Safety and efficacy of probiotic supplements as adjunctive therapies in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Oral probiotic supplementation may be a beneficial adjunctive therapy for patients with symptomatic COVID-19. However, its safety and efficacy are unclear. We aimed to investigate how probiotic supplementation impacts COVID-19 symptom trajectory and patient outcomes by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: RCTs randomizing patients with COVID-19 to probiotics were searched in PubMed Central, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 31, 2022. We performed a random-effects pairwise meta-analysis for all outcomes using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: A total of 1027 participants from eight RCT studies were included in the meta-analysis. Probiotic supplements probably reduce the incidence of diarrhea (RR 0.61 [0.43 to 0.87]; moderate certainty) and probably reduce cough or dyspnea compared to placebo/standard care (RR 0.37 [0.19 to 0.73]; moderate certainty). Probiotic supplements may improve composite endpoint measured by clinical escalation or mortality compared to placebo (RR 0.41 [0.18 to 0.93]; low certainty evidence); however, they may not significantly reduce the need for clinical escalation (RR 0.57 [0.31 to 1.07]; low certainty evidence) or mortality (RR 0.50 [0.20 to 1.29]; low certainty evidence). In addition, the probiotic supplement is associated with reduced adverse events (RR 0.62 [0.46 to 0.83]; moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Early probiotic supplement is a safe and effective adjunctive therapy that reduces the risk of symptoms and health care burden related to COVID-19 across all severity types.

HBV coinfection and in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Since December 2019, there are 30 million confirmed cases of a novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) secondary to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. As of 2020, hepatitis B virus (HBV) affects more than 200 million people worldwide. Both are caused by viral agents. The short-term mortality rate from COVID-19 is much higher than that of HBV. Objective We sought to understand the impact of HBV coinfection on hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Search Methods Searches of the literature were conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase electronic databases. Selection Criteria We included cohort studies and randomized studies with information on rates of mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission from individuals coinfected by HBV and COVID-19. Data Collection and Analysis Data from six cohort studies with 2,015 patients were collected between January and April 2020, and the results were analyzed by meta-analysis. Main Results HBV coinfection did not lead to increased mortality or ICU admission rates among individuals hospitalized for COVID-19 (risk ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.333–1.83, N = 2,015;adjusted OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.31–1.98). During their hospital stay, coinfected patients did not appear to have an increased hospital length of stay or risk of hepatitis B reactivation. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis provides support that HBV is not a significant risk factor for serious adverse outcomes among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection.

Mindfulness practice for protecting mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Emerging evidence shows that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is negatively affecting mental health around the globe. Interventions to alleviate the psychological impact of the pandemic are urgently needed. Whether mindfulness practice may protect against the harmful emotional effects of a pandemic crisis remains hitherto unknown. We investigated the influence of mindfulness training on mental health during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. We hypothesized that mindfulness practitioners might manifest less pandemic-related distress, depression, anxiety, and stress than non-practitioners and that more frequent practice would be associated with an improvement in mental health during the pandemic. Therefore, we assessed pandemic-related distress and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress, as well as the frequency of meditation practice at the peak of new infections (Feb 4-5; N = 673) and three weeks later (Feb 29-30; N = 521) in mindfulness practitioners via online questionnaires. Self-reported symptoms were also collected from non-practitioners at peak time only (N = 1550). We found lower scores of pandemic-related distress in mindfulness practitioners compared to non-practitioners. In general, older participants showed fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety. In younger practitioners, pandemic-related distress decreased from peak to follow-up. Importantly, increased mindfulness training during the preceding two weeks was associated with lower scores of depression and anxiety at both assessments. Likewise, practice frequency predicted individual improvement in scores of depression, anxiety, and stress at follow-up. Our results indicate that mindfulness meditation might be a viable low-cost intervention to mitigate the psychological impact of the COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics.