Clinical outcomes, virological efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide in the treatment of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the clinical outcomes, virological efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles written before August 23, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the usefulness and safety of nitazoxanide in patients with COVID-19 were included. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included. The overall mortality of COVID-19 patients receiving nitazoxanide (study group) was 1.3% (9/670), which was lower than the control group (1.8%, 12/681), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (risk difference [RD], 0.00; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.01; P =0.97). However, nitazoxanide was associated with a higher virological eradication rate than placebo or standard care (RD, 0.09; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.17; P = 0.03). Compared with the placebo or standard care, nitazoxanide were associated with a similar risk of any adverse event (RD, -0.02; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.03; P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Although nitazoxanide can help virological eradication and is also tolerable, it does not provide additional clinical benefits. Based on these evidences, the use of nitazoxanide in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 is not recommended.

The impact of COVID-19 on the epidemiology of non-airborne/droplet-transmitted notifiable infectious diseases in Taiwan: A descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to compare the number of cases of non-airborne/droplet-transmitted notifiable infectious disease (NID) before and after COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study used an open database - National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System to collect the epidemiological data of NIDs. Ten fecal-oral-, six vector-borne-, four direct-contact, and four sexually-transmitted NIDs between pandemic period (defined as from January 2020 to December 2021) and the pre-pandemic period (defined as the period from January 2018 to December 2019) were included for the analysis. RESULTS: Overall, the annual case number of these 24 non-airborne/droplet-transmitted NIDs was 19,186, 19,101, 19,567, and 19,863 in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively. The overall case number in the pandemic period was higher than those in pre-pandemic period (39,430 vs 38,287) and the monthly case number was significantly higher in pandemic period than pre-pandemic period (1643 vs 1595, p < 0.05). However, the lower case number in the pandemic period than those in pre-pandemic period was observed in overall ten fecal-oral-transmitted NIDs (1278 vs 1775), six vector-borne-NIDs (922 vs 2210), and four direct-contact transmitted NIDs (196 vs 344). In contrast, the case number of sexually-transmitted NIDs in the pandemic period was higher than those in pre-pandemic period (37,034 vs 33,958), particularly for gonorrhea (14,463 vs 8732). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the fecal-oral-, vector-borne, and direct-contact transmitted NIDs had declined during pandemic in Taiwan. In contrast, gonorrhea had large increase, and other NPIs were needed.

Population-based seroprevalence surveys of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody: An up-to-date review.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has led to a global pandemic. However, the majority of currently available data are restricted to laboratory-confirmed cases for symptomatic patients, and the SARS-CoV-2 infection can manifest as an asymptomatic or mild disease. Therefore, the true extent of the burden of COVID-19 may be underestimated. Improved serological detection of specific antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 could help estimate the true numbers of infections. This article comprehensively reviews the associated literature and provides updated information regarding the seroprevalence of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody. The seroprevalence can vary across different sites and the seroprevalence can increase with time during longitudinal follow-up. Although healthcare workers (HCWs), especially those caring for COVID-19 patients, are considered as a high-risk group, the seroprevalence in HCWs wearing adequate personal protective equipment is thought to be no higher than that in other groups. With regard to sex, no statistically significant difference has been found between male and female subjects. Some, but not all, studies have shown that children have a lower risk than other age groups. Finally, seroprevalence can vary according to different populations, such as pregnant women and hemodialysis patients; however, limited studies have examined these associations. Furthermore, the continued surveillance of seroprevalence is warranted to estimate and monitor the growing burden of COVID-19.

Lefamulin vs moxifloxacin for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.

Lefamulin is a novel pleuromutilin antibiotic with potent in vitro activity against key community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) pathogens. However, the clinical efficacy and safety of lefamulin for treating CABP remains unclear.An integrated analysis of 2 phase III trials investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of lefamulin vs moxifloxacin in the treatment of CABP was conducted.A total of 1289 patients (lefamulin group: 646 and moxifloxacin group: 643) were included in this analysis. The early clinical response rate was 89.3% and 90.5% among lefamulin and moxifloxacin group, respectively. Lefamulin was noninferior to moxifloxacin (89.3% vs 90.5%, RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.95-1.02, I = 0%). In terms of clinical response at test of cure, no significant difference was observed between the lefamulin and moxifloxacin groups (for modified intention to treat population, RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.94-1.02, I = 0%; for clinically evaluable population, RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.93-1.00, I = 0%). In the subgroup analysis, the early clinical response rate at early clinical assessment and clinical response rate at test of cure of lefamulin was similar to that of moxifloxacin across different subgpopulations and all baseline CABP pathogens. Lefamulin was associated with a similar risk of adverse events as moxifloxacin.Clinical efficacy and tolerability for lefamulin in the treatment of CABP were similar to those for moxifloxacin.

Novel Tetracyclines Versus Alternative Antibiotics for Treating Acute Bacterial Infection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of novel tetracyclines for treating acute bacterial infections. Data from PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane databases, Ovid Medline, and Embase databases were accessed until 11 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of novel tetracyclines with that of other antibiotics for treating acute bacterial infections were included. Primary outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of eight RCTs were included, involving 2283 and 2197 patients who received novel tetracyclines and comparators, respectively. Overall, no significant difference was observed in the clinical response rate at test of cure between the experimental and control groups (for modified intent-to-treat [MITT] population, risk ratio [RR]: 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99-1.05; for clinically evaluable [CE] population, RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00-1.04; and for microbiological evaluable [ME] population, RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.04). No significant difference in the microbiological response at the end of treatment was observed between the experimental and control groups (for ME population, RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.03; for microbiological MITT population, RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.96-1.07). No difference was observed concerning the risk of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious adverse events, and discontinuation of treatment due to TEAEs and all-cause mortality between the two groups. In conclusion, clinical efficacy and safety profile for novel tetracyclines in the treatment of acute bacterial infections were found to be similar to those for other available antibiotics.

Tedizolid Versus Linezolid for the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of tedizolid, compared to linezolid, in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI). PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Co.), Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline and Embase databases were accessed until 18 July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tedizolid with linezolid for adult patients with ABSSSIs were included. The outcomes included the clinical response, microbiological response, and risk of adverse events (AEs). A total of four RCTs involving 2056 adult patients with ABSSSI were enrolled. The early clinical response rate was 79.6% and 80.5% for patients receiving tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. The pooled analysis showed that tedizolid had a non-inferior early clinical response rate to linezolid (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.77-1.19, I2 = 0%). The early response rate was similar between tedizolid and linezolid among patients with cellulitis/erysipelas (75.1% vs. 77.1%; OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.64-1.27, I2 = 25%), major cutaneous abscess (85.1% vs. 86.8%; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.42-2.03, I2 = 37%) and wound infection (85.9% vs. 82.6%; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.66-2.51, I2 = 45%). For methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus patients, tedizolid had a favorable microbiological response rate of 95.2% which was comparable to linezolid (94%) (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.49-2.90, I2 = 0%). In addition to the similar risk of treatment-emergent AEs (a serious event, the discontinuation of the study drug due to AEs and mortality between tedizolid and linezolid), tedizolid was associated with a lower risk of nausea, vomiting and abnormal neutrophil count than linezolid. In conclusion, once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for six days) compared to linezolid (600 mg twice-daily for 10 days) was non-inferior in efficacy in the treatment of ABSSSI. Besides, tedizolid was generally as well tolerated as linezolid, and had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs and bone marrow suppression than linezolid.