Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
J Med Virol ; 94(5): 1935-1949, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1777575

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions can impact mental health. To quantify the mental health burden of COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching World Health Organization COVID-19/PsycInfo/PubMed databases (09/29/2020), including observational studies reporting on mental health outcomes in any population affected by COVID-19. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of anxiety, depression, stress, sleep problems, posttraumatic symptoms. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on severe mental health problems, in high-quality studies, and in representative samples. Subgroup analyses were conducted stratified by age, sex, country income level, and COVID-19 infection status. One-hundred-seventy-three studies from February to July 2020 were included (n = 502,261, median sample = 948, age = 34.4 years, females = 63%). Ninety-one percent were cross-sectional studies, and 18.5%/57.2% were of high/moderate quality. The highest prevalence emerged for posttraumatic symptoms in COVID-19 infected people (94%), followed by behavioral problems in those with prior mental disorders (77%), fear in healthcare workers (71%), anxiety in caregivers/family members of people with COVID-19 (42%), general health/social contact/passive coping style in the general population (38%), depression in those with prior somatic disorders (37%), and fear in other-than-healthcare workers (29%). Females and people with COVID-19 infection had higher rates of almost all outcomes; college students/young adults of anxiety, depression, sleep problems, suicidal ideation; adults of fear and posttraumatic symptoms. Anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic symptoms were more prevalent in low-/middle-income countries, sleep problems in high-income countries. The COVID-19 pandemic adversely impacts mental health in a unique manner across population subgroups. Our results inform tailored preventive strategies and interventions to mitigate current, future, and transgenerational adverse mental health of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Mental Health , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
2.
J Med Virol ; 94(6): 2402-2413, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1718416

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to provide a more accurate representation of COVID-19's case fatality rate (CFR) by performing meta-analyses by continents and income, and by comparing the result with pooled estimates. We used multiple worldwide data sources on COVID-19 for every country reporting COVID-19 cases. On the basis of data, we performed random and fixed meta-analyses for CFR of COVID-19 by continents and income according to each individual calendar date. CFR was estimated based on the different geographical regions and levels of income using three models: pooled estimates, fixed- and random-model. In Asia, all three types of CFR initially remained approximately between 2.0% and 3.0%. In the case of pooled estimates and the fixed model results, CFR increased to 4.0%, by then gradually decreasing, while in the case of random-model, CFR remained under 2.0%. Similarly, in Europe, initially, the two types of CFR peaked at 9.0% and 10.0%, respectively. The random-model results showed an increase near 5.0%. In high-income countries, pooled estimates and fixed-model showed gradually increasing trends with a final pooled estimates and random-model reached about 8.0% and 4.0%, respectively. In middle-income, the pooled estimates and fixed-model have gradually increased reaching up to 4.5%. in low-income countries, CFRs remained similar between 1.5% and 3.0%. Our study emphasizes that COVID-19 CFR is not a fixed or static value. Rather, it is a dynamic estimate that changes with time, population, socioeconomic factors, and the mitigatory efforts of individual countries.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Asia , COVID-19/epidemiology , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Socioeconomic Factors
3.
Int J Infect Dis ; 116: 114-121, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1587615

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare, serious complication after adenoviral COVID-19 vaccine administration that can involve various organ systems. We aimed to investigate the clinical significance of hepatosplenic thrombosis in patients with VITT. METHODS: We searched PubMed ePubs, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies published until April 28, 2021, involving patients with VITT after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including laboratory measurements, were collected and compared. RESULTS: Four case series and three case reports involving 48 cases of VITT were included. Hepatosplenic thrombosis was present in 8 cases (17%). Patients with hepatosplenic thrombosis had lower platelet counts (13,000 vs. 29,500/µL, p=0.016) and higher D-dimer levels (140.0 vs. 57.3 times upper limit of normal range, p=0.028). Multiple-site thrombosis was also associated with hepatosplenic thrombosis (88% vs. 15%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study comparing clinical profiles of patients with VITT according to the presence of hepatosplenic thrombosis. Patients with hepatosplenic thrombosis had more severe presentations with lower platelet counts, higher D-dimer levels, and a higher rate of multiple-site thrombosis. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required to establish definitive evidence regarding the significance of hepatosplenic thrombosis in VITT.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombocytopenia , Thrombosis , Vaccines , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombocytopenia/etiology , Vaccination/adverse effects
4.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(6): e26368, 2021 06 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1278290

