Differential efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody therapies for the management of COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess and compare the relative efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody regimens for COVID-19. METHODS: This systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA-NMA. Literature searches were conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and CNKI up to February 20th, 2022. Interventions were ranked using P scores. RESULTS: Fifty-five RCTs (N = 45,005) were included in the review. Bamlanivimab + etesevimab (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.77) was associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared to standard of care/placebo. Casirivimab + imdevimab reduced mortality (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91) in baseline seronegative patients only. Four different regimens led to a significant decrease in the incidence of hospitalization compared to standard of care/placebo with sotrovimab ranking first in terms of efficacy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.48). No treatment improved incidence of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospital/ICU stay, and time to viral clearance. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg both led to a significant increase in adverse events compared to standard of care/placebo, but no treatment increased the odds of serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs are safe, and could be effective in improving mortality and incidence of hospitalization. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg were not efficacious and could increase odds of adverse events. Future trials should further examine the effect of baseline seronegativity, disease severity, patient risk factors, and SARS-CoV-2 strain variation on the efficacy of these regimes. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42021289903.

Prevalence of mental health symptoms in children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic: A meta-analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its accompanying infection control measures introduced sudden and significant disruptions to the lives of children and adolescents around the world. Given the potential for negative impacts on the mental health of youths as a result of these changes, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbances in children and adolescents during the pandemic. We searched major literature databases for relevant cross-sectional or longitudinal studies that included primary and secondary school students or children and adolescents ≤18 years of age. Prevalence values were extracted, logit-transformed, and pooled. Based on 191 included studies with 1,389,447 children and adolescents, we found the pooled prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep disturbances to be 31%, 31%, and 42%, respectively. Age, grade levels, education levels, gender, geographical regions, and electronics use were correlated with the prevalence of mental health symptoms. The prevalence of mental health symptoms also increased with time, although signs of recovery and stabilization were also observed. Overall, the results from this review demonstrate the need for increased mental health research, monitoring, and intervention for children and adolescents during the current and future pandemics.

Efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in COVID-19 management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of acute COVID-19 is still under investigation, with conflicting results reported from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Different dosing regimens may have contributed to the contradictory findings. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SSRIs and the effect of different dosing regimens on the treatment of acute COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Seven databases were searched from January 2020 to December 2022. Trial registries, previous reviews, and preprint servers were hand-searched. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs and observational studies with no language restrictions. PARTICIPANTS: COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients. INTERVENTIONS: SSRIs prescribed after diagnosis were compared against a placebo or standard of care. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Risk of bias was rated using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials version 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, hypoxemia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, ventilator support, and serious adverse events. RCT data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Observational findings were narratively described. Subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of SSRI dose, and sensitivity analyses were performed excluding studies with a high risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Six RCTs (N = 4197) and five observational studies (N = 1156) were included. Meta-analyses associated fluvoxamine with reduced mortality (risk ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) and hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99) on the basis of moderate quality of evidence. Medium-dose fluvoxamine (100 mg twice a day) was associated with reduced mortality, hospitalization, and composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, but low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice a day) was not. Fluvoxamine was not associated with increased serious adverse events. Observational studies support the use of fluvoxamine and highlight fluoxetine as a possible alternative to SSRIs for the treatment of COVID-19. DISCUSSION: Fluvoxamine remains a candidate pharmacotherapy for treating COVID-19 in outpatients. Medium-dose fluvoxamine may be preferable over low-dose fluvoxamine.

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroid regimens for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis.

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Materials & methods: Efficacy outcomes included time to negative SARS-CoV-2 tests, length of stay, duration and incidence of intensive unit care stay, incidence of mortality and duration and incidence of mechanical ventilation. Safety outcomes included the incidence of adverse events and severe adverse events, incidence of hyperglycemia and incidence of nosocomial infections. Results: Ninety-five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (n = 42,205) were included. Corticosteroids were associated with increased length of stay (based on RCT only), increased time to negative tests, decreased length of mechanical ventilation and increased odds of hyperglycemia. Conclusion: Corticosteroids should be considered in patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and glycemic monitoring may be needed when administering corticosteroids.

Efficacy of lopinavir–ritonavir combination therapy for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis

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.

Efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir combination therapy for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis.

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.

Efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis.

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.

The prevalence of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and sleep disturbance in higher education students during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.

The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances in COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis.

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.