Treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials.

Rationale: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We conducted a systematic review to highlight therapeutic agents that might be effective in treating COVID-19. Methods: We searched Medline, Medrxiv.org, and reference lists of relevant publications to identify articles of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies on treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19 published in English until the last update on October 11, 2020. Results: We included 36 studies on SARS, 30 studies on MERS, and 10 meta-analyses on SARS and MERS in this study. Through 12,200 title and 830 full-text screenings for COVID-19, eight in vitro studies, 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 6,886 patients, and 29 meta-analyses were obtained and investigated. There was no therapeutic agent that consistently resulted in positive outcomes across SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Remdesivir showed a therapeutic effect for COVID-19 in two RCTs involving the largest number of total participants (n = 1,461). Other therapies that showed an effect in at least two RCTs for COVID-19 were sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 114), colchicine (n = 140), IFN-ß1b (n = 193), and convalescent plasma therapy (n = 126). Conclusions: This review provides information to help establish treatment and research directions for COVID-19 based on currently available evidence. Further RCTs are required.

Consumption of Fish and ω-3 Fatty Acids and Cancer Risk: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies.

Multiple studies have suggested that ω-3 fatty acid intake may have a protective effect on cancer risk; however, its true association with cancer risk remains controversial. We performed an umbrella review of meta-analyses to summarize and evaluate the evidence for the association between ω-3 fatty acid intake and cancer outcomes. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to December 1, 2018. We included meta-analyses of observational studies that examined associations between intake of fish or ω-3 fatty acid and cancer risk (gastrointestinal, liver, breast, gynecologic, prostate, brain, lung, and skin) and determined the level of evidence of associations. In addition, we appraised the quality of the evidence of significant meta-analyses by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We initially screened 598 articles, and 15 articles, including 57 meta-analyses, were eligible. Among 57 meta-analyses, 15 reported statistically significant results. We found that 12 meta-analyses showed weak evidence of an association between ω-3 fatty acid intake and risk of the following types of cancer: liver cancer (n = 4 of 6), breast cancer (n = 3 of 14), prostate cancer (n = 3 of 11), and brain tumor (n = 2 of 2). In the other 3 meta-analyses, studies of endometrial cancer and skin cancer, there were no assessable data for determining the evidence levels. No meta-analysis showed convincing, highly suggestive, or suggestive evidence of an association. In the sensitivity analysis of meta-analyses by study design, we found weak associations between ω-3 fatty acid intake and breast cancer risk in cohort studies, but no statistically significant association in case-control studies. However, the opposite results were found in case of brain tumor risk. Although ω-3 fatty acids have been studied in several meta-analyses with regard to a wide range of cancer outcomes, only weak associations were identified in some cancer types, with several limitations. Considering the nonsignificant or weak evidence level, clinicians and researchers should cautiously interpret reported associations between ω-3 fatty acid consumption and cancer risks.

Psychotic experiences in the context of mood and anxiety disorders and their associations with health outcomes among people of color in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Psychotic experiences appear to increase risk for health outcomes above and beyond mood/anxiety disorders. However, existing studies that have found this association were conducted mostly in low- and middle-income countries, calling for more studies to explore the association in other contexts, such as the U.S., where people of color face considerable health disparities. MATERIALS/METHODS: Data from the National Latino and Asian American Survey, and the National Survey of American Life were analyzed. After restricting the analytic sample to individuals with at least one mood or anxiety disorder (N = 2929), multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the associations between psychotic experiences and health outcomes, disabilities, and help-seeking behaviors, adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and psychiatric disorders. RESULTS: Among people of color with mood/anxiety disorders, 16.58% (n = 519) of the weighted analytic sample reported psychotic experiences. Psychotic experiences were associated with 1.75 times greater odds (95% CI: 1.24-2.47) for reporting a lifetime health condition, with varying odds depending on the specific conditions (e.g. arthritis, heart disease, ulcers, and asthma), and specific disabilities (e.g. cognition, mobility, social interaction, and time out of role). Psychotic experiences were associated with 1.66 times the odds of seeking any treatment (95% CI: 1.20-2.29), and the perceived need for help among people who did not seek treatment (e.g. feeling the need for treatment, being encouraged to seek treatment by others). CONCLUSIONS: Mental health practitioners serving people of color who have mood/anxiety disorders should routinely screen for psychotic experiences, which may suggest health problems and disabilities that warrant integrated healthcare.

Beliefs About Etiology and Treatment of Mental Illness Among Korean Presbyterian Pastors.

This descriptive study explored pastors' beliefs about etiology and treatment of mental illness. Surveys were completed by mail by 202 Korean and Euro-American Presbyterian clergy. Nearly one-third of Korean pastors viewed bad parenting and demon possession as very important causes of mental illness, in contrast to the more than two-thirds of Euro-American pastors who viewed genetics and chemical imbalances as the most important causes. Compared with their Euro-American counterparts, Korean pastors soundly endorsed spiritual treatment of mental illness. The findings of this study suggest the value of understanding the views of pastors working with populations that underutilize formal mental health services.

Role-playing as a tool for hiring, training, and supervising peer providers.

This article presents role-playing as an activity that can help managers in hiring, evaluating, and supervising peer providers. With the increasing employment of peers in mental health care systems, supervisors have had to face dilemmas related to peer employment more frequently and with little guidance and direction. In response, this article presents role-playing as a practical tool to hire, train, and supervise peer providers. The effectiveness of role-playing depends largely on context and execution, and so this article also offers direction on how to maximize the utility and benefits of role-playing to enhance the performance of peer providers.