scholarly journals Effectiveness and safety of antiviral or antibody treatments for coronavirus

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Rios ◽  
Amruta Radhakrishnan ◽  
Jesmin Antony ◽  
Sonia Thomas ◽  
Matthew Muller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Reports ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Conclusive Evidence ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Antiviral Therapies ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Altered Liver ◽  
Reporting Rates

ABSTRACTBackgroundTo identify safe and effective medical countermeasures (e.g., antivirals/antibodies) to address the current outbreak of a novel coronavirus (COVID-19)MethodsComprehensive literature searches were developed by an experienced librarian for MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and biorxiv.org/medrxiv.org; additional searches for ongoing trials and unpublished studies were conducted in clinicaltrials.gov and the Global Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON). Title/abstract and full-text screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias appraisal were carried out by single reviewers.Results54 studies were included in the review: three controlled trials, 10 cohort studies, seven retrospective medical record/database studies, and 34 case reports or series. These studies included patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARs, n=33), middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS, n=16), COVID-19 (n=3), and unspecified coronavirus (n=2). The most common treatment was ribavirin (n=41), followed by oseltamivir (n=10) and the combination of lopinavir/ritonavir (n=7). Additional therapies included broad spectrum antibiotics (n=30), steroids (n=39) or various interferons (n=12). No eligible studies examining monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 were identified. One trial found that ribavirin prophylactic treatment statistically significantly reduced risk of MERS infection in people who had been exposed to the virus. Of the 21 studies reporting rates of ICU admission in hospitalized SARS or MERS patients, none reported statistically significant results in favour of or against antiviral therapies. Of the 40 studies reporting mortality rates in hospitalized SARS or MERS patients, one cohort study (MERS) and one retrospective study (SARS) found a statistically significant increase in the mortality rate for patients treated with ribavirin. Eighteen studies reported potential drug-related adverse effects including gastrointestinal symptoms, anemia, and altered liver function in patients receiving ribavirin.ConclusionThe current evidence for the effectiveness and safety of antiviral therapies for coronavirus is inconclusive and suffers from a lack of well-designed prospective trials or observational studies, preventing any treatment recommendations from being made. However, it is clear that the existing body of evidence is weighted heavily towards ribavirin (41/54 studies), which has not shown conclusive evidence of effectiveness and may cause harmful adverse events so future investigations may consider focusing on other candidates for antiviral therapy.

scholarly journals CLINICAL AND LABORATORY CHARACTERISTICS OF SARS-COV-2 INFECTION IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlos Melo Martins ◽  
Arnaldo Prata-Barbosa ◽  
Maria Clara de Magalhães-Barbosa ◽  
Antonio José Ledo Alves da Cunha
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Inflammatory Responses ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Childhood And Adolescence ◽  
Inflammatory Reactions ◽  
One Year ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

ABSTRACT Objective: To present the current evidence on clinical and laboratory characteristics of infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during childhood and adolescence. Data source: This is a narrative review conducted in the databases: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE/PubMed), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature in the Virtual Health Library (LILACS/VHL), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, portal of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES), Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), ScienceDirect, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). The terms used were SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, novel coronavirus, child, newborn, and adolescent. Data synthesis: Unlike adults, most children infected by SARS-CoV-2 have mild or asymptomatic clinical presentations. Symptomatic children mainly have low fever and cough, with some associated gastrointestinal symptoms. Severe cases are rare and occur especially in infants under one year of age. Detection of viral particles in feces seems to be more persistent in children and can be used as a tool for diagnosis and control of the quarantine period. Different from adults, children can present distinct inflammatory responses, as has happened in new cases of Kawasaki-like syndrome associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions: Most children have asymptomatic or mild presentations, with a prevalence of fever, cough, and gastrointestinal symptoms. New cases with different systemic inflammatory reactions in children have been reported, with clinical manifestations distinct from those typically found in adults.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Associated Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashkan Baradaran ◽  
Abdolreza Malek ◽  
Nasrin Moazzen ◽  
Zahra Abbasi Shaye
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Multiple Organ ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cardiac Complications ◽  
Clinical Presentations ◽  
Atypical Kawasaki Disease ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Inflammatory Syndrome

The prevalence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) has increased since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic started. This study was aimed to describe clinical manifestation and outcomes of MIS-C associated with COVID-19. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on all available literature until July 3rd, 2020. The screening was done by using the following keywords: (“novel coronavirus” Or COVID-19 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or coronavirus) and ("MIS-C" or "multisystem inflammatory" or Kawasaki). Data on gender, ethnicity, clinical presentations, need for mechanical ventilation or admission to intensive care unit (ICU), imaging, cardiac complications, and COVID-19 laboratory results were extracted to measure the pooled estimates. Out of 314 found articles, 16 articles with a total of 600 patients were included in the study, the most common presentation was fever (97%), followed by gastrointestinal symptoms (80%), and skin rashes (60%) as well as shock (55%), conjunctivitis (54%), and respiratory symptoms (39%). Less common presentations were neurologic problems (33%), and skin desquamation (30%), MIS-C was slightly more prevalent in males (53.7%) compared to females (46.3%). The findings of this meta-analysis on current evidence found that the common clinical presentations of COVID-19 associated MIS-C include a combination of fever and mucocutaneous involvements, similar to atypical Kawasaki disease, and multiple organ dysfunction. Due to the relatively higher morbidity and mortality rate, it is very important to diagnose this condition promptly.  

scholarly journals Dental stem cells in tooth repair: A systematic review

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1955
Author(s):  
Mary Sabry Tawfik Tadros ◽  
Maha Abd-El Salam El-Baz ◽  
Mohamed Adel Ezzat Khairy Khairy
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Stem Cells ◽  
Dental Pulp ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Deciduous Teeth ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Dental Stem Cells ◽  
Pulp Regeneration ◽  
Tooth Repair

Background: Dental stem cells (DSCs) are self-renewable teeth cells, which help maintain or develop oral tissues. These cells can differentiate into odontoblasts, adipocytes, cementoblast-like cells, osteoblasts, or chondroblasts and form dentin/pulp. This systematic review aimed to summarize the current evidence regarding the role of these cells in dental pulp regeneration. Methods: We searched the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science using relevant keywords. Case reports and non-English studies were excluded. We included all studies using dental stem cells in tooth repair whether in vivo or in vitro studies. Results: Dental pulp stem cell (DPSCs) is the most common type of cell. Most stem cells are incorporated and implanted into the root canals in different scaffold forms. Some experiments combine growth factors such as TDM, BMP, and G-CSF with stem cells to improve the results. The transplant of DPSCs and stem cells from apical papilla (SCAPs) was found to be associated with pulp-like recovery, efficient revascularization, enhanced chondrogenesis, and direct vascular supply of regenerated tissue. Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that DPSCs, stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth, and SCAPs are capable of providing sufficient pulp regeneration and vascularization. For the development of the dental repair field, it is important to screen for more effective stem cells, dentine releasing therapies, good biomimicry scaffolds, and good histological markers.

scholarly journals Clinical Benefits of Acupuncture for the Reduction of Hormone Therapy–Related Side Effects in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 602-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanqing Pan ◽  
Kehu Yang ◽  
Xiue Shi ◽  
Haiqian Liang ◽  
Xiping Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Hormone Therapy ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients

Importance. Acupuncture can help reduce unpleasant side effects associated with endocrine therapy for breast cancer. Nevertheless, comprehensive evaluation of current evidence from randomized controlled trials(RCTs) is lacking. Objective. To estimate the efficacy of acupuncture for the reduction of hormone therapy-related side effects in breast cancer patients. Evidence review. RCTs of acupuncture in breast cancer patients that examined reductions in hormone therapy–related side effects were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases through April 2016. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to the 5.2 Cochrane Handbook standards, and CONSORT and STRICTA (Revised Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture) statements. Intervention. Interventions included conventional acupuncture treatment compared with no treatment, placebo, or conventional pharmaceutical medication. Major outcome measures were the alleviation of frequency and symptoms and the presence of hormone therapy–related side effects. Findings/Results. A total of 17 RCTs, including a total of 810 breast cancer patients were examined. The methodological quality of the trials was relatively rigorous in terms of randomization, blinding, and sources of bias. Compared with control therapies, the pooled results suggested that acupuncture had moderate effects in improving stiffness. No significant differences were observed in hot flashes, fatigue, pain, gastrointestinal symptoms, Kupperman index, general well-being, physical well-being, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), and interleukin (IL). Conclusions. Acupuncture therapy appears to be potentially useful in relieving functional stiffness. However, further large-sample trials with evidence-based design are still needed to confirm these findings.

scholarly journals Clinical features, Diagnosis, and Treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review of case reports and case series

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azin Tahvildari ◽  
Mahta Arbabi ◽  
Yeganeh Farsi ◽  
Parnian Jamshidi ◽  
Saba Hasanzadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Antiviral Treatment ◽  
Surrogate Marker ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Neuraminidase Inhibitor ◽  
Hiv Protease ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

AbstractObjectivesThe 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been declared a public health emergency worldwide. The objective of this systematic review was to characterize the clinical, diagnostic, and treatment characteristics of patients presenting with COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a structured search using PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library to collect both case reports and case series on COVID-19 published up to February 30, 2020.ResultsThirty-four articles were included analyzing a total of 99 patients with a mean age of 46.2 years. The most common presenting symptom in patients who tested positive for COVID-19 was fever, reported in up to 83% of patients from 76.4% of the analyzed studies. Other symptoms including rhinorrhea, dizziness, and chills were less frequently reported. Additionally, in studies which reported C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements (44%), a large majority of patients displayed an elevated CRP (73%). Progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was the most common complication of patients testing positive for COVID-19 (33%). CT images displayed ground-glass opacification (GGO) patterns (80%) as well as bilateral lung involvement (71.0%). The most commonly used antiviral treatment modalities included, lopinavir (HIV protease inhibitor), arbidiol hydrochloride (influenza fusion inhibitor), and oseltamivir (neuraminidase inhibitor).ConclusionsDevelopment of ARDS may play a role in estimating disease progression and mortality risk. Early detection of elevations in serum CRP, combined with a clinical COVID-19 symptom presentation may be used as a surrogate marker for presence and severity of disease. There is a paucity of data surrounding the efficacy of treatments. There is currently not a well-established gold standard therapy for the treatment of diagnosed COVID-19. Further prospective investigations are necessary.

scholarly journals Breastfeeding of Infants Born to Mothers with COVID-19: A Rapid Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nan Yang ◽  
Siyi Che ◽  
Jingyi Zhang ◽  
Xia Wang ◽  
Yuyi Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nucleic Acid ◽  
Breast Milk ◽  
Close Contact ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Viral Nucleic Acid

AbstractBackgroundExisting recommendations on whether mothers with COVID-19 should continue breastfeeding are still conflicting. We aimed to conduct a rapid review of mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19 during breastfeeding.MethodsWe systematically searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and preprint articles up to March 2020. We included studies relevant to transmission through milk and respiratory droplets during breastfeeding of mothers with COVID-19, SARS, MERS and influenza. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsA total of 4481 records were identified in our literature search. Six studies (five case reports and one case series) involving 58 mothers (16 mothers with COVID-19, 42 mothers with influenza) and their infants proved eligible. Five case reports showed that the viral nucleic acid tests for all thirteen collected samples of breast milk from mothers with COVID-19 were negative. A case series of 42 influenza infected postpartum mothers taking precautions (hand hygiene and wearing masks) before breastfeeding showed that no neonates were infected with influenza during one-month of follow-up.ConclusionsThe current evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 viral nucleic acid has not been detected in breast milk. The benefits of breastfeeding may outweigh the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in infants. Mothers with COVID-19 should take appropriate precautions to reduce the risk of transmission via droplets and close contact during breastfeeding.

scholarly journals Current Evidence of the Pharmacological Treatments for Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) A Scoping Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noyuri Yamaji ◽  
Sachiko Ohde ◽  
Kimi Estela Kobayashi-Cuya ◽  
Shota Saito ◽  
Osamu Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Severe Infection ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Pharmacological Treatments ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

Background: As of May 2 2020, 3,267,184 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 229,971 COVID-19-caused deaths have been reported worldwide. Currently, there is limited clarity on the pharmacological treatments available for the novel coronavirus. We systematically identified the current evidence and ongoing research on the pharmacological treatments for COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using PRISMA-ScR. Observational studies, including cohort studies and case series, as well as experimental studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs were searched electronically on April 7, 2020 and by hand on May 1, 2020. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched along with seven trial registries. The inclusion criteria were patients with confirmed COVID-19 who received pharmacological therapies, including hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, remdesivir, tocilizumab, and favipiravir. Results: We identified 222 studies on pharmacological treatment of the novel coronavirus. We included 11 of these studies in this review, including the ones on hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine (one cohort), lopinavir/ritonavir (one RCT, three cohorts, and two case series), remdesivir (one RCT and one case series), tocilizumab (one case series), and favipiravir (one RCT). In the three RCTs carried out in China, both lopinavir/ritonavir and remdesivir did not show any significant earlier clinical improvement in case of severe infection [Hazard ratio (HR): 1.31, p=0.09 and HR: 1.24, p=0.24, respectively], The clinical recovery rate on day seven was not significantly different between the favipiravir and arbidol groups (p=0.14) for moderate patients, although the duration of pyrexia and cough in the favipiravir group was significantly shorter as compared to the arbidol group (p<0.01). There are 135 ongoing RCTs, including 72 for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, 29 for lopinavir/ritonavir, 14 for remdesivir, 16 for tocilizumab, and 4 for favipiravir. Conclusion: The clinical effectiveness and safety of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 remains unclear owing to the lack of large, high-quality RCTs. However, in the event of emerging infectious diseases, we need to repeatedly and systematically update the best available evidence to avoid misleading information.

