Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness of treatment options against SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Thoguluva Chandrasekar V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7404948 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:As of June 2020, the number of people infected with severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to skyrocket, with more than 6.7 million cases worldwide. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations (UN) has highlighted the need for better control of SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, developing novel virus-specific vaccines, monoclonal antibodies and antiviral drugs against SARS-CoV-2 can be time-consuming and costly. Convalescent sera and safe-in-man broad-spectrum antivirals (BSAAs) are readily available treatment options. Here, we developed a neutralization assay using SARS-CoV-2 strain and Vero-E6 cells. We identified the most potent sera from recovered patients for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. We also screened 136 safe-in-man broad-spectrum antivirals against the SARS-CoV-2 infection in Vero-E6 cells and identified nelfinavir, salinomycin, amodiaquine, obatoclax, emetine and homoharringtonine. We found that a combination of orally available virus-directed nelfinavir and host-directed amodiaquine exhibited the highest synergy. Finally, we developed a website to disseminate the knowledge on available and emerging treatments of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7354438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt was urgent and necessary to synthesize the evidence for vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness profile of COVID-19 vaccines against VOC.MethodsPublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies that evaluated the VE against VOC (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Omicron) were searched until 4 March 2022. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. VE was defined as (1-estimate).ResultsEleven RCTs (161,388 participants), 20 cohort studies (52,782,321 participants), and 26 case-control studies (2,584,732 cases) were included. Eleven COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, Ad26.COV2.S, NVX-CoV2373, BBV152, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, SCB-2019, CVnCoV, and HB02) were included in this analysis. Full vaccination was effective against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants, with VE of 88.0% (95% CI, 83.0-91.5), 73.0% (95% CI, 64.3-79.5), 63.0% (95% CI, 47.9-73.7), 77.8% (95% CI, 72.7-82.0), and 55.9% (95% CI, 40.9-67.0), respectively. Booster vaccination was more effective against Delta and Omicron variants, with VE of 95.5% (95% CI, 94.2-96.5) and 80.8% (95% CI, 58.6-91.1), respectively. mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273/BNT162b2) seemed to have higher VE against VOC over others; significant interactions (pinteraction < 0.10) were observed between VE and vaccine type (mRNA vaccines vs. not mRNA vaccines).ConclusionsFull vaccination of COVID-19 vaccines is highly effective against Alpha variant, and moderate effective against Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants. Booster vaccination is more effective against Delta and Omicron variants. mRNA vaccines seem to have higher VE against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants over others.
| S-EPMC9126103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of asymptomaticity have arisen from inconsistent terminology as well as conflation of index and secondary cases which biases toward lower asymptomaticity. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and World Health Organization Global Research Database on COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 2, 2021 to identify studies that reported silent infections at the time of testing, whether presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Index cases were removed to minimize representational bias that would result in overestimation of symptomaticity. By analyzing over 350 studies, we estimate that the percentage of infections that never developed clinical symptoms, and thus were truly asymptomatic, was 35.1% (95% CI: 30.7 to 39.9%). At the time of testing, 42.8% (95% prediction interval: 5.2 to 91.1%) of cases exhibited no symptoms, a group comprising both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections. Asymptomaticity was significantly lower among the elderly, at 19.7% (95% CI: 12.7 to 29.4%) compared with children at 46.7% (95% CI: 32.0 to 62.0%). We also found that cases with comorbidities had significantly lower asymptomaticity compared to cases with no underlying medical conditions. Without proactive policies to detect asymptomatic infections, such as rapid contact tracing, prolonged efforts for pandemic control may be needed even in the presence of vaccination.
