Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 19 de 19
Filter
1.
J Integr Complement Med ; 2022 Nov 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2097260

ABSTRACT

Background: In India, alternative and complementary therapies (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy [AYUSH] medicines) are extensively utilized in COVID-19 management, and some were investigated clinically. This study assessed the effectiveness of AYUSH therapeutic on COVID-19 through a living systematic review and meta-analysis approach. Methods: Databases like PubMed; the Cochrane central register of controlled trials; WHO COVID-19 database; the central trial registry-India; Digital Helpline for Ayurveda Research Articles and AYUSH research portal, and preprint repositories were searched till August 1, 2021. Randomized controlled trials or analytical observational studies were included only. Primary outcomes selected were clinical improvement, WHO ordinal scale, viral clearance, and mortality, whereas secondary outcomes were the use of O2 therapy or mechanical ventilator, admission to high dependency unit or emergency unit, duration of hospitalization, the time to symptom resolution, and adverse events. The risk of bias was evaluated by Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools; data were synthesized through RevMan 5.4 tool, and the certainty of the evidence was ranked through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Of 3609 studies retrieved, 17 were included in the systematic review, and 3 AYUSH therapeutics were meta-analyzed. Meta-analysis suggested that add-on AYUSH-64 likely provides therapeutic benefits by reducing time to symptom resolution (mean difference [MD] 2.35 days lower [95% confidence interval, CI; 4.05 lower to 0.65 lower]) and hastening clinical improvement (365 more per 1000 [95% CI; 4 more to 1000 more]) in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients. Kabasura Kudineer adjuvant to standard care is likely to reduce symptom resolution (MD; 1.93 days lower [95% CI; 2.28 lower to 1.58 lower]) and hospital stay (MD; 4.2 days lower [95% CI; 4.97 lower to 3.43 lower]) in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients. Co-administration of Guduchi (Tinospora cordifolia [Willd.] Miers.) to standard care may reduce the duration of hospitalization (MD; 3.93 days, lower [95% CI; 8.83 lower to 0.97 higher]) in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, all three agents seemed safe in adjunct usage to standard care. The certainty of evidence for most outcomes was moderate to low, primarily due to the high risk of bias or imprecision owing to the small sample size. Conclusion: Rational use of integrated or standalone AYUSH interventions in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients is safe and may provide therapeutic benefits. The effect estimates may be changed with additional evidence in upcoming updates.

2.
Sleep Epidemiol ; 2: 100045, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2061876

ABSTRACT

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has altered people's lives worldwide and fostered the emergence of sleep problems. However, no systematic review and meta-analysis has yet been conducted to rigorously evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on sleep problems from a Bangladeshi perspective. As a result, the current systematic review and meta-analysis aims to fill this knowledge gap, which may lead to a better understanding of the prevalence and risk factors associated with sleep problems. To conduct this systematic review, PRISMA guidelines were followed; a literature search was conducted to include studies published till 5th March 2022 from the inception of COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh searching databases such as PubMed, Scopus. A total of eleven studies were included. The JBI checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The overall estimated prevalence of sleep problems was 45% (95% CI: 32% to 58%, I2 =99.31%). General populations were more affected by sleep problems [52% (95% CI: 36% to 68%, I2 =98.92%)] than the healthcare professionals [51% (95% CI: 23% to 79%, I2 =97.99%)] (χ2 = 137.05, p <0.001). Additionally, results suggested that suffering from sleep problems were higher among female (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.29 compared to men); urban residents (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.55 to 2.02 compared to rural); and anxious person (OR: 5.15; 95% CI: 4.32 to 6.14 compared to non-anxious), whereas single participants less likely to suffer from sleep related problems (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.94). The prevalence rate of sleep problems was high and the general populations was at particularly high risk. Further longitudinal studies are warranted to investigate the trajectories of such sleep problems as a function of pandemic changes.

3.
J Affect Disord ; 319: 638-645, 2022 Dec 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2041886

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is considered as a prevalent outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to present a global picture of the prevalence of PTSD in high-risk groups for COVID-19 (HRGs-COVID19) and determine its risk factors. METHODS: Cross-sectional studies published between March 11, 2020, and October 11, 2021, in English, were searched in seven databases on the prevalence of PTSD in HRGs-COVID19. After screening the retrieved records, their quality was assessed, and the required data were extracted. R-4.1.3 software and random effect model with 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used to synthesize and analyze the data. RESULTS: The pooled prevalence of PTSD in HRGs-COVID19 was 30 % (95 % CI: 21-39 %). The pooled prevalence of PTSD was significantly different in terms of the variables of data collection during the lockdown, gender, and data collection season (P < 0.05). Subgroup analyses could not identify sources of heterogeneity. LIMITATIONS: The included studies did not cover all HRGs-COVID19 such as smokers and the elderly. CONCLUSION: Considering the higher pooled prevalence of PTSD in HRGs-COVID19 than the general population, COVID-19 patients, and health care workers, prioritizing this subgroup for prevention and treatment of psychological outcomes is highly recommended. Predicting and implementing psychological interventions early in the pandemic is more critical when applying restrictive measures and among HRGs-COVID19 women.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , Humans , Female , Aged , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Communicable Disease Control , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychology , Prevalence
4.
Front Public Health ; 10: 835449, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1987559

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has made many countries adopt restrictive measures like home quarantine. Children were required to study at home, which made parents worried about the rapid myopic progression of their children. To compare myopia progression during the COVID-19 pandemic home quarantine with the time before it and risk factors of myopia progression, we conducted this study. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to find literature from December 2019 to March 2022 related to COVID-19 pandemic home quarantine and children's myopia progression. Outcomes of myopia progression included axial length and spherical equivalent refraction. Factors of digital screen device time and outdoor activity time were analyzed. Results: Ten studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to the same period before the COVID-19 pandemic, spherical equivalent refraction decreased (OR = -0.27; 95% CI = [-0.33, -0.21]; Z = 8.42; P < 0.00001). However, the subgroup analysis showed that there were no significant differences in spherical equivalent refraction between the two groups in higher-grade school-aged children (grades 4 and above, 11 to 18 years old) (OR = 0.01; 95% CI = [-0.05, 0.07]; Z =0.4; P = 0.69). The outcome of axial length showed no significant difference (OR = 0.06; 95% CI = [-0.31, 0.44]; Z = 0.34; P = 0.74). As for risk factors, the forest plots showed that digital screen device time (OR = 4.56; 95% CI = [4.45, 4.66]; Z = 85.57; P < 0.00001) and outdoor activity time (OR = -1.82; 95% CI = [-2.87, -0.76]; Z = 3.37; P = 0.0008) were risk factors of myopia progression. Conclusion: Compared with the time before the COVID-19 pandemic, myopia progression in children during COVID-19 pandemic home quarantine was accelerated, especially in younger children. Increased digital screen device and decreased outdoor activity times were risk factors. When home quarantine eases, more time on outdoor activities and less time on digital screen devices are needed for children. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/logout.php.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Myopia , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Child , Humans , Myopia/epidemiology , Pandemics , Quarantine , Refraction, Ocular
5.
Surv Ophthalmol ; 67(6): 1593-1602, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1984091

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the regular injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) in patients with various retinal diseases globally. It is unclear to what extent delayed anti-VEGF injections have worsened patients' visual acuity. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the impact of delayed anti-VEGF injections on the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), retinal vein occlusion (RVO), and diabetic macular edema (DME). We searched four computer databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus) from inception to January 5, 2022. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Results were reported by less than 4 months and 4 months or longer for the time period between the first injection during the pandemic and the last pre-pandemic injection. All BCVA measures were converted to the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) for analyses. Among patients who received injections 4 months or longer apart, the mean difference in BCVA was 0.10 logMAR (or 5 ETDRS letters) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06∼0.14) for nAMD patients, 0.01 logMAR (or∼ 1 ETDRS letter) (95% CI -0.25∼0.27) for RVO patients, and 0.03 logMAR (or ∼1 ETDRS letters) (95% CI -0.06∼0.11) for DME patients. These results suggest that patients with nAMD needing scheduled anti-VEGF injections may require priority treatment over those with RVO and DME in the event of disturbed anti-VEGF injections from COVID-19 lockdowns or similar scenarios.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetic Retinopathy , Macular Edema , Retinal Diseases , Retinal Vein Occlusion , Angiogenesis Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Bevacizumab/therapeutic use , Communicable Disease Control , Endothelial Growth Factors/therapeutic use , Humans , Intravitreal Injections , Macular Edema/drug therapy , Macular Edema/etiology , Pandemics , Ranibizumab/therapeutic use , Retinal Diseases/drug therapy , Retinal Vein Occlusion/complications , Retinal Vein Occlusion/drug therapy , Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A/antagonists & inhibitors , Visual Acuity
6.
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses ; n/a(n/a), 2022.
Article in English | Wiley | ID: covidwho-1895988

ABSTRACT

We aimed to estimate the household secondary infection attack rate (hSAR) of SARS-CoV-2 in investigations aligned with the WHO Unity Studies Household Transmission Investigations (HHTI) protocol. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and medRxiv/bioRxiv for ?Unity-aligned? First Few X cases (FFX) and HHTIs published 1 December 2019 to 26 July 2021. Standardised early results were shared by WHO Unity Studies collaborators (to 1 October 2021). We used a bespoke tool to assess investigation methodological quality. Values for hSAR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted or calculated from crude data. Heterogeneity was assessed by visually inspecting overlap of CIs on forest plots and quantified in meta-analyses. Of 9988 records retrieved, 80 articles (64 from databases;16 provided by Unity Studies collaborators) were retained in the systematic review;62 were included in the primary meta-analysis. hSAR point estimates ranged from 2% to 90% (95% prediction interval: 3%?71%;I2?=?99.7%);I2 values remained >99% in subgroup analyses, indicating high, unexplained heterogeneity and leading to a decision not to report pooled hSAR estimates. FFX and HHTI remain critical epidemiological tools for early and ongoing characterisation of novel infectious pathogens. The large, unexplained variance in hSAR estimates emphasises the need to further support standardisation in planning, conduct and analysis, and for clear and comprehensive reporting of FFX and HHTIs in time and place, to guide evidence-based pandemic preparedness and response efforts for SARS-CoV-2, influenza and future novel respiratory viruses.

7.
Clin Epidemiol Glob Health ; 14: 101001, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1850786

ABSTRACT

Background: COVID-19 vaccination is considered as an effective intervention for controlling the burden of the pandemic. However, vaccine hesitation is increasing and hindering efforts targeting to reduce the burden of the COVID-19 disease. Hence, determining COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and identifying determinants that would hinder people to vaccinate against COVID-19 is crucial to effectively improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake. In Ethiopia, the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and its determinants is not well known. Thus, the aim of this study is to estimate the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and its determinants in Ethiopia. Methods: A systematic search of articles was conducted from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Science Direct and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted using a data extraction tool which was adapted from the Joanna Briggs Institute. The quality of each included primary studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale tool. Data analysis was performed using STATA 14. Heterogeneity in studies was assessed using Cochrane Q and I2 test. Publication bias was assessed using visual inspection of funnel plots and Egger's test. A random effects model was applied to determine the pooled estimates if heterogeneity was exhibited; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used. Results: A total of 14 studies involving 6373 participants were included for the final analysis. The pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Ethiopia was 56.02% (95% CI: 47.84, 64.20). The likelihood of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was higher among participants who had history of chronic disease (AOR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.09, 2.97), good knowledge (AOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.59, 4.97), positive attitude (AOR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.21, 4.66), good COVID-19 preventive practice (AOR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.82, 2.12), and high perceived seriousness of COVID-19 (AOR = 3.21, 95% CI: 2.32, 5.98). Conclusion: More than half participants were willing to accept COVID-19 vaccine. Thus, awareness creation battles about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine should be provided to the community. Besides, policy-makers, health planners and other stakeholders should encourage COVID-19 vaccine uptake behaviors by providing trusted information.Systematic review and meta-analysis registration: PROSPERO CRD42021264708.

8.
Front Public Health ; 10: 788972, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1798916

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by a lack of clear evidence to guide healthcare professionals, the public and policymakers. The resulting uncertainty, coupled with changing guidelines as additional evidence became available, added to the stress and anxiety reported by decision-makers. Research results are key to providing evidence to guide healthcare decisions. Important questions have arisen about whether various interventions are safe and effective. The evidence found guides those making treatment decisions, and influences those selecting interventions for further evaluation in research studies. As the COVID-19 pandemic intensified, the effectiveness and safety of many pharmaceuticals was queried. Ivermectin will be used to explore the ethics of how healthcare evidence must be critically appraised, even, or especially, during a pandemic. This drug is alleged to be effective in treating COVID-19, with various studies and systematic reviews finding supportive evidence. Some of these have now been linked to concerns about fraud or poor research reporting. This article will focus on the scientific literature and how apparently fraudulent studies were published and influenced treatment decisions, on-going research and public health guidelines. Research evidence is critical during emergencies like pandemics, but urgency should not overtake ethical responsibilities to critically appraise (or evaluate) studies as they become available. These responsibilities apply in various ways to editors, peer-reviewers, news media reporters, and those making treatment decisions, including clinicians, policymakers and the general public. While research article authors have the primary ethical responsibility to reject fraudulent or inaccurate claims, the readers of health research must carefully evaluate all publications. To detect and reject fraudulent healthcare claims, readers need critical appraisal skills that match their level of engagement with those articles. The core principles of critical appraisal will be described in the article, and how they can be adapted for different types of readers. Exemplar tools that develop critical appraisal skills will be noted, with reviews of ivermectin's efficacy explored as examples. As stakeholders in healthcare evidence are increasingly able to identify well-conducted and ethical research they will simultaneously be able to spot and reject fraudulent reports and prevent them from influencing healthcare decisions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ivermectin , COVID-19/drug therapy , Decision Making , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Ivermectin/therapeutic use , Pandemics
9.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(4): 685-694, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1713620

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Estimates of the serial interval distribution contribute to our understanding of the transmission dynamics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we aimed to summarize the existing evidence on serial interval distributions and delays in case isolation for COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the published literature and preprints in PubMed on 2 epidemiological parameters, namely, serial intervals and delay intervals relating to isolation of cases for COVID-19 from 1 January 2020 to 22 October 2020 following predefined eligibility criteria. We assessed the variation in these parameter estimates using correlation and regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 103 unique studies on serial intervals of COVID-19, 56 were included, providing 129 estimates. Of 451 unique studies on isolation delays, 18 were included, providing 74 estimates. Serial interval estimates from 56 included studies varied from 1.0 to 9.9 days, while case isolation delays from 18 included studies varied from 1.0 to 12.5 days, which were associated with spatial, methodological, and temporal factors. In mainland China, the pooled mean serial interval was 6.2 days (range, 5.1-7.8) before the epidemic peak and reduced to 4.9 days (range, 1.9-6.5) after the epidemic peak. Similarly, the pooled mean isolation delay related intervals were 6.0 days (range, 2.9-12.5) and 2.4 days (range, 2.0-2.7) before and after the epidemic peak, respectively. There was a positive association between serial interval and case isolation delay. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal factors, such as different control measures and case isolation in particular, led to shorter serial interval estimates over time. Correcting transmissibility estimates for these time-varying distributions could aid mitigation efforts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Epidemics , China/epidemiology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International ; 33(50B):191-203, 2021.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1579795

ABSTRACT

Background: Currently, Convalescent plasma (CP)is considered a favorable treatment option for moderate to critically ill Covid-19 patients. But there were very few systematic reviews focused on the effect of CP on clinical parameters. As a result, we undertook this systematic review to learn more about the safety and clinical benefits of convalescent plasma therapy over standard treatment (control). Methodology: We searched Pub Med, Embase and other bibliographic databases to find relevant articles between December 2019 and February 2021 and identified 10 relevant articles which compared CP therapy taken in addition to standard medication with the Control group(who received standard medication). Two independent reviewers examined all full-text articles and extracted the required information intoa predesigned proforma. Forest plots were drawn using RevMan v.5, a statistical tool offered by the Cochrane database to estimate the pooled effect. Results: The results of meta-analysis using a random effect model indicated a significant reduction in mortality rate in CP (about 27% risk reduction), a reduced length of hospital stay in about 2 days (Weighted Mean Difference: -2.53, 95% CI, -7.20 to -2.14, P<0.0001), less time to improve clinical symptoms in about 4 days (pooled mean;CP:10.82 days vs Control:15.14 days). C-Reactive Protein (CRP) concentration levels (mg/L) were well controlled with the control group than the CP group and significant changes in lymphocytes and D-dimer values were not observed after CP treatment. It was also found that no difference between CP transfusion and control was seen in improving the oxygen saturationlevels. Conclusion: CP transfusion can be considered safe and showed a significant reduction in mortality and possible benefits in clinical improvement. Patients on CP therapy had no significant benefits in improving inflammatory markers such as CRP, lymphocytes, D-dimer, or oxygen saturation levels over standard drug therapy, according to meta-analysis data.

11.
Front Microbiol ; 12: 714242, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1485072

ABSTRACT

Tests that detect the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen in clinical specimens from the upper respiratory tract can provide a rapid means of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis and help identify individuals who may be infectious and should isolate to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in COVID-19 symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and summarizes antigen test sensitivity using meta-regression. In total, 83 studies were included that compared SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen-based lateral flow testing (RALFT) to RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2. Generally, the quality of the evaluated studies was inconsistent; nevertheless, the overall sensitivity for RALFT was determined to be 75.0% (95% confidence interval: 71.0-78.0). Additionally, RALFT sensitivity was found to be higher for symptomatic vs. asymptomatic individuals and was higher for a symptomatic population within 7 days from symptom onset compared to a population with extended days of symptoms. Viral load was found to be the most important factor for determining SARS-CoV-2 antigen test sensitivity. Other design factors, such as specimen storage and anatomical collection type, also affect the performance of RALFT. RALFT and RT-qPCR testing both achieve high sensitivity when compared to SARS-CoV-2 viral culture.

12.
Pediatr Pulmonol ; 57(1): 20-25, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1473909

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many experts expected that asthma-associated morbidity because of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection would dramatically increase. However, some studies suggested that there was no apparent increasing in asthma-related morbidity in children with asthma, it is even possible children may have improved outcomes. To understand the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and asthma outcomes, we performed this article. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to find literature from December 2019 to June 2021 related to COVID-19 and children's asthma control, among which results such as abstracts, comments, letters, reviews, and case reports were excluded. The level of asthma control during the COVID-19 pandemic was synthesized and discussed by outcomes of asthma exacerbation, emergency room visit, asthma admission, and childhood asthma control test (c-ACT). RESULTS: A total of 22,159 subjects were included in 10 studies. Random effect model was used to account for the data. Compared with the same period before the COVID-19 pandemic, asthma exacerbation reduced (odds ratio [OR] = 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.14-0.48], Z = 4.32, p < 0.0001), the odds of emergency room visit decreased as well (OR = 0.11, 95% CI = [0.04-0.26], Z = 4.98, p < 0.00001). The outcome of asthma admission showed no significant difference (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = [0.32-2.20], Z = 0.36, p = 0.72). The outcome of c-ACT scores were not analyzed because of the different manifestations used. Overall, c-ACT scores reduced during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Compared to the same period before the COVID-19 pandemic, the level of asthma control has been significantly improved. We need to understand the exact factors leading to these improvements and find methods to sustain it.


