Current COVID-19 treatments: Rapid review of the literature.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
As SARS-CoV-2 continues to spread worldwide, it has already resulted in over 110 million cases and 2.5 million deaths. Currently, there are no effective COVID-19 treatments, although numerous studies are under way. SARS-CoV-2, however, is not the first coronavirus to cause serious outbreaks. COVID-19 can be compared with previous human coronavirus diseases, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), to better understand the development of treatments.Methods
Databases Medline, Embase and WHO COVID-19 was systematically searched on 9 February 2021 for studies reporting on therapeutic effect of COVID-19 treatments. Clinical trials, case reports, observational studies and systematic reviews in the English language were eligible.Results
1416 studies were identified and 40 studies were included in this review. Therapies included are: remdesivir, convalescent plasma, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ ritonavir, interferon, corticosteroids, cytokine storm inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. Remdesivir, convalescent plasma and interferon seems to provide some clinical benefits such as faster recovery time and reduced mortality, but these effects are not clinically significant. Some corticosteroids are effective in reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. Hydroxychloroquine do not convey any beneficial, and therapies such as cytokine storm inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies were also not effective and require further investigation.Conclusions
There is no single therapy effective against COVID-19. However, a combination of therapies administered at different stages of infection may provide some benefit. This conclusion is reflected in the limited effects of these treatments in previous human coronaviruses.
SUBMITTER: Dong Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8068411 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionOn February 11, 2020 WHO designated the name "COVID-19" for the disease caused by "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (SARS-CoV-2), a novel virus that quickly turned into a global pandemic. Risks associated with acquiring the virus have been found to most significantly vary by age and presence of underlying comorbidity. In this rapid literature review we explore the prevalence of comorbidities and associated adverse outcomes among individuals with COVID-19 and summarize our findings based on information available as of May 15, 2020.MethodsA comprehensive systematic search was performed on PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar to find articles published until May 15, 2020. All relevant articles providing information on PCR tested COVID-19 positive patient population with clinical characteristics and epidemiological information were selected for review and analysis.ResultsA total of 27 articles consisting of 22,753 patient cases from major epicenters worldwide were included in the study. Major comorbidities seen in overall population were CVD (8.9%), HTN (27.4%), Diabetes (17.4%), COPD (7.5%), Cancer (3.5%), CKD (2.6%), and other (15.5%). Major comorbidity specific to countries included in the study were China (HTN 39.5%), South Korea (CVD 25.6%), Italy (HTN 35.9%), USA (HTN 38.9%), Mexico, (Other 42.3%), UK (HTN 27.8%), Iran (Diabetes 35.0%). Within fatal cases, an estimated 84.1% had presence of one or more comorbidity. Subgroup analysis of fatality association with having comorbidity had an estimated OR 0.83, CI [0.60-0.99], p<0.05.ConclusionsBased on our findings, hypertension followed by diabetes and cardiovascular diseases were the most common comorbidity seen in COVID-19 positive patients across major epicenters world-wide. Although having one or more comorbidity is linked to increased disease severity, no clear association was found between having these risk factors and increased risk of fatality.
| S-EPMC7351042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The world has faced the most challenging pandemic of the modern era, that of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, causing coronavirus disease and affecting over 35 million people globally. The wide range of clinical manifestations associated with this viral disease is thought to be related to the overexpression of inflammatory markers. Due to a dysregulated host response, the most severe form involves multi-organ failure and thromboembolic complications. Immunomodulatory therapies may help prevent its progression and anticoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of thrombotic complications. As this is a new entity for the medical world, there are no known therapeutic options nor has the prevention of complications been established. Anti-inflammatory agents, antimicrobial therapy, and vitamin supplements are short of clear benefits, but there is limited data to review. Other agents, such as convalescent plasma, eculizumab, immunoglobulins, neutralizing IgG1 monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, steroids, and tocilizumab, have shown a possible impact on inpatient length of stay and mortality rate. This review aims to assess the efficacy and safety of these available therapies in light of current evidence. We compare these treatment options based on their impact on symptom management, inpatient length of stay, and overall morbidity and mortality.
| S-EPMC7850293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. A systematic review was conducted to identify clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 published between 1 December 2019 and 14 October 2020. Data regarding efficacy of interventions, in terms of mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation, were extracted from identified studies and synthesised qualitatively. In total, 42 clinical trials were included. Interventions assessed included antiviral, mucolytic, antimalarial, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory therapies. Some reductions in mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation were seen with interferons and remdesivir, particularly when administered early, and with the mucolytic drug, bromhexine. Most studies of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine did not show significant efficacy over standard care/placebo. Dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation versus standard care, particularly in patients with severe disease. Evidence for other classes of interventions was limited. Many trials had a moderate-to-high risk of bias, particularly in terms of blinding; most were short-term and some included low patient numbers.This review highlights the need for well-designed clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 to increase the quality of available evidence. It also emphasises the importance of tailoring interventions to disease stage and severity for maximum efficacy.
| S-EPMC9489065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a rare, life-threatening autoimmune blistering disease with pruritus and tension blisters/bullous as the main clinical manifestations. Glucocorticosteroids are the main therapeutic agents for it, but their efficacy is poor in some patients. Tofacitinib, a small molecule agent that inhibits JAK1/3, has shown incredible efficacy in a wide range of autoimmune diseases and maybe a new valuable treatment option for refractory BP. To report a case of refractory BP successfully treated with tofacitinib, then explore the underlying mechanism behind the treatment, and finally review similarities to other cases reported in the literature. Case report and literature review of published cases of successful BP treatment with JAK inhibitors. The case report describes a 73-year-old male with refractory BP that was successfully managed with the combination therapy of tofacitinib and low-dose glucocorticoids for 28 weeks. Immunohistochemistry and RNA sequencing were performed to analyze the underlying mechanism of tofacitinib therapy. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify other cases of treatment with JAK inhibitors. Throughout the 28-week treatment period, the patient experienced clinical, autoantibody and histologic resolution. Immunohistochemical analysis showed tofacitinib significantly decreased the pSTAT3 and pSTAT6 levels in the skin lesions of this patient. RNA sequencing and immunohistochemical testing of lesion samples from other BP patients identified activation of the JAK-STAT signaling pathway. Literature review revealed 17 previously reported cases of BP treated with four kinds of JAK inhibitors successfully, including tofacitinib (10), baricitinib (1), upadacitinib (3) and abrocitinib (3). Our findings support the potential of tofacitinib as a safe and effective treatment option for BP. Larger studies are underway to better understand this efficacy and safety.
2024-11-13 | GSE278926 | GEO
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to identify the potential and definite sources of transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsDue to time constraints and the acute nature of the pandemic, we searched only PubMed/Medline from inception until January 28, 2021. We analyzed the level of evidence and risk of bias in each category and made suggestions accordingly.ResultsThe virus was traced from its potential origin via possible ways of transmission to the last host. Symptomatic human-to-human transmission remains the driver of the epidemic, but asymptomatic transmission can potentially contribute in a substantial manner. Feces and fomites have both been found to contain viable virus; even though transmission through these routes has not been documented, their contribution cannot be ruled out. Finally, transmission from pregnant women to their children has been found to be low (up to 3%).ConclusionEven though robust outcomes cannot be easily assessed, medical personnel must maintain awareness of the main routes of transmission (via droplets and aerosols from even asymptomatic patients). This is the first attempt to systematically review the existing knowledge to produce a paper with a potentially significant clinical impact.
| S-EPMC8102883 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSince the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many patients with clinically acute presentations have been approached differently. The fear of viral transmission along with the short period of study made patients delay their hospital visits and doctors reassess the approach of certain acute situations. This study aimed to assess the changes in the management of patients with acute cholecystitis before and during COVID-19.MethodsA systematic review of the literature using PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases was performed until 01 September 2021. Totally, two kinds of studies were included, those assessing the management of acute cholecystitis during COVID-19 and those comparing the periods before and during the pandemic. The outcomes recorded include management approaches, complications, and mean length of stay.ResultsA number of 15 eligible articles were included in the study. During the pandemic, six studies revealed a shift toward conservative management of acute cholecystitis and five of them reported that conservative management was opted in 73% of the patients. On the contrary, data from all studies revealed that the surgical approach was preferred in only 29.2% of patients. Furthermore, when comparing the periods before vs. during COVID-19, the conservative approach was reported in 36.3 and 43.2% before vs. during COVID-19, respectively, whereas surgical intervention was performed in 62.5% of patients before COVID-19 and 55.3% during the pandemic. The length of stay was delayed when a non-surgical approach was selected in most studies. Complications, mainly classified by the Clavien-Dindo scale, were higher in the pandemic period.ConclusionA tendency toward more conservative approaches was observed in most studies, reversing the previously used surgical approach in most cases of acute cholecystitis. In most of the examined cases during the COVID-19 pandemic, antibiotic treatment and percutaneous cholecystostomy were much more considered and even preferred.
| S-EPMC9039201 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since December 2019 SARS-Cov-2 was found responsible for the disease COVID-19, which has spread worldwide. No specific therapies/vaccines are yet available for the treatment of COVID-19. Drug repositioning may offer a strategy and a number of drugs have been repurposed, including lopinavir/ritonavir, remdesivir, favipiravir and tocilizumab. This paper describes the main pharmacological properties of such drugs administered to patients with COVID-19, focusing on their antiviral, immune-modulatory and/or anti-inflammatory actions. Where available, data from clinical trials involving patients with COVID-19 are reported. Preliminary clinical trials seem to support their benefit. However, such drugs in COVID-19 patients have peculiar safety profiles. Thus, adequate clinical trials are necessary for these compounds. Nevertheless, while waiting for effective preventive measures i.e. vaccines, many clinical trials on drugs belonging to different therapeutic classes are currently underway. Their results will help us in defining the best way to treat COVID-19 and reducing its symptoms and complications. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue on The Pharmacology of COVID-19. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v177.21/issuetoc.
| S-EPMC7264618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak </mac_aq>started in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, and evolved into a global problem in a short period. The pandemic has led to many social and health-care challenges. In this context, surgery is an area that is facing the need for many adaptations. In this systematic literature review, we analyzed different perspectives concerning this situation, aiming to provide recommendations that could guide surgeons and </mac_aq>entities toward screening, elective and emergency surgeries, decision making, and operating room management. A computerized search in PubMed, Scopus, and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) for relevant literature up to April 4, 2020, was performed. Articles were included if they were related to surgery dynamics in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 281 articles found in our initial search and 15 articles from alternative sources, 39 were included in our review after a systematic evaluation. Concerning preoperative testing </mac_aq>for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, 29 (74.4%) articles recommended some kind of </mac_aq>screening. Another major suggestion was postponing all (or at least selected) elective operations (29 articles, </mac_aq>74.4%). Several additional recommendations with respect to surgical practice or surgical staff were also assessed and discussed, such as performing laparoscopic surgeries and avoiding the use of electrocauterization. On the basis of the current literature, we concluded that any surgery that can be delayed should be postponed. COVID-19 screening is strongly recommended for all surgical cases. Moreover, surgical staff should be reduced to the essential members and provided with institutional psychological support.
| S-EPMC7213672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic. This unprecedented situation has garnered worldwide attention. An effective strategy for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic is to develop highly accurate methods for the rapid identification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Many companies and institutes are therefore striving to develop effective methods for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA), antibodies, antigens, and the virus. In this review, we summarize the structure of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, its genome and gene expression characteristics, and the current progression of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, antibodies, antigens, and virus detection. Further, we discuss the reasons for the observed false-negative and false-positive RNA and antibody detection results in practical clinical applications. Finally, we provide a review of the biosensors which hold promising potential for point-of-care detection of COVID-19 patients. This review thereby provides general guidelines for both scientists in the biosensing research community and for those in the biosensor industry to develop a highly sensitive and accurate point-of-care COVID-19 detection system, which would be of enormous benefit for controlling the current COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7371595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is holding the world in its grip. Epidemiologists have shown that the mortality risks are higher when the health care system is subjected to pressure from COVID-19. It is therefore of great importance to maintain the health of health care providers and prevent contamination. An important group who will be required to treat patients with COVID-19 are health care providers during semiacute surgery. There are concerns that laparoscopic surgery increases the risk of contamination more than open surgery; therefore, balancing the safety of health care providers with the benefit of laparoscopic surgery for the patient is vital.ObjectiveWe aimed to provide an overview of potential contamination routes and possible risks for health care providers; we also aimed to propose research questions based on current literature and expert opinions about performing laparoscopic surgery on patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe performed a scoping review, adding five additional questions concerning possible contaminating routes. A systematic search was performed on the PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases, adding results from gray literature as well. The search not only included COVID-19 but was extended to virus contamination in general. We excluded society and professional association statements about COVID-19 if they did not add new insights to the available literature.ResultsThe initial search provided 2007 records, after which 267 full-text papers were considered. Finally, we used 84 papers, of which 14 discussed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Eight papers discussed the added value of performing intubation in a low-pressure operating room, mainly based on the SARS outbreak experience in 2003. Thirteen papers elaborated on the risks of intubation for health care providers and SARS-CoV-2, and 19 papers discussed this situation with other viruses. They conclude that there is significant evidence that intubation and extubation is a high-risk aerosol-producing procedure. No papers were found on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 and surgical smoke, although 25 papers did provide conflicting evidence on the infection risk of human papillomavirus, hepatitis B, polio, and rabies. No papers were found discussing tissue extraction or the deflation risk of the pneumoperitoneum after laparoscopic surgery.ConclusionsThere seems to be consensus in the literature that intubation and extubation are high-risk procedures for health care providers and that maximum protective equipment is needed. On the other hand, minimal evidence is available of the actual risk of contamination of health care providers during laparoscopy itself, nor of operating room pressure, surgical smoke, tissue extraction, or CO2 deflation. However, new studies are being published daily from current experiences, and society statements are continuously updated. There seems to be no reason to abandon laparoscopic surgery in favor of open surgery. However, the risks should not be underestimated, surgery should be performed on patients with COVID-19 only when necessary, and health care providers should use logic and common sense to protect themselves and others by performing surgery in a safe and protected environment.
| S-EPMC7313384 | biostudies-literature