| 1. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
- Han, Young Joo, et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Theranostics. - : IVYSPRING INT PUBL. - 1838-7640. ; 11:3, s. 1207-1231
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Rationale: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We conducted a systematic review to highlight therapeutic agents that might be effective in treating COVID-19. Methods: We searched Medline, Medrxiv.org, and reference lists of relevant publications to identify articles of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies on treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19 published in English until the last update on October 11, 2020. Results: We included 36 studies on SARS, 30 studies on MERS, and 10 meta-analyses on SARS and MERS in this study. Through 12,200 title and 830 full-text screenings for COVID-19, eight in vitro studies, 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 6,886 patients, and 29 meta-analyses were obtained and investigated. There was no therapeutic agent that consistently resulted in positive outcomes across SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Remdesivir showed a therapeutic effect for COVID-19 in two RCTs involving the largest number of total participants (n = 1,461). Other therapies that showed an effect in at least two RCTs for COVID-19 were sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 114), colchicine (n = 140), IFN-beta 1b (n = 193), and convalescent plasma therapy (n = 126). Conclusions: This review provides information to help establish treatment and research directions for COVID-19 based on currently available evidence. Further RCTs are required.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kim, Hyeong Seok, et al.
(författare)
-
Development, validation, and comparison of a nomogram based on radiologic findings for predicting malignancy in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas : An international multicenter study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences. - : Wiley-Blackwell. - 1868-6974 .- 1868-6982.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Although we previously proposed a nomogram to predict malignancy in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) and validated it in an external cohort, its application is challenging without data on tumor markers. Moreover, existing nomograms have not been compared. This study aimed to develop a nomogram based on radiologic findings and to compare its performance with previously proposed American and Korean/Japanese nomograms.METHODS: We recruited 3708 patients who underwent surgical resection at 31 tertiary institutions in eight countries, and patients with main pancreatic duct >10 mm were excluded. To construct the nomogram, 2606 patients were randomly allocated 1:1 into training and internal validation sets, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) was calculated using 10-fold cross validation by exhaustive search. This nomogram was then validated and compared to the American and Korean/Japanese nomograms using 1102 patients.RESULTS: Among the 2606 patients, 90 had main-duct type, 900 had branch-duct type, and 1616 had mixed-type IPMN. Pathologic results revealed 1628 low-grade dysplasia, 476 high-grade dysplasia, and 502 invasive carcinoma. Location, cyst size, duct dilatation, and mural nodule were selected to construct the nomogram. AUC of this nomogram was higher than the American nomogram (0.691 vs 0.664, P = .014) and comparable with the Korean/Japanese nomogram (0.659 vs 0.653, P = .255).CONCLUSIONS: A novel nomogram based on radiologic findings of IPMN is competitive for predicting risk of malignancy. This nomogram would be clinically helpful in circumstances where tumor markers are not available. The nomogram is freely available at http://statgen.snu.ac.kr/software/nomogramIPMN.
|
|
| 4. |
- Lee, Keum Hwa, et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy of Corticosteroids in Patients with SARS, MERS and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Medicine. - : MDPI. - 2077-0383. ; 9:8
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- (1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631-2.101 in the random effects model,p= 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221-0.646 in the random effects model,p< 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670-5.877,p< 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19.
|
|
| 5. |
- Abbafati, Cristiana, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2020
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