| S-EPMC8403749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHydroxychloroquine (HCQ)/Chloroquine (CQ) has been evaluated for treatment and prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection in various studies with conflicting results. We performed a systematic review to synthesize the currently available evidence over the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ therapy alone against SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies published until October 15, 2020 and assessing the efficacy of HCQ alone against SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included studies evaluating HCQ/CQ alone as intervention and placebo/standard care as a control group. Retrospective studies and studies using other drugs (namely azithromycin, corticosteroids, immunomodulators, etc.) we excluded. Thirteen RCTs and three prospective cohort studies were included in this review. We pooled data using a random-effect model.ResultsPooled data from 12 studies (9917 participants) showed that HCQs increase mortality as compared to placebo/standard of care (RR 1.10; 95% CI:1.00-1.20). Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the need for hospitalization in out-patients (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.31-1.02). HCQ group has a significantly higher rate of any adverse event (RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.55-4.64), as compared to the control group. Also, using HCQ for prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection did not reduce the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.58-1.88).ConclusionsHCQ therapy for COVID-19 is associated with an increase in mortality and other adverse events. The negative effects are more pronounced in hospitalized patients. Therefore, with the available evidence, HCQ should not be used in prophylaxis or treatment of patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7899036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are currently many treatment options for patients with subacromial shoulder conditions (SSCs). Clinical decision-making regarding the best treatment option is often difficult. This study aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment options for relieving pain and improving function in patients with SSCs.MethodsEight databases [including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry] were searched from inception until April 2020. Randomised clinical/controlled trials of adult patients investigating the effects of nonsurgical (e.g. corticosteroid injections, therapeutic exercise, shockwave therapy) and surgical treatment for SSCs, compared with each other, placebo, usual care or no treatment, were retrieved. Pairs of reviewers screened studies independently, quality appraised eligible studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, extracted and checked data for accuracy. Primary outcomes were pain and disability in the short term (⩽3 months) and long term (⩾6 months). Direct and indirect evidence of treatment effectiveness was synthesised using random-effects network meta-analysis.ResultsThe review identified 177 eligible trials. Summary estimates (based on 99 trials providing suitable data, 6764 patients, 20 treatment options) showed small to moderate effects for several treatments, but no significant differences on pain or function between many active treatment comparisons. The primary analysis indicated that exercise and laser therapy may provide comparative benefit in terms of both pain and function at different follow-up time-points, with larger effects found for laser in the short term at 2-6 weeks, although direct evidence was provided by one trial only, and for exercise in the longer term [standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18, 0.59 at 3-6 months] compared with control. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies at increased risk of bias confirmed only the comparative effects of exercise as being robust for both pain and function up until 3-month follow-up.ConclusionCurrent evidence shows small to moderate effect sizes for most treatment options for SSCs. Six treatments had a high probability of being most effective, in the short term, for pain and function [acupuncture, manual therapy, exercise, exercise plus manual therapy, laser therapy and Microcurrent (MENS) (TENS)], but with low certainty for most treatment options. After accounting for risk of bias, there is evidence of moderate certainty for the comparative effects of exercise on function in patients with SSCs. Future large, high-quality pragmatic randomised trials or meta-analyses are needed to better understand whether specific subgroups of patients respond better to some treatments than others.
| S-EPMC8435933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines currently undergoing clinical trials.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect open human COVID-19 vaccines randomized controlled trials, without limiting the search time and language. The research papers collected in the above-mentioned databases were initially screened according to the title and abstract content and merged, and the repeated ones were removed. After reading the full text of the remaining research, the studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded, and finally, nine studies were obtained. After extracting the statistical data of adverse events in the study, load them into Review Manager for heterogeneity analysis.ResultsThe incidence of adverse reactions of inactivated virus vaccines, RNA vaccines, and adenovirus vector vaccines was higher than that of placebo. Common adverse reactions included pain, swelling, and fever at the injection site.ConclusionFrom the perspective of effectiveness, RNA vaccine > adenovirus vector vaccine > inactivated virus vaccine. From the perspective of safety, the incidence of adverse reactions of the three vaccines is higher than that of a placebo, and the incidence of adverse reactions of the adenovirus vector vaccine is higher.
| S-EPMC8426880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical trials evaluating the safety and antibody response of strategies to manipulate prophylactic and therapeutic immunity have been launched. We aim to evaluate strategies for augmentation of host immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We searched clinical trials registered at the National Institutes of Health by 25 May 2021 and conducted analyses on inoculated populations, involved immunological processes, source of injected components, and trial phases. We then searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for their corresponding reports published by 25 May 2021. A bivariate, random-effects meta-analysis was used to derive the pooled estimate of seroconversion and adverse events (AEs). A total of 929,359 participants were enrolled in 389 identified trials. The working mechanisms included heterologous immunity, active immunity, passive immunity, and immunotherapy, with 62.4% of the trials on vaccines. A total of 9072 healthy adults from 27 publications for 22 clinical trials on active immunity implementing vaccination were included for meta-analyses. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) of seroconversion were 13.94, 84.86, 106.03, and 451.04 (all p < 0.01) for vaccines based on protein, RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus, compared with that of respective placebo/control treatment or pre-vaccination sera. The pooled ORs for safety, as defined by the inverse of systemic adverse events (AEs) were 0.53 (95% CI = 0.27-1.05; p = 0.07), 0.35 (95% CI = 0.16-0.75; p = 0.007), 0.32 (95% CI = 0.19-0.55; p < 0.0001), and 1.00 (95% CI = 0.73-1.36; p = 0.98) for vaccines based on protein, RNA, viral vector, and inactivated virus, compared with that of placebo/control treatment. A paradigm shift from all four immune-augmentative interventions to active immunity implementing vaccination was observed through clinical trials. The efficacy of immune responses to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 for these vaccines was promising, although systemic AEs were still evident for RNA-based and viral vector-based vaccines.
