NSAIDs and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been discouraged for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, fearing that they could increase the risk of infection or the severity of SARS-CoV-2.Methods
Original studies providing information on exposure to NSAIDs and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes were retrieved and were included in a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis with Cochrane Revue Manager (REVMAN 5.4), using inverse variance odds ratio (OR) with random- or fixed-effects models.Results
Of 92,853 papers mentioning COVID-19, 266 mentioned NSAIDs and 61 mentioned ibuprofen; 19 papers had analysable data. Three papers described NSAID exposure and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, five papers described the risk of hospital admission in positive patients, 10 papers described death, and six papers described severe composite outcomes. Five papers studied exposure to ibuprofen and death. Using random-effects models, there was no excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (OR 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.05). In SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, exposure to NSAIDs was not associated with excess risk of hospital admission (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.17), death (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98), or severe outcomes (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.90-1.44). With ibuprofen, there was no increased risk of death (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.13). Using a fixed-effect model did not modify the results, nor did the sensitivity analyses.Conclusion
The theoretical risks of NSAIDs or ibuprofen in SARS-CoV-2 infection are not confirmed by observational data.
SUBMITTER: Moore N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8327046 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Unlabelled: A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in chronic conditions like osteoarthritis and tendinitis. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review.MethodsStudies were identified by searching electronic databases, and writing to manufacturers. We identified randomised, double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment, in adults with chronic pain. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain of approximately 50% at two weeks, and secondary outcomes were local and systemic adverse events and adverse event-related withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative harm and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, and the effects of trial quality, validity and size, outcome reported, and condition treated, were examined by sensitivity analyses.ResultsTwelve new trials were added to 13 trials from a previous review. Fourteen double blind placebo-controlled trials had information from almost 1,500 patients. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo with relative benefit 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.2), NNT 4.6 (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 5.9). Results were not affected by trial quality, validity or size, outcome reported, or condition treated. Three trials with 764 patients comparing a topical with an oral NSAID found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events (6%), systemic adverse events (3%), or the numbers withdrawing due to an adverse event were the same for topical NSAID and placebo.ConclusionsTopical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating chronic musculoskeletal conditions for two weeks. Larger and longer trials are necessary to fully elucidate the place of topical NSAIDs in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC516039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Due to lack of preparedness of health systems, fast spread of the new virus, high mortality rates, and lack of a definite treatment, the outbreak of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to high levels of fear and anxiety in different populations. In addition, isolation, mental disorders, and limitations in social interactions as a result of lockdown and travel ban increased the fear of the new coronavirus. Methods: International databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google scholar, were searched without any time limitation, and all observational studies published in English reporting the mean of fear of COVID-19 based on the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S) were included in the analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. Random effects model, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression analysis were used to analyze the data. Heterogeneity across studies was examined using Cochran's Q test and I 2 statistic. All the statistical analyses were conducted using R software v4.0.3. Results: A total of 44 articles with a sample size of 52,462 were reviewed. A pooled mean of 18.57 was found for fear of COVID-19. The mean of fear of COVID-19 was higher in women than in men (20.67 vs. 18.21). The highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 had been found in Asia (18.36) and Australia (17.43) based on continent, and in hospital staff (19.51) and college students (17.95) based on target population, respectively. In addition, the highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 were related to items #1 and #3 of the scale, respectively. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, there was no significant association between the mean of fear of COVID-19 and sample size and participants' age. In addition, publication error was not significant (P = 0.721). Conclusion: The mean of fear of COVID-19 was high around the world; therefore, it seems necessary to pay more attention to the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health.
