scholarly journals Corticosteroids Treatment for Patients With Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) With Different Disease Severity: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocol

Author(s):  
Shaofei Lou ◽  
Kaizhuang Huang ◽  
Jiao Jiang ◽  
Ningjun Li

Abstract Introduction: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic progresses, identifying effective antiviral agents to treat the COVID-19 is of most urgency. Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 still are debated. Because high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of corticosteroids for patients with COVID-19 recently were published recently, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs on corticosteroids therapy in patients with different disease severity to ascertain the effect on survival. Methods: We will undertake a comprehensive literature search among PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, medRxiv, and bioRxiv from their inception onwards to identify relevant RCTs. Two reviewers will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality, mortality of mechanically ventilated patients and patients who did not receive oxygen therapy. Secondary outcomes include need for mechanical ventilation or oxygen therapy and incidence of adverse outcomes. Heterogeneity of the estimates across studies will be assessed. Outcomes will be analyzed to pooled risk ratio and pertinent 95% confidence interval. A subgroup analysis will be conducted by disease severity to explore the source of heterogeneity. The systematic review and meta-analysis will be presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. Discussion: This systematic review will provide an overview of the current state of evidence concerning the effect of corticosteroids on survival of patients with COVID-19 depended on the disease severity. Also, this systematic review will show the limitations and strengths of the studies available in the literature, as well as recommendations for future avenues of research will be given. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020227740.

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xu Tian ◽  
Yan-Fei Jin ◽  
Zhao-Li Zhang ◽  
Hui Chen ◽  
Wei-Qing Chen ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Enteral immunonutrition (EIN) has been extensively applied in cancer patients, however its role in esophageal cancer (EC) patients receiving esophagectomy remains unclear. We performed this network meta-analysis to investigate the impact of EIN on patients undergoing surgery for EC and further determine the optimal time of applying EIN.Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledgement Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify eligible studies. Categorical data was expressed as the odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI), and continuous data was expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Pair-wise and network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of EIN on clinical outcomes using RevMan 5.3 and ADDIS V.1.16.8 softwares. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank all nutritional regimes.Results: Total 14 studies involving 1071 patients were included. Pair-wise meta-analysis indicated no difference between EIN regardless of the application time and standard EN (SEN), however subgroup analyses found that postoperative EIN was associated with decreased incidence of total infectious complications (OR=0.47; 95%CI=0.26 to 0.84; p=0.01) and pneumonia (OR=0.47; 95%CI=0.25 to 0.90; p=0.02) and shortened LOH (MD=-1.01; 95%CI=-1.44 to -0.57; p<0.001) compared to SEN, which were all supported by network meta-analyses. Ranking probability analysis further indicated that postoperative EIN has the highest probability of being the optimal option in terms of these three outcomes.Conclusions: Postoperative EIN should be preferentially utilized in EC patients undergoing esophagectomy because it has optimal potential of decreasing the risk of total infectious complications and pneumonia and shortening LOH.OSF registration number: 10.17605/OSF.IO/KJ9UY.


Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 2921
Author(s):  
Gabor Dobos ◽  
Anne Pohrt ◽  
Caroline Ram-Wolff ◽  
Céleste Lebbé ◽  
Jean-David Bouaziz ◽  
...  

Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCL) are a heterogenous group of rare diseases. Many studies have reported on local epidemiology or geographic clustering, however we lack information from a global perspective. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in Medline and the Cochrane Library based on a previously registered protocol and according to the preferred reporting of items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). We selected publications that enrolled at least 100 patients with primary cutaneous lymphomas according to the current classifications. The relative frequencies (proportions) of subtypes were compared between studies and geographic regions in a meta-analysis. In total, 26 studies met our inclusion criteria, reporting on altogether 16,953 patients. Within primary cutaneous lymphomas, CTCL appeared to be 15% more frequent in Asian populations. Mycosis fungoides (MF) accounted for 62% of CTCL, with an important heterogeneity in frequencies between studies and continents. The proportion of Sézary syndrome (SS) was 3%, stable worldwide. Rare CTCL, such as NK/T-cell lymphoma or subcutaneous panniculitis-like lymphoma, were more frequent in Asian studies. This global meta-analysis of CTCL confirmed the predominance of CTCL among primary cutaneous lymphomas (83% on average) in the three analyzed continents, most of which were MF cases. It revealed the same proportions of SS across continents, and the heterogeneity of MF frequencies, suggesting the possible role of environmental factors in the pathophysiology of the latter. Registration number: CRD42020148295 (PROSPERO).


