Prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalized with COVID-19: systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Flumignan RL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8406890 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8166900 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are no proven prophylactic interventions for COVID-19. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of prophylactic hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 were searched in several engines until 8 December 2020. Primary outcomes included RT-PCR positivity, COVID-19 infections (positive RT-PCR or compatible COVID-19 symptoms), and all-cause mortality. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for all outcomes. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 5579) and one cohort (n = 106) were included. Placebo was the comparator in four RCTs, and usual care in one RCT. Compared to the controls, five RCTs showed that hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis did not reduce RT-PCR positivity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.16), COVID-19 infection (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78-1.22), or all-cause mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.27-1.99). There were no differences of effects by pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis. Prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of diarrhea, abdominal pain, or vomiting (RR 4.56, 95% CI 1.58-13.19). There were no effects of hydroxychloroquine on other secondary outcomes. Quality of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 infections, defined either as RT-PCR positivity or as a composite of RT-PCR positivity or compatible symptoms. Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce all-cause mortality, clinical worsening, or adverse events.
| S-EPMC8231762 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST1269 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPost-acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms occurred in most of the COVID-19 survivors. However, few studies have examined the issue of whether hospitalization results in different post-acute COVID-19 symptom risks. This study aimed to compare potential COVID-19 long-term effects in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors.MethodsThis study is designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. A systematic search of six databases was performed for identifying articles published from inception until April 20th, 2022, which compared post-acute COVID-19 symptom risk in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors using a predesigned search strategy included terms for SARS-CoV-2 (eg, COVID, coronavirus, and 2019-nCoV), post-acute COVID-19 Syndrome (eg, post-COVID, post COVID conditions, chronic COVID symptom, long COVID, long COVID symptom, long-haul COVID, COVID sequelae, convalescence, and persistent COVID symptom), and hospitalization (hospitalized, in hospital, and home-isolated). The present meta-analysis was conducted according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement using R software 4.1.3 to create forest plots. Q statistics and the I 2 index were used to evaluate heterogeneity in this meta-analysis.ResultsSix observational studies conducted in Spain, Austria, Switzerland, Canada, and the USA involving 419 hospitalized and 742 non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors were included. The number of COVID-19 survivors in included studies ranged from 63 to 431, and follow-up data were collected through visits in four studies and another two used an electronic questionnaire, visit and telephone, respectively. Significant increase in the risks of long dyspnea (OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.90-5.32), anxiety (OR = 3.09, 95% CI = 1.47-6.47), myalgia (OR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.02-5.33), and hair loss (OR = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.07-7.12) risk were found in hospitalized COVID-19 survivors compared with outpatients. Conversely, persisting ageusia risk was significantly reduced in hospitalized COVID-19 survivors than in non-hospitalized patients.ConclusionThe findings suggested that special attention and patient-centered rehabilitation service based on a needs survey should be provided for hospitalized COVID-19 survivors who experienced high post-acute COVID-19 symptoms risk.
| S-EPMC9978404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 disease first appeared in 2019 and quickly spread worldwide, causing a global pandemic. The oral cavity represents a target of SARS-CoV-2, and oral lesions are observed in both non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients. This systematic review aims to investigate the frequency of oral manifestations in COVID-19 hospitalized patients.MethodsAn electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, including articles published up to September 2021. The review protocol was based on PRISMA-P. The risk of bias of the studies was assessed using the Joana Briggs Institute. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE instrument.ResultsFifty-nine articles were included: 19 case reports, 17 case series, 2 case-control studies, 13 cross-sectional studies, 4 observational studies, and 4 retrospective studies. Oral ulcers, cheilitis, and tongue lesions were more common in patients before hospitalization, while perioral pressure ulcers, macroglossia, blisters, and oral candidiasis were more recurrent in patients during hospitalization. The first could be related directly to COVID-19, while the latter could be caused by medical devices, treatments, prone position, and immunological impairment.ConclusionsAn accurate oral examination during the hospital admission of all confirmed COVID-19 cases is encouraged to recognize oral early manifestations and to apply appropriate treatments.
