Dataset Information

Honeybee products for the treatment and recovery from viral respiratory infections including SARS-COV-2: A rapid systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This rapid review systematically evaluated the effects of honeybee products compared to controls for the prevention, duration, severity, and recovery of acute viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs), including SARS-CoV-2, in adults and children.

Methods

Cochrane rapid review methods were applied. Four English databases plus preprint servers and trial registries were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The evidence was appraised and synthesized using RoB 2.0 and GRADE.

Results

27 results were derived from 9 RCTs that included 674 adults and 781 children. In hospitalized adults with SARS-CoV-2, propolis plus usual-care compared to usual-care alone reduced the risk of shock, respiratory failure and kidney injury and duration of hospital admission. Honey was less effective than Guaifenesin for reducing cough severity at 60-minutes in adults with non-specific acute viral RTIs. Compared to coffee, honey plus coffee, and honey alone reduced the severity of post-infectious cough in adults. Honey reduced the duration of cough in children compared to placebo and salbutamol; and the global impact of nocturnal cough after one night compared to usual-care alone and pharmaceutical cough medicines.

Conclusion

More studies are needed to robustly assess honeybee's role in SARS-CoV-2 and non-specific viral respiratory infections.

Protocol registration

PROSPERO: CRD42020193847.

SUBMITTER: Arentz S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8483994 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodAn 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.Results118 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.ConclusionCurrently, 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.

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.

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.