ; 11(2): 452-465, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1518875

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed a significant difference in case fatality rate between different regions at the early stage of the epidemic. In addition to the well-known factors such as age structure, detection efficiency, and race, there was also a possibility that medical resource shortage caused the increase of the case fatality rate in some regions. METHODS: Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang of identified articles were searched through 29 June 2020. Cohort studies and case series with duration information on COVID-19 patients were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data using a standardized data collection form and assessed the risk of bias. Data were synthesized through description and analysis methods including a meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 109 articles were retrieved. The time interval from onset to the first medical visit of COVID-19 patients in China was 3.38±1.55 days (corresponding intervals in Hubei province, non-Hubei provinces, Wuhan, Hubei provinces without Wuhan were 4.22±1.13, 3.10±1.57, 4.20±0.97, and 4.34±1.72 days, respectively). The time interval from onset to the hospitalization of COVID-19 patients in China was 8.35±6.83 days (same corresponding intervals were 12.94±7.43, 4.17±1.45, 14.86±7.12, and 5.36±1.19 days, respectively), and when it was outside China, this interval was 5.27±1.19 days. DISCUSSION: In the early stage of the COVID-19 epidemic, patients with COVID-19 did not receive timely treatment, resulting in a higher case fatality rate in Hubei province, partly due to the relatively insufficient and unequal medical resources. This research suggested that additional deaths caused by the out-of-control epidemic can be avoided if prevention and control work is carried out at the early stage of the epidemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020195606.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
19.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-292232

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using potential drugs: remdesivir and glucocorticoid in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19 and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in treating MIS-C. Methods: : We searched seven databases, three preprint platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google from December 1, 2019, to August 5, 2021, to collect evidence of remdesivir, glucocorticoid, and IVIG which were used in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C. Results: : A total of nine cohort studies and one case series study were included in this systematic review. In terms of remdesivir, the meta-analysis of single-arm cohort studies have shown that, after the treatment, 54.7% (95%CI, 10.3% to 99.1%) experienced adverse events, 5.6% (95%CI, 1.2% to 10.1%) died, 27.0% (95%CI, 0% to 73.0%) needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or invasive mechanical ventilation. As for glucocorticoids, the results of the meta-analysis showed that the fixed-effect summary odds ratio for the association with mortality was 2.79 (95%CI, 0.13 to 60.87), and the mechanical ventilation rate was 3.12 (95%CI, 0.80 to 12.08) for glucocorticoids compared with the control group. In terms of IVIG, most of the included cohort studies showed that for MIS-C patients with more severe clinical symptoms, IVIG combined with methylprednisolone could achieve better clinical efficacy than IVIG alone. Conclusions: : Overall, the current evidence in the included studies is insignificant and of low quality. It is recommended to conduct high-quality randomized controlled trials of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and IVIG in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C to provide substantial evidence for the development of guidelines.

20.
Pharmacol Res ; 174: 105955, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1487920

ABSTRACT

Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by numerous complications, complex disease, and high mortality, making its treatment a top priority in the treatment of COVID-19. Integrated traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and western medicine played an important role in the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of COVID-19 during the epidemic. However, currently there are no evidence-based guidelines for the integrated treatment of severe COVID-19 with TCM and western medicine. Therefore, it is important to develop an evidence-based guideline on the treatment of severe COVID-19 with integrated TCM and western medicine, in order to provide clinical guidance and decision basis for healthcare professionals, public health personnel, and scientific researchers involved in the diagnosis, treatment, and care of COVID-19 patients. We developed and completed the guideline by referring to the standardization process of the "WHO handbook for guideline development", the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT).


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/therapeutic use , Infectious Disease Medicine/trends , Medicine, Chinese Traditional/trends , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Consensus , Delphi Technique , Drugs, Chinese Herbal/adverse effects , Evidence-Based Medicine/trends , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Patient Acuity , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL