Ozone as an adjuvant therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Ozone adjuvant in COVID-19 management showed conflicting results in prior studies. Here, we aimed to comprehensively evaluate benefits and side effects of ozone as adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 patients.Methods
Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Springer, medRxiv, and ProQuest for articles investigating ozone as adjuvant therapy in COVID-19. Clinical and laboratory outcomes, mortality, length of hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and adverse events were assessed.Results
Thirteen studies were included in this review. Case-control studies, but not randomized controlled trials (RCTs), showed a decrease in mortality following ozone therapy (OR = 0.24 (95% CI [0.07-0.76]), p = 0.02, I2 = 0%, fixed-effect). However, ozone therapy did not improve the length of hospital stay (SMD = -0.99 (95 %CI -2.44 to 0.45), p = 0.18, I2 = 84%, random-effects) and ICU admission (RR = 0.57 (95 %CI [0.05-6.71]), I2 = 73%, p = 0.65, random-effects). Consecutive case control studies suggested that ozone therapy significantly improved levels of D-dimer (p = 0.0060), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; p = 0.0209), C-reactive protein (CRP; p = 0.0040) and interleukin (IL)-6 (p = 0.0048) as compared to standard therapy alone.Conclusions
The beneficial effect of ozone in COVID-19 management seems to be limited to the improvements of laboratory parameters among severe patients, including the reduction of IL-6, LDH, CRP, and D-dimer levels. Meanwhile, other study endpoints, such as mortality, length of stay and ICU admission, were not improved following ozone therapy, although it may partly be due to a shorter duration of viral clearance. Furthermore, no serious adverse event was reported following ozone therapy, suggesting its high safety profile. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021278018).
SUBMITTER: Setyo Budi D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9250927 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionUsing ozone therapy to manage COVID-19 patients has been accompanied by conflicting results in prior studies. Therefore, we aimed to widely assess the effects of ozone as adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, ProQuest, Springer, and Sage journals were searched systematically until April 2022. Mortality rate, ICU admission, hospital-length stay, negative PCR, pulmonary, renal, and hepatic functions, as well as inflammatory and blood systems were pooled to compare the efficacy of ozone as adjacent therapy (OZ) and standard treatment (ST). Analyses were run with the random/fixed models, sub-group analysis, funnel plot, and sensitivity analysis using comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) software version 2.0.ResultsThe results of four randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and four case-control studies with a total of 371 COVID-19 positive patients were analyzed. The OZ group patients had a shorter length of hospital stay (P > 0.05), lower ICU admissions (P > 0.05), and lower mortality rates (P < 0.05) than the ST group cases. After treatment, 41% more COVID-19 patients had negative PCR tests than the ST group (P < 0.05). Serum creatinine and urea levels were not modified in either group (P > 0.05). Moreover, except for albumin serum levels, which decreased significantly in the OZ group, serum bilirubin, ALT, and AST were not modified in either group (P > 0.05). Both arms did not show a decrease in C-reactive protein blood levels (P > 0.05), but the OZ group showed a significant modification in LDH serum levels (P < 0.05). Unlike the d-dimer and WBC serum levels (P > 0.05), platelet levels were increased in the OZ group (P < 0.05). No negative side effects were demonstrated in either group.ConclusionOzone therapy was effective significantly on PCR test and LDH serum levels, as well as mortality based on overall estimation. Concerning the length of hospital stay and ICU admissions, although the results were insignificant, their effect sizes were notable clinically. More RCT studies are needed to show the efficacy of ozone therapy on other studied variables.
| S-EPMC9685165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the respiratory disease caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 and is characterized by clinical manifestations ranging from mild, flu-like symptoms to severe respiratory insufficiency and multi-organ failure. Patients with more severe symptoms may require intensive care treatments and face a high mortality risk. Also, thrombotic complications such as pulmonary embolisms and disseminated intravascular coagulation are frequent in these patients. Indeed, COVID-19 is characterized by an abnormal inflammatory response resembling a cytokine storm, which is associated to endothelial dysfunction and microvascular complications. To date, no specific treatments are available for COVID-19 and its life-threatening complication. Immunomodulatory drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitors, as well as antithrombotic drugs such as heparin and low molecular weight heparin, are currently being administered with some benefit. Ozone therapy consists in the administration of a mixture of ozone and oxygen, called medical ozone, which has been used for over a century as an unconventional medicine practice for several diseases. Medical ozone rationale in COVID-19 is the possibility of contrasting endothelial dysfunction, modulating the immune response and acting as a virustatic agent. Thus, medical ozone could help to decrease lung inflammation, slow down viral growth, regulate lung circulation and oxygenation and prevent microvascular thrombosis. Ozone-therapy could be considered a feasible, cost-effective and easy to administer adjuvant therapy while waiting for the synthesis of a therapy or the development of the vaccine.
| S-EPMC8086623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough vaccine rollout for COVID-19 has been effective in some countries, there is still an urgent need to reduce disease transmission and severity. We recently carried out a meta-analysis and found that pre- and in-hospital use of statins may improve COVID-19 mortality outcomes. Here, we provide an updated meta-analysis in an attempt to validate these results and increase the statistical power of these potentially important findings.MethodsThe meta-analysis investigated the effect of observational and randomized clinical studies on intensive care unit (ICU) admission, tracheal intubation, and death outcomes in COVID-19 cases involving statin treatment, by searching the scientific literature up to April 23, 2021. Statistical analysis and random effect modeling were performed to assess the combined effects of the updated and previous findings on the outcome measures. Findings. The updated literature search led to the identification of 23 additional studies on statin use in COVID-19 patients. Analysis of the combined studies (n = 47; 3,238,508 subjects) showed no significant effect of statin treatment on ICU admission and all-cause mortality but a significant reduction in tracheal intubation (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.99, p = 0.04, n = 10 studies). The further analysis showed that death outcomes were significantly reduced in the patients who received statins during hospitalization (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.50-0.58, p < 0.001, n = 7 studies), with no such effect of statin therapy before hospital admission (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.82-1.37, p = 0.670, n = 29 studies).ConclusionTaken together, this updated meta-analysis extends and confirms the findings of our previous study, suggesting that in-hospital statin use leads to significant reduction of all-cause mortality in COVID-19 cases. Considering these results, statin therapy during hospitalization, while indicated, should be recommended.
| S-EPMC8463212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID-19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full-text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = -0.49 days [95% CI = -3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8014691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh blood pressure, anxiety, depression and sleep disorder is very common in patients with hypertension. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of adjuvant music therapy for patients with hypertension, to provide insights to the clinical management of hypertension.MethodsTwo authors searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang Databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the role of music therapy in hypertension up to Oct 15, 2022. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 20 RCTs including 2306 patients were finally included. 1154 patients received music therapy. Meta-analysis showed that music therapy can effectively reduce the systolic blood pressure(MD = - 9.00, 95%CI: - 11.99~- 6.00), diastolic blood pressure(MD = -6.53, 95%CI: -9.12~- 3.93), heart rate (MD = -3.76, 95%CI: -7.32~- 0.20), self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) score(MD =-8.55, 95%CI: -12.04~-4.12), self-rating depression scale (SDS) score(MD = -9.17, 95%CI: -13.85~-5.18), Hamilton anxiety scale (HAMA), score(MD = -3.37, 95%CI: - 5.38~- 1.36), PSQI score(MD =-1.61, 95%CI:-2.30~- 0.93) compared with routine therapy in patients with hypertension(all P < 0.05). No publication bias in the synthesized outcomes were found (all P > 0.05).ConclusionMusic therapy can effectively control blood pressure and heart rate, reduce anxiety and depression levels, and improve sleep quality in hypertensive patients. Limited by the quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusions need to be verified by more high-quality studies.
| S-EPMC10077636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCorticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection.ResultsA total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections.ConclusionCorticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8137023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCarcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. The large and growing number of patients affected, the high mortality rates, the worldwide geographic variation in practice, and the large body of good quality research warrants a systematic review with meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the impact of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer to inform evidence-based practice was produced.MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were searched for trial reports. Included were randomized trials or meta-analyses of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatments compared with surgery alone or other treatments in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Outcomes of interest were survival, adverse effects, and quality of life. Either one- or three-year mortality data were pooled and reported as relative risk ratios.ResultsThirty-four randomized controlled trials and six meta-analyses were obtained and grouped into 13 basic treatment approaches. Single randomized controlled trials detected no differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy.- Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate.- Postoperative chemotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy.- Postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy plus protein-bound polysaccharide versus chemoradiation versus chemoradiation plus protein-bound polysaccharide. Pooling one-year mortality detected no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials).- Postoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials).- Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials).- Preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (two randomized trials).- Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). Single randomized controlled trials detected differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparison:- Preoperative hyperthermia and chemoradiotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in favour of hyperthermia. Pooling three-year mortality detected no statistically significant difference in mortality between treatments for the following comparison:- Postoperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone (two randomized trials). Pooling three-year mortality detected statistically significant differences between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials) in favour of preoperative chemoradiation with surgery.- Preoperative chemotherapy compared with preoperative radiotherapy (one randomized trial) in favour of preoperative radiotherapy.ConclusionFor adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice.
| S-EPMC529457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The role of adjuvant steroid therapy in the postoperative management of patients with biliary atresia (BA) is unclear.To systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of adjuvant steroid therapy post-Kasai portoenterostomy (KP) on BA outcome.A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials and?or observational studies that examined the role of steroids on BA outcomes published between January 1969 and June 2010 was conducted. Studies were identified using the Medline, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases.Sixteen observational studies and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) were found. Four of the 16 observational studies (160 participants) and the RCT (73 participants) met the entry criteria and were eligible to be included in the analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in the effect of steroids either on normalizing serum bilirubin levels at six months (pooled OR 1.48 [95% CI 0.67 to 3.28]) or in delaying the need for early liver transplantation (within the first year post-KP (pooled OR 0.59 [95% CI 0.21 to 1.72]).The present meta-analysis did not find a significant effect of steroid over standard therapy, either in normalizing serum bilirubin levels at six months or at delaying the need for early liver transplantation post-KP. RCT studies of sufficient size and comprehensive design using high-dose steroids are needed to determine the effectiveness of steroids on the short and intermediate post-KP outcomes for BA patients.
| S-EPMC3186729 | biostudies-other
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:BackgroundNonsteroidal 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.MethodsOriginal 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionThe theoretical risks of NSAIDs or ibuprofen in SARS-CoV-2 infection are not confirmed by observational data.
| S-EPMC8327046 | biostudies-literature