Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
1.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-332755

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To assess the trustworthiness and impact of preprint trial reports during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data sources: WHO COVID-19 database and the L-OVE COVID-19 platform by the Epistemonikos Foundation (up to August 3rd, 2021) Design: We compare the characteristics of COVID-19 trials with and without preprints, estimate time to publication of COVID-19 preprint reports, describe discrepancies in key methods and results between preprint and published trial reports, report the number of retracted preprints and publications, and assess whether including versus excluding preprint reports affects meta-analytic estimates and the certainty of evidence. For the effects of eight therapies on mortality and mechanical ventilation, we performed meta-analyses including preprints and excluding preprints at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the first trial addressing the therapy became available either as a preprint or publication (120 meta-analyses in total). Results: We included 356 trials, 101 of which are only available as preprints, 181 as journal publications, and 74 as preprints first and subsequently published in journals. Half of all preprints remain unpublished at six months and a third at one year. There were few important differences in key methods and results between trial preprints and their subsequent published reports. We identified four retracted trials, three of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. With two exceptions (2/60;3.3%), point estimates were consistent between meta-analyses including versus excluding preprints as to whether they indicated benefit, no appreciable effect, or harm. There were nine comparisons (9/60;15%) for which the rating of the certainty of evidence differed when preprints were included versus excluded, for four of these comparisons the certainty of evidence including preprints was higher and for five of these comparisons the certainty of evidence including preprints was lower. Limitations: The generalizability of our results is limited to COVID-19. Preprints that are subsequently published in journals may be the most rigorous and may not represent all trial preprints. Conclusion: We found no compelling evidence that preprints provide less trustworthy results than published papers. We show that preprints remain the only source of findings of many trials for several months, for a length of time that is unacceptable in a health emergency. We show that including preprints may affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence. We encourage evidence users to consider data from preprints in contexts in which decisions are being made rapidly and evidence is being produced faster than can be peer-reviewed.

2.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-314008

ABSTRACT

Background: There are studies that show a chest CT scan is superior to reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) studies in the diagnosis of COVID. This study was designed to assess the prevalence of COVID-related lung involvement in patients admitted to a trauma center. Methods: In a retrospective study, data from a regional referral trauma center from February 21, 2020 to April 10, 2020, were reviewed. All patients admitted to the hospital for whom a chest CT scan was performed during the study period for any reason were included. Trained physicians screened all CT-scans for findings suggestive of COVID-19. Next, blinded radiologists selected CT-scans with findings highly suggestive of COVID involvement. The clinical course and outcome, and the results of PCR for SARS-CoV-2 were recorded assessed. Results: A total of 4200 chest CT scans were reviewed. After multiple rounds of exclusion, 24 patients with highly- suggestive findings were reviewed. Only three patients developed COVID symptoms during the course of admission. PCR results were positive in 22 patients (92.6%). Conclusions: We suggest having a lower threshold for ordering chest CT scans in trauma patients at a high risk of COVID infection, as well as those requiring extensive surgical interventions. Also, a thorough review of the available CT scans before invasive procedures, preferably with the help of an expert radiologist, is highly recommended, even when the results of the COVID laboratory tests are negative.

3.
BMJ ; 374: n2231, 2021 09 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438073

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS: As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/immunology , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Network Meta-Analysis , Treatment Outcome
4.
Infect Disord Drug Targets ; 2021 Jul 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1328039

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is the third rising epidemic in the 21st century that quickly turned into a worldwide pandemic. Many clinical studies have been achieved to investigate treatments to confrontation of COVID-19. Therefore, we conducted a systematic reviewto describe the recent treatment strategies to treat COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Science direct, Up to date, and Web of Science using the keywords of Coronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Novel Coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, Treatment, Medicine, Therapy, Intervention, Drug, Medications, and Cure. RESULTS: We included 58 studies including 38 articles (eleven reviews, ten editorial documents, three case reports, one mix method, one cohort study,) and 19 published clinical trials. Review of studies showed that Lopinavir/Ritonavir (n=16), Remdesivir (n=13), Convalescent plasma (n=11), Chloroquine (n=11), Ribavirin (n=9), Hydroxychloroquine sulfate (n=8), Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) (n=8), and Arbidol (n=7), were the most frequently used therapies used to treat COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: In the absence of definitive treatment protocols, recently proposed approaches appear to be an effective therapy for accelerating the recovery of COVID-19 patients. Some of these treatments may have been in the early stages of testing. However, future preclinical and clinical trials are warranted to validate findings.

5.
BMJ ; 373: n949, 2021 04 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1203960

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: Random effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Carrageenan/pharmacology , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Hydroxychloroquine/pharmacology , Ivermectin/pharmacology , Anti-Infective Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Chemoprevention/methods , Chemoprevention/statistics & numerical data , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Uncertainty
6.
Infect Disord Drug Targets ; 21(7): e160921188928, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-969257

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, there has been an increasing number of patients infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) around the world. As of March 2020, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic. CASE PRESENTATION: To our best knowledge, this is the first report of a patient with SARS-CoV-2 infection presenting with constrictive pericarditis, possibly from the COVID infection. She was presented after a week of fever, persistent dry cough, and diarrhea. She received a single dose of hydroxychloroquine 400 mg, Oseltamivir 75 mg every 12 hours, lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) 400/100 mg every 12 hours, and levofloxacin 750 mg daily. After 24 hours, she was immediately transferred to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) because of dyspnea and progressive respiratory failure with a drop of the O2 saturation to 70%. CONCLUSION: After a week of progress, her respiratory condition deteriorated again. She was re-admitted to the ICU and she expired. She died due to constrictive pericarditis, most probably caused by SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pericarditis, Constrictive , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , Pericarditis, Constrictive/diagnosis , Pericarditis, Constrictive/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Infect Disord Drug Targets ; 21(6): e170721188439, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-948017

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Azithromycin has been considered as a possible therapeutic agent for COVID-19 patients. However, there is limited data on its efficacy. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe three patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who did not respond to the initial treatment but improved dramatically upon adding azithromycin with a successful outcome. CONCLUSION: We have presented evidence of the potential beneficial effect of the azithromycin in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 in three different clinical settings. More evidence is needed regarding the microbiological data, safety, and efficacy of this medication in the management of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Azithromycin , COVID-19 , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , SARS-CoV-2
8.
CMAJ ; 192(47): E1571-E1584, 2020 Nov 23.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-941708

ABSTRACT

CONTEXTE: Il existe très peu de données directes sur l'administration de corticostéroïdes aux patients atteints de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Les données indirectes sur des maladies associées devront donc guider les conclusions quant aux bénéfices et aux préjudices associés à cette pratique. Dans le but d'appuyer la rédaction d'une ligne directrice sur la prise en charge de la COVID-19, nous avons réalisé des revues systématiques sur les effets des corticostéroïdes dans le traitement de la COVID-19 et de maladies respiratoires aiguës sévères associées. MÉTHODES: Dans des bases de données biomédicales chinoises et internationales et des sources de prépublications, nous avons cherché les essais randomisés et contrôlés (ERC) et les études d'observation comparant des patients atteints de la COVID-19, du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS) ou du syndrome respiratoire du Moyen-Orient (SRMO) ayant reçu des corticostéroïdes à des patients semblables n'ayant pas reçu ce type de médicaments. Pour le syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë (SDRA), l'influenza et la pneumonie extrahospitalière (PEH), nous avons mis à jour les revues systématiques rigoureuses les plus récentes. Nous avons réalisé des méta-analyses à effets aléatoires pour cerner les risques relatifs, puis nous avons utilisé le risque de référence des patients atteints de la COVID-19 pour calculer les effets absolus. RÉSULTATS: Pour le SDRA, selon 1 petite étude de cohorte sur des patients atteints de la COVID-19 et 7 ERC sur des patients atteints d'une autre maladie (risque relatif : 0,72, intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 0,55­0,93, différence entre les moyennes [DM] 17,3 % plus faible, données de faible qualité), les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité. Chez les patients atteints d'une forme grave de COVID-19 sans SDRA, 2 études d'observation ont généré des données directes de très faible qualité montrant une augmentation du risque de mortalité avec l'administration de corticostéroïdes (rapport de risques 2,30, IC de 95 % 1,00­5,29, DM 11,9 % plus élevé). C'est aussi le cas de données observationnelles sur l'influenza. Des données observationnelles de très faible qualité sur le SRAS et le SRMO montrent peu ou pas de réduction dans le risque de mortalité. Des essais randomisés et contrôlés sur la PEH suggèrent que les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité (risque relatif 0,70, IC de 95 % 0,50­0,98, DM 3,1 % plus faible, données de très faible qualité), et augmenter le risque d'hyperglycémie. INTERPRÉTATION: Les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité pour les patients atteints de la COVID-19 avec SDRA. Pour les patients atteints d'une forme grave de COVID-19 sans SDRA, les données sur les bénéfices provenant de différentes sources sont incohérentes et de très faible qualité.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Outpatients , Pandemics , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Treatment Outcome
9.
BMJ ; 370: m2980, 2020 07 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-691120

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fourth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./statistics & numerical data , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Databases, Factual/statistics & numerical data , Drug Combinations , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Network Meta-Analysis , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Standard of Care , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
10.
Curr HIV Res ; 18(5): 373-380, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-641168

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has spread globally with remarkable speed, and currently, there is limited data available exploring any aspect of the intersection between HIV and SARSCoV- 2 co-infection. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of clinical symptoms associated with COVID-19 among people living with HIV (PLWH) in Tehran, Iran. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: A total of 200 PLWH were recruited through the positive club via sampling, and completed the symptom-based questionnaire for COVID-19, which was delivered by trained peers. RESULTS: Of 200 participants, respiratory symptoms, including cough, sputum, and shortness of breath, were the most prevalent among participants, but only one person developed symptoms collectively suggested COVID-19 and sought treatments. CONCLUSION: It appears that existing infection with HIV or receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) might reduce the susceptibility to the infection with SARS-CoV-2 or decrease the severity of the infection acquired. Further research is needed to understand causal mechanisms.


Subject(s)
Anti-Retroviral Agents/therapeutic use , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Iran/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
11.
CMAJ ; 192(27): E756-E767, 2020 07 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-262616

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Very little direct evidence exists on use of corticosteroids in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Indirect evidence from related conditions must therefore inform inferences regarding benefits and harms. To support a guideline for managing COVID-19, we conducted systematic reviews examining the impact of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and related severe acute respiratory illnesses. METHODS: We searched standard international and Chinese biomedical literature databases and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). For acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), influenza and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), we updated the most recent rigorous systematic review. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool relative risks and then used baseline risk in patients with COVID-19 to generate absolute effects. RESULTS: In ARDS, according to 1 small cohort study in patients with COVID-19 and 7 RCTs in non-COVID-19 populations (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.93, mean difference 17.3% fewer; low-quality evidence), corticosteroids may reduce mortality. In patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, direct evidence from 2 observational studies provided very low-quality evidence of an increase in mortality with corticosteroids (hazard ratio [HR] 2.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.29, mean difference 11.9% more), as did observational data from influenza studies. Observational data from SARS and MERS studies provided very low-quality evidence of a small or no reduction in mortality. Randomized controlled trials in CAP suggest that corticosteroids may reduce mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98, 3.1% lower; very low-quality evidence), and may increase hyperglycemia. INTERPRETATION: Corticosteroids may reduce mortality for patients with COVID-19 and ARDS. For patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, evidence regarding benefit from different bodies of evidence is inconsistent and of very low quality.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Community-Acquired Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Influenza, Human/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , COVID-19 , Community-Acquired Infections/physiopathology , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Influenza, Human/physiopathology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
12.
IDCases ; 21: e00815, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-276690

ABSTRACT

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus that began in late December 2019 was announced as a pandemic by the World Health Organization as the number of cases is increasing exponentially throughout the globe. We presented a patient with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia developing symmetric polyneuropathy. To our knowledge, extrapulmonary clinical presentations of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have rarely been reported. This case highlights the possible association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and nervous system involvement.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL