ABSTRACT
BackgroundDuring the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, diabetic patients face disproportionately more. Anti-inflammatory effects of hypoglycemic agents have been reported, and their beneficial or harmful effects in patients with diabetes and COVID-19 remain controversial. PurposeThis study was performed to clarify this association. Data SourcesRelevant literature was searched on China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, Chinese periodical service platform VIP Database, Sinomed (China Biology Medicine, CBM), MedRxiv, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Ovid Databases (LWW), Springer Link, Wiley Online Library, Oxford Academic, Nature Press Group, Cochrane Library and BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine up to November 14, 2020. Study SelectionOnly observational studies of hypoglycemic agents vs. drugs or therapy without hypoglycemic agents in adult diabetic patients with COVID-19 were included. Data ExtractionData of death and poor composite outcomes were extracted. Data SynthesisThe pooled effects were calculated using the fixed-effects or random-effects models based on heterogeneity assessment. LimitationMost studies were retrospective cohort studies with relative weak capability to verify causality. ConclusionHome use of metformin might be beneficial in decreasing mortality in diabetic patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that metformin and other hypoglycemic agents are associated with poor composite outcomes. More prospective studies, especially RCTs are needed. Registration-PROSPEROCRD42020221951.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundPrevious researches on the association between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) use and the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 have generated inconsistent findings. Therefore, this Meta-analysis was conducted to clarify the outcome in patients who take PPIs. MethodsWe carried out a systematic search to identify potential studies until November 2020. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared statistic. Odds ratios (ORs) with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by fixed-effects or random-effects models according to the heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses and tests for publication bias were also performed. ResultsEight articles with more than 268,683 subjects were included. PPI use was not associated with increased or decreased risk of COVID-19 infection (OR:3.16, 95%CI = 0.74-13.43, P=0.12) or mortality risk of COVID-19 patients (OR=1.91, 95% CI=0.86-4.24, P=0.11). While it can add risk of severe disease (OR=1.54, 95% CI=1.20-1.99, P<0.001;) and secondary infection (OR=4.33, 95% CI=2.57-7.29). No publication bias was detected. ConclusionsPPI use is not associated with increased risk infection and may not change the mortality risk of COVID-19, but appeared to be associated with increased risk of progression to severe disease and secondary infection. However, more original studies to further clarify the relationship between PPI and COVID-19 are still urgently needed.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundBased on the current status of the COVID-19 global pandemic, there is an urgent need to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of wearing masks to protect public health from COVID-19 infection. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of using face masks to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP (Chinese) database. There were no language restrictions. This study was registered with PROSPERO under the number CRD42020211862. ResultsA total of 6 case-control studies were included. In general, wearing a mask was associated with a significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 infection (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.21-0.69, I2 = 54.1%). Heterogeneity modifiers were investigated by subgroup analysis. For healthcare workers group, masks were shown to have a reduce risk of infection by nearly 70%. Studies in China showed a higher protective effect than other countries. Adjusted estimates and subgroup analyses showed similar findings. ConclusionsThe results of this systematic review and meta-analysis support the conclusion that wearing a mask could reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe effect of using Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) on the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a topic of recent debate. Although studies have examined the potential association between them, the results remain controversial. This study aims to determine the true effect of ACEI/ARBs use on the risk of infection and clinical outcome of COVID-19. MethodsFive electronic databases (PubMed, Web of science, Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, medRxiv preprint server) were retrieved to find eligible studies. Meta-analysis was performed to examine the association between ACEI/ARBs use and the risk of infection and clinical outcome of COVID-19. Results22 articles containing 157,328 patients were included. Use of ACEI/ARBs was not associated with increased risk of infection (Adjusted OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91-1.01, I2=5.8%) or increased severity (Adjusted OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.05, I2=27.6%) of COVID-19. The use of ACEI/ARBs was associated with lower risk of death from COVID-19 (Adjusted OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.44-0.99, I2=57.9%). Similar results of reduced risk of death were also found for ACEI/ARB use in COVID-19 patients with hypertension (Adjusted OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.17-0.77, I2=0). ConclusionThis study provides evidence that ACEI/ARBs use for COVID-19 patients does not lead to harmful outcomes and may even provide a beneficial role and decrease mortality from COVID-19. Clinicians should not discontinue ACEI/ARBs for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 if they are already on these agents.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundConflicting recommendations exist related to whether masks have a protective effect on the spread of respiratory viruses. MethodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was consulted to report this systematic review. Relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP (Chinese) database. ResultsA total of 21 studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses suggest that mask use provided a significant protective effect (OR=0.35 and 95% CI=0.24-0.51). Use of masks by healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-healthcare workers (Non-HCWs) can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80% (OR=0.20, 95% CI=0.11-0.37) and 47% (OR=0.53, 95% CI=0.36-0.79). The protective effect of wearing masks in Asia (OR=0.31) appeared to be higher than that of Western countries (OR=0.45). Masks had a protective effect against influenza viruses (OR=0.55), SARS (OR=0.26), and SARS-CoV-2 (OR=0.04). In the subgroups based on different study designs, protective effects of wearing mask were significant in cluster randomized trials and observational studies. ConclusionsThis study adds additional evidence of the enhanced protective value of masks, we stress that the use masks serve as an adjunctive method regarding the COVID-19 outbreak.
ABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the value of different surgical methods in the repair of huge chest wall defect after breast malignant tumor operation.Methods The clinical data of 22 patients with chest wall defect after chest operation were retrospectively analyzed.All patients received one-stage repair for the chest wall defect with different surgical methods.Of the patients,9 cases got repair with latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap,4 cases received repairment with internal mammary perforator flap of contralateral breast,and the others received dermatoplasty.Results All the 22 cases were successfully repaired.Two cases of dermatoplasty got mild edema who was healed after acitive dressing change.No one got effusion,infection or necrosis.No recurrence or distant metastasis happened except one case of liver metastasis in the follow-up of 6 to 24 months.Conclusions Application of different surgical methods in repair for the chest wall defect can improve patients' life quality.It is easy,safe and effective.We should choose the most suitable surgical method according to individual situation.
