Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have shown clinical benefits against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Several studies have reported the use of bamlanivimab as a promising treatment option for COVID-19. AIM: To synthesize the latest evidence for the efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab alone in the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar using "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "LY-CoV555", and "Bamlanivimab" keywords up to January 25, 2023. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane bias tools. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 3.0 was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies involving 47368 patients were included. A significant difference was observed between the bamlanivimab and standard of care/placebo groups in terms of mortality rate [risk ratio (RR) = 50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.70], hospitalization rate (RR = 0.51; 95%CI: 0.39-0.68), and emergency department (ED) visits (RR = 0.69; 95%CI: 0.47-0.99); while the two groups exhibited no significant difference in terms of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (P > 0.05). Compared to other mAbs, bamlanivimab was associated with a higher rate of hospitalization (RR = 1.44; 95%CI: 1.07-1.94). However, no significant difference was detected between the bamlanivimab and other mAbs groups in terms of mortality rate, ICU admission, and ED (P > 0.05). The incidence of any adverse events was similar between the bamlanivimab and control groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although the results suggest the efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab in COVID-19 patients, further research is required to confirm the efficacy of this drug for the current circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Sotrovimab in solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Despite widespread implementation of vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) can remain particularly vulnerable to this disease. The present study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of sotrovimab in the treatment of SOTRs with COVID-19. Methods: A search was performed of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar to gather relevant evidence through July 25, 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (ver. 3.0, Biostat) was employed for data analysis. Results: Ten studies, involving a total of 1,569 patients, were included. The meta-analysis revealed significant differences between the patients administered sotrovimab and those treated with the standard of care. These differences were observed in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.67), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.57), intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.62), the need for supplemental oxygen therapy (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.51), and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.70). However, no significant difference was observed between sotrovimab and other treatments regarding the rates of hospitalization or ICU admission (P>0.05). Regarding safety, sotrovimab was associated with a lower rate of adverse events compared to the absence of sotrovimab (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.02-0.86). Conclusions: These results suggest that sotrovimab may improve efficacy outcomes among SOTRs with COVID-19. Nevertheless, additional high-quality trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

Comparative efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) with molnupiravir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To end this, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to collect relevant evidence up to February 15, 2023. The risk of bias was evaluated using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Eighteen studies involving 57 659 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed a significant difference between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in terms of all-cause mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.67), all-cause hospitalization rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.54-0.69), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.38-0.99), and negative polymerase chain reaction conversion time (mean difference = -1.55, 95% CI: -1.74 to -1.37). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of COVID-19 rebound (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.71-1.07). In terms of safety, although the incidence of any adverse events was higher in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.57-4.06), no significant difference was observed between the two treatments in terms of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.69-2.00). The present meta-analysis demonstrated the significant superiority of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir over molnupiravir in improving clinical efficacy in COVID-19 patients during the prevalence of Omicron variant. These findings, however, need to be further confirmed.

Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and COVID-19: a systematic review.

This study was performed to investigate published literature about the association between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and COVID-19. This is a systematic review in which the databases of Chocrane, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science as well as reliable journals including Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Jama and also Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publications were searched.Out of 169 documents discovered during the literature review, 56 ones were somehow related to the association between MMR vaccine and COVID-19, of which 11 ones mentioned the association between these two, and 8 of them contained a hypothesis about this relationship. A quasi-trial study reported the positive effect of the MMR vaccine on reducing the severity of COVID-19 symptoms among those who received it. Also, a cross-sectional study showed an association between the level of Immunoglobulin G (IgG) mumps and COVID-19. Moreover, a genomic data analysis study also reported the effect of Rubella Immunoglobulin G (IgG) level on COVID-19. It seems that due to the similarity of respiratory diseases including measles, rubella, and mumps to COVID-19, MMR vaccine should be investigated more deeply to see if it is effective in order to deal with this novel disease.

Quality of work life and factors associated with it among nurses in public hospitals, Iran.

BACKGROUND: There is an acute shortage of nurses worldwide including Iran. Quality of work life is important for nurses as it affects the safety and quality of care provided for patients as well as organizational factors. The aim of this study was to describe the status of quality of work life and to explore its predictors among nurses in Iran. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 2391 nurses in 85 Iranian public hospitals, selected through the convenience sampling. Data were collected using demographic information and the quality of work life questionnaires. RESULTS: The mean score for total quality of work life was 2.58, indicating a low level of self-reported quality of work life, with 69.3% of nurses dissatisfied with their work life. The major influencing factors were inadequate and unfair payment, lack of solving staff problems by organization and poor management support, job insecurity, high job stress, unfair promotion policies, and inadequate involvement in the decision-making. Significant predictors in the multivariate analysis for lower quality of work life were male gender, being single, older age, having lower educational levels, and working in teaching hospitals. CONCLUSION: The quality of nursing work life was at a low level and needs improvement interventions. The predictors identified allow for more targeted interventions. Nursing managers and policymakers should develop and implement successful strategies appropriately to improve the quality of work life. This includes the payments, organizational and managerial support, job security, fair promotion policies, and measures to reduce job stress.