| S-EPMC8231929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, affecting millions of people. However, the relationship between COVID-19 and acute cerebrovascular diseases is unclear.AimsWe aimed to characterize the incidence, risk factors, clinical-radiological manifestations, and outcome of COVID-19-associated stroke.MethodsThree medical databases were systematically reviewed for published articles on acute cerebrovascular diseases in COVID-19 (December 2019-September 2020). The review protocol was previously registered (PROSPERO ID = CRD42020185476). Data were extracted from articles reporting ≥5 stroke cases in COVID-19. We complied with the PRISMA guidelines and used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess data quality. Data were pooled using a random-effect model.Summary of reviewOf 2277 initially identified articles, 61 (2.7%) were entered in the meta-analysis. Out of 108,571 patients with COVID-19, acute CVD occurred in 1.4% (95%CI: 1.0-1.9). The most common manifestation was acute ischemic stroke (87.4%); intracerebral hemorrhage was less common (11.6%). Patients with COVID-19 developing acute cerebrovascular diseases, compared to those who did not, were older (pooled median difference = 4.8 years; 95%CI: 1.7-22.4), more likely to have hypertension (OR = 7.35; 95%CI: 1.94-27.87), diabetes mellitus (OR = 5.56; 95%CI: 3.34-9.24), coronary artery disease (OR = 3.12; 95%CI: 1.61-6.02), and severe infection (OR = 5.10; 95%CI: 2.72-9.54). Compared to individuals who experienced a stroke without the infection, patients with COVID-19 and stroke were younger (pooled median difference = -6.0 years; 95%CI: -12.3 to -1.4), had higher NIHSS (pooled median difference = 5; 95%CI: 3-9), higher frequency of large vessel occlusion (OR = 2.73; 95%CI: 1.63-4.57), and higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR = 5.21; 95%CI: 3.43-7.90).ConclusionsAcute cerebrovascular diseases are not uncommon in patients with COVID-19, especially in those whom are severely infected and have pre-existing vascular risk factors. The pattern of large vessel occlusion and multi-territory infarcts suggests that cerebral thrombosis and/or thromboembolism could be possible causative pathways for the disease.
| S-EPMC7859578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeCorticosteroids are now recommended for patients with severe COVID-19 including those with COVID-related ARDS. This has generated renewed interest regarding whether corticosteroids should be used in non-COVID ARDS as well. The objective of this study was to summarize all RCTs examining the use of corticosteroids in ARDS.MethodsThe protocol of this study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020200659). We searched online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDC library of COVID research, CINAHL, and COCHRANE. We included RCTs that compared the effect of corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in adult patients with ARDS, including patients with COVID-19. Three reviewers abstracted data independently and in duplicate using a pre-specified standardized form. We assessed individual study risk of bias using the revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes using GRADE methodology. We pooled data using a random effects model. The main outcome for this review was 28-day-mortality.ResultsWe included 18 RCTs enrolling 2826 patients. The use of corticosteroids probably reduced mortality in patients with ARDS of any etiology (2740 patients in 16 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95, ARR 8.0%, 95% CI 2.2-12.5%, moderate certainty). Patients who received a longer course of corticosteroids (over 7 days) had higher rates of survival compared to a shorter course.ConclusionThe use of corticosteroids probably reduces mortality in patients with ARDS. This effect was consistent between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, corticosteroid types, and dosage.
| S-EPMC8054852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary outcome(s): Colorectal cancer incidence, Colorectal tumor incidence
| 79216 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Objective. Clostridium difficile infection is a leading cause of nosocomial diarrhea in developed countries. Studies evaluating the associations of increased risk of community-acquired CDAD and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have yielded inconclusive results. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the odds of NSAID exposure in patients with CDAD versus patients without CDAD in both community-based and healthcare-associated settings. Methods. Relevant observational studies indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE up to February 2015 were analyzed and data were extracted from nine studies. Of these, eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results. A search of the databases resulted in 987 articles. The nine studies from which data were extracted involved over 39,000 subjects. The pooled odds ratio for history of NSAID use in participants with CDAD compared with controls was 1.41 (95% CI 1.06-1.87; p < 0.01), indicating a significant increased odds of CDAD among patients exposed to NSAIDs. Conclusions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of its nature to demonstrate the association between the use of NSAIDs and increased risk of CDAD. Further studies to evaluate if any specific types of NSAIDs can increase the risk of CDAD are warranted.
| S-EPMC4904696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background COVID-19 pandemic has created a need to identify potential predictors of severe disease. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of gastrointestinal predictors of severe COVID-19. Methods An extensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated for proportional and continuous outcomes using a random-effect model. For each outcome, a 95% confidence interval (CI) and P-value were generated. Results A total of 83 studies (26912 patients, mean age 43.5±16.4 years, 48.2% female) were included. Gastrointestinal predictors of severe COVID-19 included the presence of diarrhea (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.10-2.03; P=0.01), elevated serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (OR 4.00, 95%CI 3.02-5.28; P<0.001), and elevated serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (OR 2.54, 95%CI 1.91-3.37; P<0.001). Significantly higher levels of mean AST (MD 14.78 U/L, 95%CI 11.70-17.86 U/L; P<0.001), ALT (MD 11.87 U/L, 95%CI 9.23-14.52 U/L; P<0.001), and total bilirubin (MD 2.08 mmol/L, 95%CI 1.36-2.80 mmol/L; P<0.001) were observed in the severe COVID-19 group compared to non-severe COVID-19 group. Conclusion Gastrointestinal symptoms and biomarkers should be assessed early to recognize severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7599357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic first broke out in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and has now spread worldwide. Laboratory findings have been only partially described in some observational studies. To date, more comprehensive systematic reviews of laboratory findings on COVID-19 are missing. We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis to assess laboratory findings in patients with COVID-19. Observational studies from three databases were selected. We calculated pooled proportions and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using the random-effects model meta-analysis. A total of 1106 articles were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI (China), and other sources. After screening, 28 and 7 studies were selected for a systematic review and a meta-analysis, respectively. Of the 4,663 patients included, the most prevalent laboratory finding was increased C-reactive protein (CRP; 73.6%, 95% CI 65.0-81.3%), followed by decreased albumin (62.9%, 95% CI 28.3-91.2%), increased erythrocyte sedimentation rate (61.2%, 95% CI 41.3-81.0%), decreased eosinophils (58.4%, 95% CI 46.5-69.8%), increased interleukin-6 (53.1%, 95% CI 36.0-70.0%), lymphopenia (47.9%, 95% CI 41.6-54.9%), and increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; 46.2%, 95% CI 37.9-54.7%). A meta-analysis of seven studies with 1905 patients showed that increased CRP (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 2.1-4.4), lymphopenia (OR 4.5, 95% CI: 3.3-6.0), and increased LDH (OR 6.7, 95% CI: 2.4-18.9) were significantly associated with severity. These results demonstrated that more attention is warranted when interpreting laboratory findings in patients with COVID-19. Patients with elevated CRP levels, lymphopenia, or elevated LDH require proper management and, if necessary, transfer to the intensive care unit.
| S-EPMC7256350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021.Study selectionRandomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsRandom effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain.ConclusionsHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.
| S-EPMC8073806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh rate of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been reported among patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Meanwhile there were controversies among different studies about CVD burden in COVID-19 patients. Hence, we aimed to study CVD burden among COVID-19 patients, using a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe have systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science as well as medRxiv pre-print database. Hand searched was also conducted in journal websites and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were carried out for Odds Ratio (OR) of mortality and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission for different CVDs. We have also performed a descriptive meta-analysis on different CVDs.ResultsFifty-six studies entered into meta-analysis for ICU admission and mortality outcome and 198 papers for descriptive outcomes, including 159,698 COVID-19 patients. Results of meta-analysis indicated that acute cardiac injury, (OR: 13.29, 95% CI 7.35-24.03), hypertension (OR: 2.60, 95% CI 2.11-3.19), heart Failure (OR: 6.72, 95% CI 3.34-13.52), arrhythmia (OR: 2.75, 95% CI 1.43-5.25), coronary artery disease (OR: 3.78, 95% CI 2.42-5.90), and cardiovascular disease (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.89-3.62) were significantly associated with mortality. Arrhythmia (OR: 7.03, 95% CI 2.79-17.69), acute cardiac injury (OR: 15.58, 95% CI 5.15-47.12), coronary heart disease (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.09-6.26), cardiovascular disease (OR: 3.11, 95% CI 1.59-6.09), and hypertension (OR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.41-2.68) were also significantly associated with ICU admission in COVID-19 patients.ConclusionFindings of this study revealed a high burden of CVDs among COVID-19 patients, which was significantly associated with mortality and ICU admission. Proper management of CVD patients with COVID-19 and monitoring COVID-19 patients for acute cardiac conditions is highly recommended to prevent mortality and critical situations.
| S-EPMC7561581 | biostudies-literature