| 1. |
- Abou Ghayda, Ramy, et al.
(författare)
-
The global case fatality rate of coronavirus disease 2019 by continents and national income: A meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Virology. - : WILEY. - 0146-6615 .- 1096-9071. ; 94:6, s. 2402-2413
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this study is to provide a more accurate representation of COVID-19s case fatality rate (CFR) by performing meta-analyses by continents and income, and by comparing the result with pooled estimates. We used multiple worldwide data sources on COVID-19 for every country reporting COVID-19 cases. On the basis of data, we performed random and fixed meta-analyses for CFR of COVID-19 by continents and income according to each individual calendar date. CFR was estimated based on the different geographical regions and levels of income using three models: pooled estimates, fixed- and random-model. In Asia, all three types of CFR initially remained approximately between 2.0% and 3.0%. In the case of pooled estimates and the fixed model results, CFR increased to 4.0%, by then gradually decreasing, while in the case of random-model, CFR remained under 2.0%. Similarly, in Europe, initially, the two types of CFR peaked at 9.0% and 10.0%, respectively. The random-model results showed an increase near 5.0%. In high-income countries, pooled estimates and fixed-model showed gradually increasing trends with a final pooled estimates and random-model reached about 8.0% and 4.0%, respectively. In middle-income, the pooled estimates and fixed-model have gradually increased reaching up to 4.5%. in low-income countries, CFRs remained similar between 1.5% and 3.0%. Our study emphasizes that COVID-19 CFR is not a fixed or static value. Rather, it is a dynamic estimate that changes with time, population, socioeconomic factors, and the mitigatory efforts of individual countries.
|
|
| 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, Min Seo, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparative efficacy and optimal duration of first-line antibiotic regimens for acute otitis media in children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 89 randomized clinical trials
- 2023
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Pediatrics. - : ZHEJIANG UNIV PRESS. - 1708-8569 .- 1867-0687.
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- IntroductionAntibiotic use for acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the major sources of antimicrobial resistance. However, the effective minimal antibiotic duration for AOM remains unclear. Moreover, guidelines often recommend broad ranges (5-10 days) of antibiotic use, yet the clinical impact of such a wide window has not been assessed.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from database inception to 6 October 2021. Network meta-analysis was conducted on randomized controlled trials that assessed antibiotic treatment for AOM in children (PROSPERO CRD42020196107).ResultsFor amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate, 7-day regimens were noninferior to 10-day regimens in clinical responses [amoxicillin: risk ratio (RR) 0.919 (95% CI 0.820-1.031), amoxicillin-clavulanate: RR 1.108 (0.957-1.282)], except for <= 2 years. For the third-generation cephalosporins, 7-day and 10-day regimens had similar clinical responses compared to placebo [7-day: RR 1.420 (1.190-1.694), 10-day: RR 1.238 (1.125-1.362) compared to placebo]. However, 5-day regimens of amoxicillin-clavulanate and third-generation cephalosporins were inferior to 10-day regimens. Compared to amoxicillin, a shorter treatment duration was tolerable with amoxicillin-clavulanate.ConclusionsOur findings indicated that 10 days of antibiotic use may be unnecessarily long, while the treatment duration should be longer than 5 days. Otherwise, 5-day regimens would be sufficient for a modest treatment goal. Our findings revealed that the current wide range of recommended antibiotic durations may have influenced the clinical outcome of AOM, and a narrower antibiotic duration window should be re-established.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