scholarly journals Switching treatments in clinically stable relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis patients planning for pregnancy

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 205521732110015
Author(s):  
Lubna Almouzain ◽  
Fiona Stevenson ◽  
Declan Chard ◽  
Nur Abdul Rahman ◽  
Fiona Hamilton
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Disease Modifying Drugs ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Relapsing Remitting ◽  
Mother And Child ◽  
Multiple Sclerosis Patients

Background The decision to have children can be complex, particularly for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). A key concern is the use of disease modifying drugs (DMDs) during pregnancy, and how continuing, stopping or switching them may affect the mother and child. In people with active MS, stopping medications puts the mother at risk of relapse and disease rebound. Objectives Review evidence on the effect of different switching strategies in people with stable relapsing remitting MS (RRMS). Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library up to March 2020. Only papers in English were included and no other limits were applied. Seven articles were included: four cohorts, two case reports and one randomized controlled trial (RCT). Results Two strategies were found: de-escalating, which was associated with an increased risk of relapses, and switching between first line injectables, with no change in relapse rate observed. Conclusion Evidence on the effect of switching strategy on disease course in stable RRMS patients planning for pregnancy is scarce, but when switching, current evidence suggests the risk of relapses mirrors known medication efficacy.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Treatment: Close to a Cure? – A Rapid Review of Pharmacotherapies for the Novel Coronavirus

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Song ◽  
Min Zhang ◽  
Ling Yin ◽  
Kunkun Wang ◽  
Yiyi Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Reports ◽  
Treatment Guideline ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Disease Spread ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Antiviral Therapies ◽  
7Th Edition ◽  
Cdc Guidelines ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

Currently, there is no specific treatment for COVID-19 proven by clinical trials. WHO and CDC guidelines therefore endorse supportive care only. However, frontline clinicians have been applying several virus-based and host-based therapeutics in order to combat SARS-CoV-2. Medications from COVID-19 case reports, observational studies and the COVID-19 Treatment Guideline issued by the China's National Health Commission (7th edition published March 3rd, 2020. Edited translation attached) are evaluated in this review. Key evidence from relevant in vitro researches, animal models and clinical studies in SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are examined. Antiviral therapies remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir and umifenovir, if considered, could be initiated before the peak of viral replication for optimal outcomes. Ribavirin may be beneficial as an add-on therapy and is ineffective as a monotherapy. Corticosteroids use should be limited without indicating comorbidities. IVIG is not recommended due to lack of data in COVID-19. Xuebijing may benefit patients with complications of bacterial pneumonia or sepsis. The efficacy of interferon is unclear due to conflicting outcomes in SARS and MERS studies. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have shown in vitro inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 and may be beneficial as both prophylactic and treatment therapy. For patients who developed cytokine release syndrome, interleukin-6 inhibitors may be beneficial. Given the rapid disease spread and increasing mortality, active treatment with readily available medications may be considered timely prior to disease progression.

scholarly journals Do Robotics and Virtual Reality Add Real Progress to Mirror Therapy Rehabilitation? A Scoping Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelly Darbois ◽  
Albin Guillaud ◽  
Nicolas Pinsault
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Mirror Therapy ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Rehabilitation Professionals ◽  
Evidence Database

Background. Mirror therapy has been used in rehabilitation for multiple indications since the 1990s. Current evidence supports some of these indications, particularly for cerebrovascular accidents in adults and cerebral palsy in children. Since 2000s, computerized or robotic mirror therapy has been developed and marketed. Objectives. To map the extent, nature, and rationale of research activity in robotic or computerized mirror therapy and the type of evidence available for any indication. To investigate the relevance of conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis on these therapies. Method. Systematic scoping review. Searches were conducted (up to May 2018) in the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and PsycINFO databases. References from identified studies were examined. Results. In sum, 75 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were publicly funded (57% of studies; n = 43), without disclosure of conflict of interest (59% of studies; n = 44). The main outcomes assessed were pain, satisfaction on the device, and body function and activity, mainly for stroke and amputees patients and healthy participants. Most design studies were case reports (67% of studies; n = 50), with only 12 randomized controlled trials with 5 comparing standard mirror therapy versus virtual mirror therapy, 5 comparing second-generation mirror therapy versus conventional rehabilitation, and 2 comparing other interventions. Conclusion. Much of the research on second-generation mirror therapy is of very low quality. Evidence-based rationale to conduct such studies is missing. It is not relevant to recommend investment by rehabilitation professionals and institutions in such devices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document