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenlu Li ◽  
Qianqiu Che ◽  
Mao Li ◽  
Jianping Liu ◽  
Rao Du ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Tocilizumab (TCZ) is an anti-interleukin-6 antibody that has been used to treat patients with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Numerous retrospective studies have shown beneficial treatment efficacy. Several recent randomized clinical trials have questioned the efficacy of TCZ in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab recently used for treating patients with COVID-19. Methods Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative studies that compared the outcomes between TCZ and standard of care (SOC) were analysed. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (inception to November 20, 2020) were systematically searched. Primary outcomes included mortality and the rate of requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV). In addition, several subgroup analyses stratified by disease severity, publication type and TCZ administration were performed. Results Three RCTs, twenty-one cohort studies and nine case-control studies including 11,206 patients were finally included. The TCZ group included 2,794 patients (24.93%) and the SOC group included 8,412 patients (75.07%). The mortality rate (>14 days) of the TCZ group, 29.63% (590/1,991), was lower than the SOC group, 41.51% (2,380/5,734) (OR 0.64, 0.57 to 0.73; p <0.00001). However, no significant difference in-14-day mortality rates was observed between the two groups (13.53% vs 22.92%, p = 0.21). Meanwhile, the rate of MV was significantly decreased in the TCZ group compared with the SOC group (OR 0.42, 0.22 to 0.83; p = 0.01). According to the results of the subgroup analysis stratified by disease severity, TCZ only reduced the mortality rate for critical patients with COVID-19 compared with SOC (OR 0.60, 0.52 to 0.71; P < 0.00001), particularly for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) or patients requiring MV. No statistically significant increase was recognized in the rates of secondary infections or thrombosis between the two groups. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the addition of tocilizumab to the SOC might reduce mortality after 14 days in patients with COVID-19, particularly critical patients requiring MV. More extensive RCTs with longer follow-up periods are needed to validate these findings.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e040921
Author(s):  
Ezekiel Musa ◽  
Tawanda Chivese ◽  
Mahmoud Werfalli ◽  
Mushi Matjila ◽  
Shane A Norris ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe prevalence of diabetes mellitus globally has increased considerably over the past decades with a resultant increase in the incidence of diabetes-complicated pregnancies. Hyperglycaemia in pregnancy is the most common metabolic complication encountered during pregnancy and is associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. This systematic review aims to examine maternal, fetal, neonatal, childhood and long-term maternal outcomes of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy in Africa.Methods and analysisA systematic review of all studies that investigated hyperglycaemia in pregnancy outcomes, carried out in Africa from 1998 to 2019. A comprehensive search of all published articles indexed in PubMed-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase and Web of Science databases will be performed. Studies will be screened for eligibility by title, abstract and full text in duplicate by two independent reviewers. For data where meta-analysis is not possible, narrative analysis will be carried out using themes from data. For data where meta-analysis is possible, random effects meta-analysis will be conducted. This systematic review will be reported according to the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study considering this is a systematic review protocol that uses only published data. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184573.


Author(s):  
Hamed Abdollahi ◽  
Mina Abdolahi ◽  
Mohsen Sedighiyan ◽  
Arash Jafarieh

Background: Recent clinical trial studies have reported that L-carnitine supplementation can reduce the mortality rate in patients with sepsis, but there are no definitive results in this context. The current systematic review and metaanalysis aimed to evaluate the effect of L-carnitine supplementation on 28-day and one-year mortality in septic patients. Methods: A systemically search conducted on Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases up to June 2019 without any language restriction. The publications were reviewed based on Cochrane handbook and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). To compare the effects of L-carnitine with placebo, Risk Ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled according to random effects model. Results: Across five enrolled clinical trials, we found that L-carnitine supplementation reduce one-year mortality in septic patients with SOFA> 12 (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.96; P= 0.03) but had no significant effect on reducing 28-day mortality ((RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.28; P= 0.65) compared to placebo. Finally, we observed that based on current trials, Lcarnitine supplementation may not have clinically a significant effect on mortality rate. Conclusions: L-carnitine patients with higher SOFA score can reduce the mortality rate. However, the number of trials, study duration and using dosage of L-carnitine are limited in this context and further large prospective trials are required to clarify the effect of L-carnitine on mortality rate in septic patients.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenlu Li ◽  
Qianqiu Che ◽  
Mao Li ◽  
Jianping Liu ◽  
Rao Du ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Tocilizumab (TCZ) is an anti-interleukin-6 antibody that has been used to treat patients with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Numerous retrospective studies have shown beneficial treatment efficacy. Several recent randomized clinical trials have questioned the efficacy of TCZ in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab recently used for treating patients with COVID-19. Methods Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative studies that compared the outcomes between TCZ and standard of care (SOC) were analysed. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (inception to November 20, 2020) were systematically searched. Primary outcomes included mortality and the rate of requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV). In addition, several subgroup analyses stratified by disease severity, publication type and TCZ administration were performed. Results Three RCTs, twenty-one cohort studies and nine case-control studies including 11,206 patients were finally included. The TCZ group included 2,794 patients (24.93%) and the SOC group included 8,412 patients (75.07%). The mortality rate (>14 days) of the TCZ group, 29.63% (590/1,991), was lower than the SOC group, 41.51% (2,380/5,734) (OR 0.64, 0.57 to 0.73; p <0.00001). However, no significant difference in-14-day mortality rates was observed between the two groups (13.53% vs 22.92%, p = 0.21). Meanwhile, the rate of MV was significantly decreased in the TCZ group compared with the SOC group (OR 0.42, 0.22 to 0.83; p = 0.01). According to the results of the subgroup analysis stratified by disease severity, TCZ only reduced the mortality rate for critical patients with COVID-19 compared with SOC (OR 0.60, 0.52 to 0.71; P < 0.00001), particularly for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) or patients requiring MV. No statistically significant increase was recognized in the rates of secondary infections or thrombosis between the two groups. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the addition of tocilizumab to the SOC might reduce mortality after 14 days in patients with COVID-19, particularly critical patients requiring MV. More extensive RCTs with longer follow-up periods are needed to validate these findings.


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 589-597
Author(s):  
BGS Casado ◽  
EP Pellizzer ◽  
JR Souto Maior ◽  
CAA Lemos ◽  
BCE Vasconcelos ◽  
...  

Clinical Relevance The use of laser light during bleaching will not reduce the incidence or severity of sensitivity and will not increase the degree of color change compared with nonlaser light sources. SUMMARY Objective: To evaluate whether the use of laser during in-office bleaching promotes a reduction in dental sensitivity after bleaching compared with other light sources. Methods: The present review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and is registered with PROSPERO (CDR42018096591). Searches were conducted in the PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles published up to August 2018. Only randomized clinical trials among adults that compared the use of laser during in-office whitening and other light sources were considered eligible. Results: After analysis of the texts retrieved during the database search, six articles met the eligibility criteria and were selected for the present review. For the outcome dental sensitivity, no significant difference was found favoring any type of light either for intensity (mean difference [MD]: −1.60; confidence interval [CI]: −3.42 to 0.22; p=0.09) or incidence (MD: 1.00; CI: 0.755 to 1.33; p=1.00). Regarding change in tooth color, no significant differences were found between the use of the laser and other light sources (MD: −2.22; CI: −6.36 to 1.93; p=0.29). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, laser exerts no influence on tooth sensitivity compared with other light sources when used during in-office bleaching. The included studies demonstrated that laser use during in-office bleaching may have no influence on tooth color change.


Author(s):  
Panagiotis Paliogiannis ◽  
Arduino Aleksander Mangoni ◽  
Michela Cangemi ◽  
Alessandro Giuseppe Fois ◽  
Ciriaco Carru ◽  
...  

AbstractCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), an infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is responsible for the most threatening pandemic in modern history. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the associations between serum albumin concentrations and COVID-19 disease severity and adverse outcomes. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, from inception to October 30, 2020. Sixty-seven studies in 19,760 COVID-19 patients (6141 with severe disease or poor outcome) were selected for analysis. Pooled results showed that serum albumin concentrations were significantly lower in patients with severe disease or poor outcome (standard mean difference, SMD: − 0.99 g/L; 95% CI, − 1.11 to − 0.88, p < 0.001). In multivariate meta-regression analysis, age (t =  − 2.13, p = 0.043), publication geographic area (t = 2.16, p = 0.040), white blood cell count (t =  − 2.77, p = 0.008) and C-reactive protein (t =  − 2.43, p = 0.019) were significant contributors of between-study variance. Therefore, lower serum albumin concentrations are significantly associated with disease severity and adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients. The assessment of serum albumin concentrations might assist with early risk stratification and selection of appropriate care pathways in this group.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie McLellan ◽  
Clare R Bankhead ◽  
Jason L Oke ◽  
F D Richard Hobbs ◽  
Clare J Taylor ◽  
...  

BackgroundGUIDE-IT, the largest trial to date, published in August 2017, evaluating the effectiveness of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment of heart failure (HF), was stopped early for futility on a composite outcome. However, the reported effect sizes on individual outcomes of all-cause mortality and HF admissions are potentially clinically relevant.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims to combine all available trial level evidence to determine if NP-guided treatment of HF reduces all-cause mortality and HF admissions in patients with HF.Study selectionEight databases, no language restrictions, up to November 2017 were searched for all randomised controlled trials comparing NP-guided treatment versus clinical assessment alone in adult patients with HF. No language restrictions were applied. Publications were independently double screened and extracted. Fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted.Findings89 papers were included, reporting 19 trials (4554 participants), average ages 62–80 years. Pooled risk ratio estimates for all-cause mortality (16 trials, 4063 participants) were 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99 and 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89 for HF admissions (11 trials, 2822 participants). Sensitivity analyses, restricted to low risk of bias, produced similar estimates, but were no longer statistically significant.ConclusionsConsidering all the evidence to date, the pooled effects suggest that NP-guided treatment is beneficial in reducing HF admissions and all-cause mortality. However, there is still insufficient high-quality evidence to make definitive recommendations on the use of NP-guided treatment in clinical practice.Trial registration numberSystematic Review Cochrane Database Number: CD008966.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document