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The use of social big data is an important emerging concern in public health. Internet search volumes are useful data that can sensitively detect trends of the public's attention during a pandemic outbreak situation. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to analyze the public's interest in COVID-19 proliferation, identify the correlation between the proliferation of COVID-19 and interest in immunity and products that have been reported to confer an enhancement of immunity, and suggest measures for interventions that should be implemented from a health and medical point of view. METHODS: To assess the level of public interest in infectious diseases during the initial days of the COVID-19 outbreak, we extracted Google search data from January 20, 2020, onward and compared them to data from March 15, 2020, which was approximately 2 months after the COVID-19 outbreak began. In order to determine whether the public became interested in the immune system, we selected coronavirus, immune, and vitamin as our final search terms. RESULTS: The increase in the cumulative number of confirmed COVID-19 cases that occurred after January 20, 2020, had a strong positive correlation with the search volumes for the terms coronavirus (R=0.786; P<.001), immune (R=0.745; P<.001), and vitamin (R=0.778; P<.001), and the correlations between variables were all mutually statistically significant. Moreover, these correlations were confirmed on a country basis when we restricted our analyses to the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Korea. Our findings revealed that increases in search volumes for the terms coronavirus and immune preceded the actual occurrences of confirmed cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that during the initial phase of the COVID-19 crisis, the public's desire and actions of strengthening their own immune systems were enhanced. Further, in the early stage of a pandemic, social media platforms have a high potential for informing the public about potentially helpful measures to prevent the spread of an infectious disease and provide relevant information about immunity, thereby increasing the public's knowledge.


Subject(s)
Attention , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , Pandemics , Search Engine/trends , Social Media/trends , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Public Health/statistics & numerical data , Public Health/trends , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Search Engine/statistics & numerical data , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology , Vitamins/immunology
5.
J Med Internet Res ; 22(12): e22103, 2020 12 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-967271

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: South Korea is one of the few countries that has succeeded in flattening the curve of new COVID-19 cases and avoiding a second outbreak by implementing multiple strategies, ranging from an individual level to the population level. OBJECTIVE: We aim to discuss the unique strategies and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 in South Korea and present a summary of policies implemented by the Korean government during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional study of epidemiological data published by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on October 1, 2020. We analyzed detailed epidemiological information of COVID-19 cases, including the number of confirmed cases and resulting deaths. RESULTS: As of October 1, 2020, a total of 23,889 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 415 deaths were reported in South Korea. In this paper, we present data on the epidemiological characteristics and transmission of the disease and discuss how the South Korean government, health care providers, and society responded to the COVID-19 outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 in South Korea and the government's successful efforts in managing the spread of the disease can provide important insights to other countries dealing with the ongoing pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disease Outbreaks , Epidemiologic Methods , Humans , Republic of Korea/epidemiology
6.
Theranostics ; 11(3): 1207-1231, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-966958

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We conducted a systematic review to highlight therapeutic agents that might be effective in treating COVID-19. Methods: We searched Medline, Medrxiv.org, and reference lists of relevant publications to identify articles of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies on treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19 published in English until the last update on October 11, 2020. Results: We included 36 studies on SARS, 30 studies on MERS, and 10 meta-analyses on SARS and MERS in this study. Through 12,200 title and 830 full-text screenings for COVID-19, eight in vitro studies, 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 6,886 patients, and 29 meta-analyses were obtained and investigated. There was no therapeutic agent that consistently resulted in positive outcomes across SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Remdesivir showed a therapeutic effect for COVID-19 in two RCTs involving the largest number of total participants (n = 1,461). Other therapies that showed an effect in at least two RCTs for COVID-19 were sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 114), colchicine (n = 140), IFN-ß1b (n = 193), and convalescent plasma therapy (n = 126). Conclusions: This review provides information to help establish treatment and research directions for COVID-19 based on currently available evidence. Further RCTs are required.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Animals , COVID-19/mortality , Carbamates/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Disease Models, Animal , Drug Combinations , Drug Evaluation, Preclinical , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Humans , Imidazoles/therapeutic use , Immunization, Passive/methods , Pyrrolidines/therapeutic use , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/mortality , Sofosbuvir/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome , Valine/analogs & derivatives , Valine/therapeutic use
7.
Int J Infect Dis ; 100: 302-308, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-959814

