Streptococcal Vaccines in the Prevention and Treatment of Respiratory Infections: A Clinical and Experimental Study

1938 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward C. Rosenow ◽  
Fordyce R. Heilman
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chaouki Neifer

Actual systems of prevention and treatment of new emerging airborne germs seem to be ineffective as shown with the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Here I present a novel concept allowing to develop specific immunity when being exposed without even getting infected. I concretize this concept in a facial device whose composition, way of use, and potential interests are detailed in this paper.


Neurosurgery ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
José González-Darder ◽  
José Barberá ◽  
José Alamo ◽  
Fernando Garcia-Vázquez

1947 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 325-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel J. Prigal ◽  
Lawrence J. Morganbesser ◽  
Frederic P. McIntyre

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 96-101
Author(s):  
V.A. Bulgakova ◽  
◽  
I.I. Balabolkin ◽  
A.S. Ignatova ◽  
◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 01-04
Author(s):  
V.A. Mikhaylov

This article presents preliminary results of treatment of 51 patients with COVID 19 (Moscow Region, Russia). These patients were subjected to various schemes of immune stimulation for the prevention and treatment of this disease. Were compared-Percutaneus laser therapy (PLT), Intravenous Laser Blood Irradiation (ILBI), Drug stimulation and their combination. The results showed: 1. In the treatment of COVID-19, the use of various types of immunomodulation and anticoagulants proved to be most effective. 2. The combination of ILBI and TLT with immunomodulators proved to be the most effective in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. 3. Immediate use of immunomodulators at the very beginning of COVID-19 reduces the severity of the disease, and facilitates its course. Background and Aims: We started to use laser therapy in 1988. When used in different categories of cancer patients, it was found that various types of laser radiation stimulate the immune system. We started to use this peculiarity of laser therapy to boost the immune status of sickly patients with weakened immune systems, as well as for prevention and treatment of respiratory viral infections (e.g. influenza, parainfluenza, acute respiratory infections). We performed various types of Immunostimulation in 51 patients from Russia and evaluated its influence both on the morbidity and the course of COVID-19. Rationale: Laser radiation (890-910 nm) stimulates cell immunity, increasing the amount of active T-lymphocytes. The wavelength of 630-640 nm is the most effective for irradiation both the blood and the vascular walls. At this wavelength photons are absorbed by oxygen, microcirculation improves, decrease blood viscosity, and direct impact on the nerve and muscle elements of the vascular wall influences the activity of the vascular and nervous systems. Conclusion: The laser therapy practice we have been exercising for over 30 years has shown that it produces good immunostimulating effects. The use of various laser therapy methods combined with immunomodulatory drugs allow to reduce the number of patients infected with COVID-19, and reduce the severity of the disease.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 335-347
Author(s):  
N.A. Geppe ◽  
◽  
A.L. Zaplatnikov ◽  
E.G. Kondyurina ◽  
O.I. Afanasieva ◽  
...  

Aim: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Anaferon and Anaferon for children for the prevention and treatment of of acute respiratory viral infections (ARVI)/influenza using meta-analysis. Patients and Methods: the meta-analysis included data from 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 3079 patients aged 1 month to 69 years, of which: 1729 people were included in the meta-analysis of the preventive drugs efficacy, 1550 patients — in the meta-analysis of the therapeutic efficacy of Anaferon for children. The evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy was conducted according to the criteria "disease duration" and/or "fever duration", the evaluation of the preventive efficacy was conducted according to the criterion "the proportion of patients not falling ill with ARVI/influenza". The safety was evaluated taking into account the number of adverse events (AEs). Statistical methods included the exact Fisher criterion, the Student criterion, fixed and random effects models, the Z-test, the Cochrane-Mantel-Hensel criterion, Cochrane Q-statistics and the I2 coefficient, the Breslow-Day test, the calculation of relative risk (RR), odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: according to the criterion "the proportion of patients not falling ill with ARVI/influenza", the RR of Anaferon for children was 1.2 [95% CI 1.2; 1.3] with an OR of 2.2 [95% CI 1.7; 2.9], while for Anaferon, the RR was 6.7 [95% CI 3.8; 11.8] with an OR of 20.1 [95% CI 9.2; 44.0]. At the same time, the proportion of patients without ARVI/influenza during Anaferon intake exceeded that in the absence of preventive intervention by almost 8 times, and during Anaferon for children intake — 1.3 times vs. placebo. When evaluating the therapeutic effect of Anaferon for children, it was found that the average disease duration was 1.4 times shorter than during placebo intake, and was 4.71±2.53 days (p<0,001). The average fever duration was 2.19±1.21 days vs. 3.22±1.81 days during placebo intake (p<0,001). According to the criterion "disease duration", the weighted average effect value was 1.05 [95% CI 0.44; 1.67], according to the criterion "fever duration" — 0.97 [95% CI 0.61; 1.33] (p<0.001, p-value of the two-tailed Z-test; random effects model). The therapeutic efficacy of Anaferon for children did not depend on the etiology of ARVI, the symptoms, and the presence of comorbidity (asthma). The total number of AEs is similar to those in the comparison group. Conclusion: the conducted review and meta-analysis concerning the efficacy and safety of Anaferon and Anaferon for children for the treatment and prevention of ARVI/influenza allow us to conclude the following: 1) Anaferon for children is effective and safe for the treatment of influenza and other acute respiratory infections, regardless of the pathogen and the presence of comorbidity (asthma); 2) Anaferon and Anaferon for children are effective and safe for the prevention of acute respiratory infections/influenza, including patients with concomitant bronchopulmonary pathology and frequently ill children. KEYWORDS: ARVI, influenza, prevention, treatment, meta-analysis, Anaferon, Anaferon for children. FOR CITATION: Geppe N.A., Zaplatnikov A.L., Kondyurina E.G. et al. Efficacy and safety of Anaferon for children and Anaferon for the prevention and treatment of influenza and other acute respiratory viral infections: systematic review and meta-analysis. Russian Medical Inquiry. 2021;5(5):335–347 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32364/2587-6821-2021-5-5-335-347.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document