METHODS: An extensive search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective case series studies that evaluated therapies COVID-19. The outcomes searched for were mortality, recovery rate, length of hospital stay and clinical improvement from January to May 15, 2020. Independent reviewers searched, identified, screened, and related studies were included.
RESULTS: Total of five RCTs on 439 patients and seventeen case series involving 1656 patients were found in the specified review period that reported the use of Lopinavir, Ritonavir, Remdesivir. Oseltamivir, Ribavirin in patients with COVID-19; but none of which showed efficacy of antiviral therapy. Such current findings impede researchers from recommending an appropriate and effective antiviral therapy against COVID-19, making it a serious concern for the global community.
DISCUSSION: In the present pandemic and any future epidemics, all the related authorities should pursue many more RCTs, cohort and case series for a prospective outcome in the management and treatment guidelines.
METHODS: All participants alive at final SHARP study visit in participating centres were eligible for inclusion. Consenting participants were re-enrolled following final SHARP Study visit and followed for 5 years. Data collection included: significant medical events, hospital admissions and requirement for kidney replacement therapy. Data linkage was performed to national kidney and mortality registries. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality compared across the three countries.
RESULTS: The SHARP trial randomized 2029 participants from AUS (1043/2029, 51%), MYL (701/2029, 35%), and NZ (285/2029, 14%), with 1136 participants alive and eligible for extended follow-up at the end of SHARP. In multivariable analysis, risk of death was increased for participants in MYL (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17-1.61, p
METHODS: Patients prescribed mood stabilizers (lithium, carbamazepine, valproic acid, or lamotrigine) for a psychiatric condition other than bipolar disorder (codes F31.0-F31.9 in the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, Clinical Modification) were recruited through convenience sampling. A website-based data entry system was used for data collection.
RESULTS: In total, 1557 psychiatric patients were enrolled. Schizophrenia, schizotypal, delusional, and other non-mood psychotic disorders (F20-F29, 55.8 %) was the most common diagnosis, followed by non-bipolar mood disorders (F30, F31- F39, 25.3 %), organic mental disorder (F00-F09, 8.8 %), mental retardation (F70-F79, 5.8 %) and anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, somatoform and other nonpsychotic mental disorders (F40-F48, 4.4 %). The most frequently targeted symptoms (>20 %) were irritability (48 %), impulsivity (32.4 %), aggression (29.2 %), anger (20.8 %), and psychosis (24.1 %). Valproic acid was the most frequently used medication.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians typically prescribe mood stabilizers as empirically supported treatment to manage mood symptoms in patients with diagnoses other than bipolar disorders, though there is on official indication for these disorders. The costs and benefits of this add-on symptomatic treatment warrant further investigation.
METHODS: A single centre, latin-square cross-over, double masked, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 45 chronic generalized gingivitis subjects who were chosen from the dental clinic of MAHSA University, Malaysia. A total of 45 subjects were randomly assigned into one of the three different groups (n = 15 each) using a computer-generated random allocation sequence: Group A Propolis mouthwash; Group B Chlorhexidine mouthwash; and Group C Placebo mouthwash. Supragingival plaque and gingival inflammation were assessed by full mouth Plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) at baseline and after 21 days. The study was divided into three phases, each phase lasted for 21 days separated by a washout period of 15 days in between them. Groups A, B and C were treated with 0.2% Propolis, Chlorhexidine, and Placebo mouthwash, respectively, in phase I. The study subjects were instructed to use the assigned mouthwash twice daily for 1 min for 21 days. On day 22nd, the subjects were recalled for measurement of PI and GI. After phase I, mouthwash was crossed over as dictated by the Latin square design in phase II and III.
RESULTS: At baseline, intergroup comparison revealed no statistically significant difference between Groups A, B and C (p > 0.05). On day 21, one-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant difference between the three groups for PI (p
METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched for studies involving tocilizumab, dexamethasone, and methylprednisolone in treating COVID-19. We included case-control and randomized or partially randomized trials. Meta-regression for patient baseline characteristics, co-medications, and tocilizumab dose regimens was performed to identify contributing factors to drug efficacy.
RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and twenty-four case-control studies were included in our meta-analysis involving 18,702 patients. Meta-analysis among the RCTs showed that a summary estimate favoring mortality reduction (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.55 - 0.92) contributed mainly by tocilizumab and dexamethasone. Among case-control studies, meta-analysis showed mortality reduction (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.36 - 0.75) contributed by tocilizumab and tocilizumab-methylprednisolone combination. Methylprednisolone alone did not reduce mortality except for one study involving high dose pulse therapy. Meta-analysis also found that all three drugs did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation (OR 0.72, 95%CI 0.32 - 1.60).
CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab and dexamethasone emerge as viable options in reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. A tocilizumab-corticosteroid combination strategy may improve therapeutic outcome in cases where single therapy fails.