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in December of 2019 in China, estimating the pandemic's case fatality rate (CFR) has been the focus and interest of many stakeholders. In this manuscript, we prove that the method of using the cumulative CFR is static and does not reflect the trend according to the daily change per unit of time. METHODS: A proportion meta-analysis was carried out on the CFR in every country reporting COVID-19 cases. Based on these results, we performed a meta-analysis for a global COVID-19 CFR. Each analysis was performed using two different calculations of CFR: according to the calendar date and according to the days since the outbreak of the first confirmed case. We thus explored an innovative and original calculation of CFR, concurrently based on the date of the first confirmed case as well as on a daily basis. RESULTS: For the first time, we showed that using meta-analyses according to the calendar date and days since the outbreak of the first confirmed case, were different. CONCLUSION: We propose that a CFR according to days since the outbreak of the first confirmed case might be a better predictor of the current CFR of COVID-19 and its kinetics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Global Health , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
9.
J Clin Med ; 9(8)2020 Jul 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-690725

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631-2.101 in the random effects model, p = 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221-0.646 in the random effects model, p < 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670-5.877, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19.

10.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 17(14)2020 07 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-646402

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: The global threat of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues. The diversity of clinical characteristics and progress are reported in many countries as the duration of the pandemic is prolonged. We aimed to perform a novel systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on findings about correlations between clinical characteristics and laboratory features of patients with COVID-19. (2) Methods: We analyzed cases of COVID-19 in different countries by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science databases and Google Scholar, from the early stage of the outbreak to late March. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, and treatment strategies were retrospectively reviewed for the analysis. (3) Results: Thirty-seven (n = 5196 participants) COVID-19-related studies were eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Fever, cough and fatigue/myalgia were the most common symptoms of COVID-19, followed by some gastrointestinal symptoms which are also reported frequently. Laboratory markers of inflammation and infection including C-reactive protein (CRP) (65% (95% confidence interval (CI) 56-81%)) were elevated, while lymphocyte counts were decreased (63% (95% CI 47-78%)). Meta-analysis of treatment approaches indicated that three modalities of treatment were predominantly used in the majority of patients with a similar prevalence, including antiviral agents (79%), antibiotics (78%), and oxygen therapy (77%). Age was negatively correlated with number of lymphocytes, but positively correlated with dyspnea, number of white blood cells, neutrophils, and D-dimer. Chills had been proved to be positively correlated with chest tightness, lung abnormalities on computed tomography (CT) scans, neutrophil/lymphocyte/platelets count, D-dimer and CRP, cough was positively correlated with sputum production, and pulmonary abnormalities were positively correlated with CRP. White blood cell (WBC) count was also positively correlated with platelet counts, dyspnea, and neutrophil counts with the respective correlations of 0.668, 0.728, and 0.696. (4) Conclusions: This paper is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to reveal the relationship between various variables of clinical characteristics, symptoms and laboratory results with the largest number of papers and patients until now. In elderly patients, laboratory and clinical characteristics indicate a more severe disease course. Moreover, treatments such as antiviral agents, antibiotics, and oxygen therapy which are used in over three quarters of patients are also analyzed. The results will provide "evidence-based hope" on how to manage this unanticipated and overwhelming pandemic.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Age Factors , Betacoronavirus , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , COVID-19 , Chills/virology , Cough/virology , Dyspnea/virology , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , Humans , Inflammation/virology , Leukocyte Count , Lymphocyte Count , Pandemics , Platelet Count , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL