OBJECTIVE: This narrative review's objective was to explore the use of AOM in relation to their medical indications, efficacy, and cardiovascular safety.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: We have conducted a narrative review of the literature on approved/non-approved AOM used for obesity and overweight. We have shed light on the emerging trials of therapies and evolving remedies.
RESULTS: Recently, there has been an enormous change in the use of AOM with high consumption that deserves extensive surveillance for the long-term consequences and impact on social, mental, and physical health. Nearly six AOMs and combined therapy are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The recent guidelines for obesity management have shifted the focus from weight loss to goals that the patient considers essential and toward targeting the root cause of obesity.
CONCLUSION: The use of AOM increased enormously despite its sometimes-dubious safety and ineffectiveness. The public and medical professionals should be vigilant to the real-world benefits of anti-obesity drugs and their achieved effectiveness with an improved safety profile.
AREAS COVERED: This systematic review identified and evaluated the potential of current drug treatments for long-COVID, examining both completed and ongoing RCTs.
EXPERT OPINION: We identified four completed and 22 ongoing RCTs, investigating 22 unique drugs. However, most drugs were deemed to not have high potential for treating long-COVID, according to three pre-specified domains, a testament to the ordeal of treating long-COVID. Given that long-COVID is highly multifaceted with several proposed subtypes, treatments likely need to be tailored accordingly. Currently, rintatolimod appears to have modest to high potential for treating the myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) subtype, LTY-100 and Treamid for pulmonary fibrosis subtype, and metformin for general long-COVID prevention.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus as of 1st June 2023. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of pooled POTS rate in SARS-CoV-2-infected and COVID-19-vaccinated groups from epidemiological studies, followed by subgroup analyses by characteristic. Meta-analysis of risk ratio was conducted to compare POTS rate in infected versus uninfected groups. Meta-analysis of demographics was also performed to compare cases of post-infection and post-vaccination POTS from case reports and series.
RESULTS: We estimated the pooled POTS rate of 107.75 (95 % CI: 9.73 to 273.52) and 3.94 (95 % CI: 0 to 16.39) cases per 10,000 (i.e., 1.08 % and 0.039 %) in infected and vaccinated individuals based on 5 and 2 studies, respectively. Meta-regression revealed age as a significant variable influencing 86.2 % variance of the pooled POTS rate in infected population (P