METHODS: We examined CPGs and UpToDate point-of-care resources on the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients that had been published as of 30 April 2020 and compared them against the CPG by the WHO. The main outcome was the rate of consistency among CPGs for the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding recommendation statements that were described as insufficient evidence and by excluding single CPGs one at a time.
RESULTS: Thirteen reference recommendations derived from the CPG of the WHO were generated using discrete and unambiguous specifications of the population, intervention, and comparison states. Across CPGs, the rate of consistency in direction with the WHO is 7.7%. When insufficient evidence codings were excluded, the rate of consistency increased substantially to 61.5%. The results of a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis suggested that the UpToDate recommendation source could explain the inconsistency. Consistency in direction rates changed by an absolute 23.1% (from 1/13 (7.7%) to 4/13 (30.8%)) if UpToDate was removed.
CONCLUSIONS: We observed inconsistencies between some recommendations of the CPGs and those of the WHO. These inconsistencies should best be addressed by consensus among the relevant bodies to avoid confusion in clinical practice while awaiting clinical trials to inform us of the best practice.
METHODS: CPGs for the management of hypertension in Southeast Asia were retrieved from the websites of the Ministry of Health or cardiovascular specialty societies of the individual countries of Southeast Asia during November to December 2020. The recommendations for the management of hypertension specified in the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline and the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guideline were selected to be the reference standards; the recommendations concerning the management of hypertension in the included CPGs in Southeast Asia were assessed if they were concordant with the reference recommendations generated from both the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline and the 2018 ESC/ESH guideline, using the population (P)-intervention (I)-comparison (C) combinations approach.
RESULTS: A total of 59 reference recommendations with unique and unambiguous P-I-C specifications was generated from the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. In addition, a total of 51 reference recommendations with unique and unambiguous P-I-C specifications was generated from the 2018 ESC/ESH guideline. Considering the six included CPGs from Southeast Asia, concordance was observed for 30 reference recommendations (50.8%) out of 59 reference recommendations generated from the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline and for 31 reference recommendations (69.8%) out of 51 reference recommendations derived from the 2018 ESC/ESH guideline.
CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension represents a significant issue that places health and economic strains in Southeast Asia and demands guideline-based care, yet CPGs in Southeast Asia have a high rate of non-concordance with internationally reputable CPGs. Concordant recommendations could perhaps be considered a standard of care for hypertension management in the Southeast Asia region.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline & CINAHL, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), ProQuest Theses & Dissertations Databases, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception till March 15, 2021. The primary outcome measure was a reduction in respiratory illness; decrease in frequency, symptoms, and duration. Random-effects model was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We used Cochrane's RoB-2 to appraise the risk of bias of included RCTs.
RESULTS: A total of nine RCTs were eligible for this review, of which six were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, two studies demonstrated a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed a significantly reduced odds of developing respiratory infections with the use of Lf relative to the control (pooled odds ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.74, n = 1,194), with sufficient evidence against the hypothesis of 'no significant difference' at the current sample size.
CONCLUSIONS: The administration of Lf shows promising efficacy in reducing the risk of RTIs. Current evidence also favours Lf fortification of infant formula. Lf may also have a beneficial role in managing symptoms and recovery of patients suffering from RTIs and may have potential for use as an adjunct in COVID-19, however this warrants further evidence from a large well-designed RCT.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and preprint repository databases (up to February 28, 2021). Random-effects and inverse variance heterogeneity meta-analysis were used to pool the odds ratio of individual trials. The risk of bias was appraised using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.
RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis with a total of 658 patients who were randomized to receive ivermectin and 597 patients randomized in the control group who did not receive ivermectin. Of six trials, four had an overall high risk of bias. The estimated effect of ivermectin indicated mortality benefits (pooled odds ratio = 0.21; 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.42, n = 1255), with some evidence against the hypothesis of 'no significant difference' at the current sample size.
CONCLUSION: We observed a preliminary beneficial effect on mortality associated with ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 that warrants further clinical evidence in appropriately designed large-scale randomized controlled trials.
METHODS: A systematic literature search with no language restrictions was performed on electronic databases and preprint repositories to identify eligible randomized trials published up to 8 July 2021. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest with the use of sofosbuvir combined with direct-acting antiviral agents relative to the nonuse of sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral agents at 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: The meta-analysis of 11 trials (n = 2,161) revealed statistically significant reduction in the odds of mortality (pooled odds ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.99) but no statistically significant difference in the odds of development of composite endpoint of severe illness (pooled odds ratio = 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.44) with the administration of sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral agents among patients with COVID-19, relative to non-administration of sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral agents.Subgroup analysis with seven trials involving sofosbuvir-daclatasvir revealed no significant mortality benefit (pooled odds ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.22).
CONCLUSION: Sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral agents have no protective effects against the development of severe illness in patients with COVID-19 with the current dosing regimen. Whether sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral agents could offer mortality benefits would require further investigations.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in electronic databases to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. Meta-analyses with the random-effects and IVhet models were used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest with the administration of LR relative to NS, at 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in the odds of intensive care unit admission and development of local complications, respectively, with the administration of LR among hospitalized patients with acute pancreatitis relative to administration of NS (pooled ORs, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.13-0.81] and 0.43 [95% CI, 0.21-0.89], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are able to assist clinicians in the navigation of the proper choice of fluid in patients with acute pancreatitis.
AREAS COVERED: This review appraised the evidence from clinical studies on various pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies for sleep disturbances in AD patients and proposed an algorithm to manage sleep disturbances in this population of patients.
EXPERT OPINION: Non-pharmacological interventions are generally preferred as the first-line approach to improve sleep-related symptoms in AD due to their favorable safety profile. However, when non-pharmacological interventions alone are insufficient, a range of pharmacological agents can be considered. Trazodone and melatonin are commonly used as adjunctive therapies, while Z-drugs including zopiclone and zolpidem are specifically employed to treat insomnia in patients with late-onset AD. Furthermore, a newer class of agents known as dual orexin receptor antagonists has emerged and gained approval for improving sleep onset and maintenance in AD patients.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to summarize the overall evidence on the pre-admission/pre-diagnosis use of anti-CD20 among patients with COVID-19 with regards to mortality and severe illness outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic literature search with no language restriction was performed in electronic databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and preprint servers (medRxiv, Research Square, SSRN), to identify eligible studies published up to June 13, 2023. The outcomes of interest were the development of severe illness and all-cause mortality. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio for outcomes of interest using anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies relative to non-use of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, at 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed significantly increased odds for development of severe illness (pooled odds ratio 2.95; 95% confidence interval 2.30, 3.78; n = 534,349) and significantly increased odds for mortality (pooled odds ratio 2.14; 95% confidence interval 1.37, 3.35; n = 333,462) with the use of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, relative to non-use of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, in patients with COVID-19.
CONCLUSION: Healthcare practitioners should exercise caution when prescribing these anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies during the COVID-19 pandemic to patients who are indicated for these agents, particularly those with underlying conditions like multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis.