ABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a declared global pandemic. There are multiple parameters of the clinical course and management of the COVID-19 that need optimization. A hindrance to this development is the vast amount of misinformation present due to scarcely sourced manuscript preprints and social media. This literature review aims to presents accredited and the most current studies pertaining to the basic sciences of SARS-CoV-2, clinical presentation and disease course of COVID-19, public health interventions, and current epidemiological developments. The review on basic sciences aims to clarify the jargon in virology, describe the virion structure of SARS-CoV-2 and present pertinent details relevant to clinical practice. Another component discussed is the brief history on the series of experiments used to explore the origins and evolution of the phylogeny of the viral genome of SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, the clinical and epidemiological differences between COVID-19 and other infections causing outbreaks (SARS, MERS, H1N1) are elucidated. Emphasis is placed on evidence-based medicine to evaluate the frequency of presentation of various symptoms to create a stratification system of the most important epidemiological risk factors for COVID-19. These can be used to triage and expedite risk assessment. Furthermore, the limitations and statistical strength of the diagnostic tools currently in clinical practice are evaluated. Criteria on rapid screening, discharge from hospital and discontinuation of self-quarantine are clarified. Epidemiological factors influencing the rapid rate of spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are described. Accurate information pertinent to improving prevention strategies is also discussed. The penultimate portion of the review aims to explain the involvement of micronutrients such as vitamin C and vitamin D in COVID19 treatment and prophylaxis. Furthermore, the biochemistry of the major candidates for novel therapies is briefly reviewed and a summary of their current status in the clinical trials is presented. Lastly, the current scientific data and status of governing bodies such as the Center of Disease Control (CDC) and the WHO on the usage of controversial therapies such as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (Ibuprofen), and corticosteroids usage in COVID-19 are discussed. The composite collection of accredited studies on each of these subtopics of COVID-19 within this review will enable clarification and focus on the current status and direction in the planning of the management of this global pandemic.
ABSTRACT
Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common high-grade primary brain tumor in adults. Standard multi-modality treatment of glioblastoma with surgery, temozolomide chemotherapy, and radiation results in transient tumor control but inevitably gives way to disease progression. The need for additional therapeutic avenues for patients with GBM led to interest in anti-angiogenic therapies, and in particular, bevacizumab. We sought to determine the efficacy of bevacizumab as a treatment for newly diagnosed GBM. We conducted a literature search using the PubMed database and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) since 2014 investigating the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab in the treatment of adult patients (18 years and older) with newly diagnosed GBM. Only Level Ι data that reported progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were included for analysis. Random effects meta-analyses on studies with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were conducted in R to estimate the pooled hazard ratio (HR) for PFS and OS. Six RCTs met requirements for meta-analysis, revealing a pooled estimate of PFS HR suggesting a 33% decreased risk of disease progression (HR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.58-0.78; p < 0.001) with bevacizumab therapy, but no effect on OS (HR = 1, 95% CI, 0.85-1.18; p = 0.97). A pooled estimate of the mean difference in OS months of -0.13 predicts little difference in time of survival between treatment groups (95% CI, -1.87-1.61). The pooled estimate for the mean difference in PFS months was 2.70 (95% CI, 1.89-3.50; p < 0.001). Meta-analysis shows that bevacizumab therapy is associated with a longer PFS in adult patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, but had an inconsistent effect on OS in this patient population.