Subject(s)
Asthma , COVID-19 , Asthma/epidemiology , Asthma/prevention & control , Child , Hospitalization , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Cureus ; 13(4): e14651, 2021 Apr 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456514

ABSTRACT

Background There are no clear consensus guidelines on the indications and types of anticoagulation therapies in patients with bio-prosthetic valves either with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) or sinus rhythm. In our meta-analysis, we assessed the safety and efficacy of DOACs as compared to the standard treatment with warfarin in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves. Methods We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies in the English language, and studies reporting patients with valvular heart disease that included bioprosthetic valvular disease. A systematic literature review using Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science was performed using the terms "Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulant," "Oral Anticoagulants," "Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant," "Atrial Fibrillation," "Bioprosthetic Valve" for literature published prior to January 2021. Extraction of data from included studies was carried out independently by three reviewers from Covidence. We assessed the methodical rigor of the included studies using the modified Downs and Black checklist. Results Four RCTs and one observational study (n=1776) were included in our study. A random-effect model using RevMan (version 5.4; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen) was used for data analysis. The pooled data showed that there was a non-significant reduction in the incidence of stroke and systemic embolism in the patients taking DOACs as compared to warfarin (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.29, 1.67; I2 = 50%). The incidence of major bleeding was lower in the DOACs group; the difference was statistically significant (HR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26, 0.67; I2 = 7%). The difference was not statistically significant for all-cause mortality in both groups (HR 1.24; 95% CI, 0.91, 1.67; I2 = 0%). Conclusion Our results showed that there was no difference in the outcomes of stroke and systemic embolism between DOACs and warfarin but there were statistically significantly lower major bleeding events. We conclude that larger clinical trials are needed to assess the true safety and efficacy of DOACs in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves.

14.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(17)2021 08 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1390604

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is an anti-IL-6 therapy widely adopted in the management of the so-called "cytokine storm" related to SARS-CoV-2 virus infection, but its effectiveness, use in relation to concomitant corticosteroid therapy and safety were unproven despite widespread use in numerous studies, mostly open label at the start of the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies utilising tocilizumab in COVID-19 on different databases (PubMed/MEDLINE/Scopus) and preprint servers (medRxiv and SSRN) from inception until 20 July 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42020195690). Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed. The impact of tocilizumab and concomitant corticosteroid therapy or tocilizumab alone versus standard of care (SOC) on the death rate, need for mechanical ventilation, ICU admission and bacterial infections were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies with 15,531 patients (3657 cases versus 11,874 controls) were identified. Unadjusted estimates (n = 28) failed to demonstrate a protective effect of tocilizumab on survival (OR 0.74 ([95%CI 0.55-1.01], p = 0.057), mechanical ventilation prevention (OR 2.21 [95%CI 0.53-9.23], p = 0.277) or prevention of ICU admission (OR 3.79 [95%CI 0.38-37.34], p = 0.254). Considering studies with adjusted, estimated, tocilizumab use was associated with mortality rate reduction (HR 0.50 ([95%CI 0.38-0.64], p < 0.001) and prevention of ICU admission (OR 0.16 ([95%CI 0.06-0.43], p < 0.001). Tocilizumab with concomitant steroid use versus SOC was protective with an OR of 0.49 ([95%CI 0.36-0.65], p < 0.05) as was tocilizumab alone versus SOC with an OR of 0.59 ([95%CI 0.34-1.00], p < 0.001). Risk of infection increased (2.36 [95%CI 1.001-5.54], p = 0.050; based on unadjusted estimates). CONCLUSION: Despite the heterogeneity of included studies and large number of preprint articles, our findings from the first eight of the pandemic in over 15,000 COVID-19 cases suggested an incremental efficacy of tocilizumab in severe COVID-19 that were confirmed by subsequent meta-analyses of large randomized trials of tocilizumab. This suggests that analysis of case-control studies and pre-print server data in the early stages of a pandemic appeared robust for supporting incremental benefits and lack of major therapeutic toxicity of tocilizumab for severe COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Standard of Care , Treatment Outcome
15.
Transfus Apher Sci ; 60(4): 103169, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1240637

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies investigate the association between the ABO blood groups and the occurrence of COVID-19 infection; discordant findings were reported. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the existing evidence on the susceptibility of the ABO blood group to COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Systematically searched published articles in PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and EMBASE between 1 st January 2020 and 21 st March 2021. After quality control and the exclusion of irrelevant studies, 16 studies were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Although the random-effect meta-analysis revealed a large heterogeneity among studies, I 2 = 99.197 %. The pooled event rates and (95 % CIs) for A, O, B, and AB blood group were 0.459 (95 %CI: 0.358-0.441), 0.342 (95 %CI: 0.298-0.374), 0.180 (95 %CI: 0.150-0.214), and 0.076 (95 %CI: 0.055-0.127), respectively. These results indicated that the COVID-19 infection rate was higher in persons with blood group A > O > B > AB. Overall, the ABO blood group's vulnerability to COVID-19 infection was statistically significant (pooled p -value<0.001). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis offers a further indication of blood group A individuals' vulnerability to COVID-19 infection, and blood type AB are linked to a lower risk of COVID-19 infection.


Subject(s)
ABO Blood-Group System/analysis , COVID-19/blood , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , ABO Blood-Group System/genetics , COVID-19/genetics , Evidence-Based Medicine , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Humans
16.
J Gastrointest Cancer ; 52(2): 499-507, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1216261

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Investigations about the impact and consequences of the COVID-19 infection on the mental health of patients with chronic diseases and those with immunosuppressive conditions are growing. The current study aimed to systematically review and meta-analysis of studies that evaluated the level of depression and anxiety in cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The PubMed, Scopus and Web of Sciences databases were searched to retrieve potential studies from January 2020 to 3 January 2021. Summary data on frequency and mean of depression and anxiety were extracted. Random-effect meta-analysis was conducted to estimate overall prevalence, mean and standardized mean difference. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included in the systematic review, of them 21 studies included in meta-analysis. Overall depression and anxiety were 0.37 (0.27, 0.47); I2 = 99.05%, P value < 0.001 and 0.38 (0.31, 0.46); I2 = 99.08%, P value < 0.001, respectively. Compared to controls, cancer patients had higher anxiety level [standard mean difference (SMD 0.25 (95% CI 0.08, 0.42)]. CONCLUSION: Overall, the findings of this study suggest that the prevalence of depression and anxiety among patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic can reach considerable levels, although observed substantial heterogeneity should be considered when interpreting the results.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Neoplasms/psychology , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Prevalence
17.
Cureus ; 13(2): e13420, 2021 Feb 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1143806

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:  Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has multiorgan involvement and its severity varies with the presence of pre-existing risk factors like cardiovascular disease (CVD) and hypertension (HTN). Therefore, it is important to evaluate their effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients. The objective of this meta-analysis and meta-regression is to evaluate outcomes of COVID-19 amongst patients with CVD and HTN. METHODS: English full-text observational studies having data on epidemiological characteristics of patients with COVID-19 were identified searching PubMed from December 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020, following Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) protocol. Studies having pre-existing CVD and HTN data that described outcomes including mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) utilization were selected. Using random-effects models, risk of composite poor outcomes (meta-analysis) and isolated mortality and IMV utilization (meta-regression) were evaluated. Pooled prevalence of CVD and HTN, correlation coefficient (r) and odds ratio (OR) were estimated. The forest plots and correlation plots were created using random-effects models. RESULTS: Out of 29 studies (n=27,950) that met the criteria, 28 and 27 studies had data on CVD and HTN, respectively. Pooled prevalence of CVD was 18.2% and HTN was 32.7%. In meta-analysis, CVD (OR: 3.36; 95% CI: 2.29-4.94) and HTN (OR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.57-2.40) were associated with composite poor outcome. In age-adjusted meta-regression, pre-existing CVD was having significantly higher correlation of IMV utilization (r: 0.28; OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1-1.6) without having any association with mortality (r: -0.01; OR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.9-1.1) among COVID-19 hospitalizations. HTN was neither correlated with higher IMV utilization (r: 0.01; OR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.9-1.1) nor correlated with higher mortality (r: 0.001; OR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.9-1.1). CONCLUSION: In age-adjusted analysis, though we identified pre-existing CVD as a risk factor for higher utilization of mechanical ventilation, pre-existing CVD and HTN had no independent role in increasing mortality.

18.
Cureus ; 12(10): e10923, 2020 Oct 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-895708

ABSTRACT

Background The current pandemic of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a global health challenge. Pulmonary dysfunction is the main outcome of COVID-19 infection. In critically ill patients, however, liver complications have also been reported. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to draw generalized conclusions regarding impaired liver biochemistry and its potential relationship with COVID-19 disease severity. Materials and Methods We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for all the related literature published up to June 20, 2020. The data were analyzed using R statistical software. A random-effects model was employed for pooling the data. The risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Results The present meta-analysis comprises 10 retrospective and two prospective studies (6,976 COVID-19 patients). The serum analysis revealed significantly higher levels of alanine aminotransferases and aspartate aminotransferases and significantly lower albumin levels. Moreover, insignificant increases in serum levels of total bilirubin were observed. Upon subgroup analysis of six studies (severe cases, n=131; non-severe cases, n=334) stratified on the basis of disease severity, we found that these abnormalities were relatively higher in severe cases of COVID-19 (albumin [weighted mean difference (WMD), 34.03 g/L; 95% CI, 27.42 to 40.63; p<0.0001; I2=96.83%); alanine transaminase (ALT) [WMD, 31.66 U/L; 95% CI, 25.07 to 38.25; p<0.0001; I2=55.64%]; aspartate aminotransferase (AST) [WMD, 41.79 U/L; 95% CI, 32.85 to 50.72; p<0.0001; I2=51.43%]; total bilirubin [WMD, 9.97 µmol/L; 95% CI, 8.46 to 11.48; p<0.0001; I2=98%]) than in non-severe cases. Conclusion Deranged liver enzymes serve as prognostic factors to assess the severity of COVID-19. Liver markers should, therefore, be observed and monitored continuously.

19.
J Clin Med ; 9(5)2020 May 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-291377

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for a highly contagious infection, known as COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 was discovered in late December 2019 and, since then, has become a global pandemic. Timely and accurate COVID-19 laboratory testing is an essential step in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak. To date, assays based on the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in respiratory samples are the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. Unfortunately, RT-PCR has several practical limitations. Consequently, alternative diagnostic methods are urgently required, both for alleviating the pressure on laboratories and healthcare facilities and for expanding testing capacity to enable large-scale screening and ensure a timely therapeutic intervention. To date, few studies have been conducted concerning the potential utilization of rapid testing for COVID-19, with some conflicting results. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to explore the feasibility of rapid diagnostic tests in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak. Based on ten studies, we computed a pooled sensitivity of 64.8% (95%CI 54.5-74.0), and specificity of 98.0% (95%CI 95.8-99.0), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias. We can conclude that: (1) rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 are necessary, but should be adequately sensitive and specific; (2) few studies have been carried out to date; (3) the studies included are characterized by low numbers and low sample power, and (4) in light of these results, the use of available tests is currently questionable for clinical purposes and cannot substitute other more reliable molecular tests, such as assays based on RT-PCR.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL