Dataset Information

Zinc for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral respiratory infections: a rapid review.

ABSTRACT: Background:The global COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an urgent search for interventions to prevent and treat SARS-CoV-2. Higher risk of infection and adverse outcomes coincide with populations with chronic diseases and elderly who are at risk of zinc deficiency. Through several mechanisms zinc may prevent, reduce severity and duration of symptoms. Method:An a priori protocol was registered with PROSPERO on 27th April 2020 (CRD42020182044). Eight databases (one Chinese) and four clinical trial registries (one Chinese) were searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating single or adjunct zinc against placebo or active controls, for prevention and/or treatment of SARS-CoV-2, other coronaviruses or related infections. RR constraints included not searching bibliographies or contacting authors, single reviewers with calibration and second reviewer checking, meta-analyses and quality appraisal of critical and study primary outcomes only and reporting results as they became available. Results:118 publications of 1,627 records met the inclusion criteria (35 Chinese and 83 English publications), 32 for prevention, 78 for treatment and 8 for both. Four RCTs specific to SARS-CoV-2 are ongoing; two are investigating zinc for prevention and two for treatment. As of 7 July 2020, no results were available. A wide range of zinc forms, including nasal spray/gel, lozenges, liquid, tablets and intramuscular were investigated. Conclusion:Currently, indirect evidence suggests zinc may potentially reduce the risk, duration and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections, particularly for populations at risk of zinc deficiency including people with chronic disease co-morbidities and older adults. Direct evidence to determine if zinc is effective for either prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 is pending. In the interim, assessing zinc status of people with chronic diseases and older adults, as part of a SARS-CoV-2 clinical work-up, is reasonable as both groups have a higher risk of zinc deficiency/insufficiency and poorer outcomes from SARS-CoV-2.

SUBMITTER: Arentz S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7395818 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Zinc for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral respiratory infections: a rapid review.

Arentz Susan S Hunter Jennifer J Yang Guoyan G Goldenberg Joshua J Beardsley Jennifer J Myers Stephen P SP Mertz Dominik D Leeder Stephen S

Advances in integrative medicine 20200801 4

<h4>Background</h4>The global COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an urgent search for interventions to prevent and treat SARS-CoV-2. Higher risk of infection and adverse outcomes coincide with populations with chronic diseases and elderly who are at risk of zinc deficiency. Through several mechanisms zinc may prevent, reduce severity and duration of symptoms.<h4>Method</h4>An a <i>priori</i> protocol was registered with PROSPERO on 27th April 2020 (CRD42020182044). Eight databases (one Chinese) and ...[more]

PMID: 32837895

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits and risks of zinc formulations compared with controls for prevention or treatment of acute viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in adults.MethodSeventeen English and Chinese databases were searched in April/May 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and from April/May 2020 to August 2020 for SARS-CoV-2 RCTs. Cochrane rapid review methods were applied. Quality appraisals used the Risk of Bias 2.0 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsTwenty-eight RCTs with 5446 participants were identified. None were specific to SARS-CoV-2. Compared with placebo, oral or intranasal zinc prevented 5 RTIs per 100 person-months (95% CI 1 to 8, numbers needed to treat (NNT)=20, moderate-certainty/quality). Sublingual zinc did not prevent clinical colds following human rhinovirus inoculations (relative risk, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21, moderate-certainty/quality). On average, symptoms resolved 2 days earlier with sublingual or intranasal zinc compared with placebo (95% CI 0.61 to 3.50, very low-certainty/quality) and 19 more adults per 100 were likely to remain symptomatic on day 7 without zinc (95% CI 2 to 38, NNT=5, low-certainty/quality). There were clinically significant reductions in day 3 symptom severity scores (mean difference, MD -1.20 points, 95% CI -0.66 to -1.74, low-certainty/quality), but not average daily symptom severity scores (standardised MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.13, low-certainty/quality). Non-serious adverse events (AEs) (eg, nausea, mouth/nasal irritation) were higher (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.69, NNHarm=7, moderate-certainty/quality). Compared with active controls, there were no differences in illness duration or AEs (low-certainty/quality). No serious AEs were reported in the 25 RCTs that monitored them (low-certainty/quality).ConclusionsIn adult populations unlikely to be zinc deficient, there was some evidence suggesting zinc might prevent RTIs symptoms and shorten duration. Non-serious AEs may limit tolerability for some. The comparative efficacy/effectiveness of different zinc formulations and doses were unclear. The GRADE-certainty/quality of the evidence was limited by a high risk of bias, small sample sizes and/or heterogeneity. Further research, including SARS-CoV-2 clinical trials is warranted.Prospero registration numberCRD42020182044.

Project description:Background: Testing of possibly infected individuals remains cornerstone of containing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Detection dogs could contribute to mass screening. Previous research demonstrated canines' ability to detect SARS-CoV-2-infections but has not investigated if dogs can differentiate between COVID-19 and other virus infections. Methods: Twelve dogs were trained to detect SARS-CoV-2 positive samples. Three test scenarios were performed to evaluate their ability to discriminate SARS-CoV-2-infections from viral infections of a different aetiology. Naso- and oropharyngeal swab samples from individuals and samples from cell culture both infected with one of 15 viruses that may cause COVID-19-like symptoms were presented as distractors in a randomised, double-blind study. Dogs were either trained with SARS-CoV-2 positive saliva samples (test scenario I and II) or with supernatant from cell cultures (test scenario III). Results: When using swab samples from individuals infected with viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 as distractors (test scenario I), dogs detected swab samples from SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals with a mean diagnostic sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI: 66.0-81.7%) and a specificity of 95.1% (95% CI: 92.6-97.7%). In test scenario II and III cell culture supernatant from cells infected with SARS-CoV-2, cells infected with other coronaviruses and non-infected cells were presented. Dogs achieved mean diagnostic sensitivities of 61.2% (95% CI: 50.7-71.6%, test scenario II) and 75.8% (95% CI: 53.0-98.5%, test scenario III), respectively. The diagnostic specificities were 90.9% (95% CI: 87.3-94.6%, test scenario II) and 90.2% (95% CI: 81.1-99.4%, test scenario III), respectively. Conclusion: In all three test scenarios the mean specificities were above 90% which indicates that dogs can distinguish SARS-CoV-2-infections from other viral infections. However, compared to earlier studies our scent dogs achieved lower diagnostic sensitivities. To deploy COVID-19 detection dogs as a reliable screening method it is therefore mandatory to include a variety of samples from different viral respiratory tract infections in dog training to ensure a successful discrimination process.

Project description:BackgroundRecommendations on masks for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vary.PurposeTo examine the effectiveness of N95, surgical, and cloth masks in community and health care settings for preventing respiratory virus infections, and effects of reuse or extended use of N95 masks.Data sourcesMultiple electronic databases, including the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 14 April 2020; surveillance through 2 June 2020), and reference lists.Study selectionRandomized trials of masks and risk for respiratory virus infection, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and observational studies of mask use and coronavirus infection risk were included. New evidence will be incorporated by using living review methods.Data extractionOne reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological limitations; a second reviewer provided verification.Data synthesis39 studies (18 randomized controlled trials and 21 observational studies; 33 867 participants) were included. No study evaluated reuse or extended use of N95 masks. Evidence on SARS-CoV-2 was limited to 2 observational studies with serious limitations. Community mask use was possibly associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-1 infection in observational studies. In high- or moderate-risk health care settings, observational studies found that risk for infection with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus probably decreased with mask use versus nonuse and possibly decreased with N95 versus surgical mask use. Randomized trials in community settings found possibly no difference between N95 versus surgical masks and probably no difference between surgical versus no mask in risk for influenza or influenza-like illness, but compliance was low. In health care settings, N95 and surgical masks were probably associated with similar risks for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral infection; clinical respiratory illness had inconsistency. Bothersome symptoms were common.LimitationsThere were few SARS-CoV-2 studies, observational studies have methodological limitations, and the review was done by using streamlined methods.ConclusionEvidence on mask effectiveness for respiratory infection prevention is stronger in health care than community settings. N95 respirators might reduce SARS-CoV-1 risk versus surgical masks in health care settings, but applicability to SARS-CoV-2 is uncertain.Primary funding sourceAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Dataset Information

Zinc for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral respiratory infections: a rapid review.

Publications

Zinc for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral respiratory infections: a rapid review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets