Azithromycin in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Azithromycin has been widely used in the management of COVID-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence to date on the beneficial and adverse effects of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The PRISMA 2020 statement criteria were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated with and without azithromycin, indexed until 5 July 2021, were searched in PubMed, Embase, The Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MedRXivs. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled effect size from aggregate data. RESULTS: The initial search produced 4950 results. Finally, 16 studies, 5 RCTs and 11 with an observational design, with a total of 22 984 patients, were included. The meta-analysis showed no difference in mortality for those treated with or without azithromycin, in observational studies [OR: 0.90 (0.66-1.24)], RCTs [OR: 0.97 (0.87-1.08)] and also when both types of studies were pooled together [with an overall OR: 0.95 (0.79-1.13)]. Different individual studies also reported no significant difference for those treated with or without azithromycin in need for hospital admission or time to admission from ambulatory settings, clinical severity, need for intensive care, or adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: The results presented in this systematic review do not support the use of azithromycin in the management of COVID-19. Future research on treatment for patients with COVID-19 may need to focus on other drugs.

Disparities in the management of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The high cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality reported for patients with psychiatric disorders may possibly be due to a poorer management of CV risk factors (CVRFs). However, these healthcare disparities remain poorly understood. In this paper, studies comparing the management of smoking, diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia, in patients with and without depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar or personality disorder, were reviewed. METHODS: Prospective studies comparing rates of screening, diagnosis, treatment and control of CVRFs were searched in PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, Scopus and Web of Science (inception to January 2017). The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) criteria were used. Studies were assessed for quality. Wherever possible, meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the findings. RESULTS: Twenty studies, out of the 18 333 references initially identified, were included. Most studies were heterogeneous in design. Two areas permitted meta-analyses: the pooled odds ratio for quitting smoking for those with depression was 0.64 (0.49-0.80) p < 0.001; the pooled difference of glycated haemoglobin for patients with type 2 diabetes and depression was 0.18 (0.06-0.31) p = 0.005. Individual studies showed associations between: schizophrenia and lower probability of having smoking habit recorded; schizoid personality disorder and higher probability of remaining non-smokers after quitting; anxiety and poorer control of type I diabetes; depression, anxiety or schizophrenia and lower probability of having a diagnosis of hypertension; schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and lower use of antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs. CONCLUSIONS: A proactive clinical management, together with further studies, are needed to reduce the CV morbidity and mortality of patients with psychiatric disorders.

Hypertension risk and clinical care in patients with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has been observed in patients with bipolar disorder (BPD) or schizophrenia, partly due to an increased risk of hypertension (HTN), or a less effective care of it. This systematic review and meta-analysis, presents a critical appraisal and summary of the studies addressing the risk of HTN, or the differences in its care, for those with schizophrenia or BPD. METHODS: Prospective studies were searched in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and the Web of Science, from database inception to June 2017. A meta-analysis was undertaken to obtain pooled estimates of the risk of HTN. RESULTS: Five studies reporting the risk of HTN, and five studies presenting differences in its clinical care, were identified. An increased risk of HTN was observed for BPD patients, with an overall Incidence Rate Ratio 1.27(1.15-1.40). The pooled Incidence Rate Ratio of HTN for those with schizophrenia was 0.94 (0.75 - 1.14). A poorer care of HTN (lower rates of screening, prescription, and adherence) was reported in four studies of schizophrenia, and two of BPD patients, compared to people without these conditions. LIMITATIONS: reduced number of studies on risk and care of HTN on patients with BPD or schizophrenia. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence suggests that patients with BPD have a higher risk of HTN. Patients with schizophrenia and BPD receive poor care of HTN. Understanding the risk of HTN, and the differences in its care, is essential for clinicians to reduce the cardiovascular morbidity and overall mortality of these patients.