| S-EPMC8656958 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SARS-CoV2 has led to a global pandemic affecting almost 3 million people in almost over 3 months. Various clinical presentations have been reported so far and no definite therapy is established. Anticoagulation is recommended by several experts to address the potential prothrombotic complications from COVID-19, but its safety and regimen need further clinical trials and safety and efficacy profile. Here, we present three cases of intracranial hemorrhage in three critically ill patients with COVID-19 and discuss their course in relation to various regimens of anticoagulation used.
| S-EPMC7307498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This systematic review summarizes the evidence on the earliest patients with COVID-19-HIV co-infection. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, preprint databases, and Google Scholar from December 01, 2019, to June 1, 2020. From an initial 547 publications and 75 reports, 25 studies provided specific information on COVID-19 patients living with HIV. Studies described 252 patients, 80.9% were male, the mean age was 52.7 years, and 98% were on antiretroviral treatment (ART). Co-morbidities in addition to HIV and COVID-19 (multimorbidity) included hypertension (39.3%), obesity or hyperlipidemia (19.3%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (18.0%), and diabetes (17.2%). Two-thirds (66.5%) had mild to moderate symptoms, the most common being fever (74.0%) and cough (58.3%). Among patients who died, the majority (90.5%) were over 50 years old, male (85.7%), and had multimorbidity (64.3%). Our findings highlight the importance of identifying co-infections, addressing co-morbidities, and ensuring a secure supply of ART for PLHIV during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC7391049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus. Although general and local public health report deathly cases, case fatality rates are still largely unknown. Thus, we sought to evaluate the mortality of COVID-19.MethodsWe searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for articles evaluating the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients that included clinical outcomes, between December 2020 and 24 April 2020. Two authors performed an independent selection using predefined terms of search.ResultsWe retrieved 33 studies with a total of 13,398 patients with COVID-19 diagnosis. The mortality rate of the COVID-19 patients was 17.1% (95% CI 12.7; 22.7, I2 = 96.9%). For general patients admitted to the hospital (excluding critical care-only studies) the mortality rate of the COVID-19 was 11.5% (95% CI 7.7; 16.9, I2 = 96.7%). Among critical illness studies (n = 7) we found a 40.5% mortality (95% CI 31.2; 50.6, I2 = 91.8%).ConclusionHigh COVID-19 mortality among general admitted patients and critical care cases should guide resources allocations and economic burden calculations during the pandemics.
| S-EPMC7920817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe pandemic coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has pushed the global healthcare system to a crisis and amounted to a huge economic burden. Different drugs for prophylaxis against COVID-19 including chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have been tried. This study was performed to systematically review the role of CQ and HCQ in preventing the spread of COVID-19.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies that evaluated the prophylactic role of CQ or HCQ on SARS-CoV-2 (pre-clinical studies) or COVID-19 (clinical studies) until 30 March 2020. The available literature was critically appraised.ResultsA total of 45 articles were screened and 5 (3 in vitro pre-clinical studies and 2 clinical opinions) were included. The pre-clinical studies showed the prophylactic effects of CQ and HCQ against SARS-CoV-2. On the other hand, the clinical opinions advocated the prophylactic use of CQ and HCQ against COVID-19. However, no original clinical studies on the prophylactic role of CQ or HCQ on COVID-19 were available.ConclusionAlthough pre-clinical results are promising, to date there is a dearth of evidence to support the efficacy of CQ or HCQ in preventing COVID-19. Considering potential safety issues and the likelihood of imparting a false sense of security, prophylaxis with CQ or HCQ against COVID-19 needs to be thoroughly evaluated in observational studies or high-quality randomized controlled studies.
| S-EPMC7262257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This SuperSeries is composed of the SubSeries listed below.
2021-07-24 | GSE180743 | GEO