| S-EPMC8706687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIndividuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop neutralising antibodies. We investigated the proportion of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies after infection and how this proportion varies with selected covariates.Methodology/principal findingsThis systematic review and meta-analysis examined the proportion of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies after infection and how these proportions vary with selected covariates. Three models using the maximum likelihood method assessed these proportions by study group, covariates and individually extracted data (protocol CRD42020208913). A total of 983 reports were identified and 27 were included. The pooled (95%CI) proportion of individuals with neutralising antibodies was 85.3% (83.5-86.9) using the titre cut off >1:20 and 83.9% (82.2-85.6), 70.2% (68.1-72.5) and 54.2% (52.0-56.5) with titres >1:40, >1:80 and >1:160, respectively. These proportions were higher among patients with severe COVID-19 (e.g., titres >1:80, 84.8% [80.0-89.2], >1:160, 74.4% [67.5-79.7]) than those with mild presentation (56.7% [49.9-62.9] and 44.1% [37.3-50.6], respectively) and lowest among asymptomatic infections (28.6% [17.9-39.2] and 10.0% [3.7-20.1], respectively). IgG and neutralising antibody levels correlated poorly.Conclusions/significance85% of individuals with proven SARS-CoV-2 infection had detectable neutralising antibodies. This proportion varied with disease severity, study setting, time since infection and the method used to measure antibodies.
| S-EPMC8291969 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe short- and long-term andrological effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not been clarified. Our aim is to evaluate the available evidence regarding possible andrological consequences of COVID-19 either on seminal or hormonal parameters. The safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in terms of sperm quality was also investigated.MethodsAll prospective and retrospective observational studies reporting information on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) mRNA semen and male genitalia tract detection (n = 19), as well as those reporting data on semen analysis (n = 5) and hormonal parameters (n = 11) in infected/recovered patients without any arbitrary restriction were included.ResultsOut of 204 retrieved articles, 35 were considered, including 2092 patients and 1138 controls with a mean age of 44.1 ± 12.6 years, and mean follow-up 24.3 ± 18.9 days. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA can be localized in male genitalia tracts during the acute phase of the disease. COVID-19 can result in short-term impaired sperm and T production. Available data cannot clarify long-term andrological effects. Low T observed in the acute phase of the disease is associated with an increased risk of being admitted to the Intensive Care Unit or death. The two available studies showed that the use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines does not affect sperm quality.ConclusionsThe results of our analysis clearly suggest that each patient recovering from COVID-19 should be monitored to rule out sperm and T abnormalities. The specific contribution of reduced T levels during the acute phase of the infection needs to be better clarified.
| S-EPMC9080963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/purpose The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection that is mainly through the airborne transmission, is a worldwide health concern. This review seeks to assess the potential effectiveness of mouthwash in reducing the oropharyngeal load of SARS-CoV-2 based on the available evidence. Methods Articles related to mouthwash and COVID-19 in PubMed were electronically searched in July, 2021. After manually excluding articles lacking sufficient scientific evidence or validation processes, those with inaccessible online full text, those that did not test the effectiveness of mouthwash against SARS-CoV-2, and those not written in English, 17 original and 13 review articles were chosen for this review. Results The eligible articles revealed that the main virucidal mechanism of mouthwash was via interactions with the viral envelope. Povidone-iodine (PVP-I), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), and essential oils with ethanol showed virucidal effects on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, potentially by interfering with the viral envelope. A few clinical studies demonstrated that PVP-I, CPC, hydrogen peroxide, and chlorhexidine reduced the oropharyngeal load of SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion Although the available evidence is limited, mouthwash containing PVP-I or CPC shows potential for reducing the oropharyngeal load of SARS-CoV-2 and thus may present a risk-mitigation strategy for COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8498745 | biostudies-literature