RESUMEN
ObjectiveTo summarize the frequency of neurological manifestations reported in COVID-19 patients and investigate the association of these manifestations with disease severity and mortality. DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis Eligibility criteriaStudies enrolling consecutive COVID-19 patients (probable or confirmed) presenting with neurological manifestations. Data sourcesPubMed, Medline, Cochrane library, clinicaltrials.gov and EMBASE from 31st December 2019 to 15th December 2020. Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts retrieved by literature search. Risk of bias was examined using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and pooled prevalence and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for neurological manifestations. Odds ratio (OR) and 95%CI were calculated to determine the association of neurological manifestations with disease severity and mortality. Presence of heterogeneity was assessed using I-square, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses. Statistical analyses were conducted in R version 3.6.2. ResultsOf 2,455 citations, 350 studies were included in this review, providing data on 145,634 COVID-19 patients, 89% of whom were hospitalized. Forty-one neurological manifestations (24 symptoms and 17 diagnoses) were identified. Pooled prevalence of the most common neurological symptoms included: fatigue (32%), myalgia (20%), taste impairment (21%), smell impairment (19%) and headache (13%). A low risk of bias was observed in 85% of studies; studies with higher risk of bias yielded higher prevalence estimates. Stroke was the most common neurological diagnosis (pooled prevalence-2%). In COVID-19 patients aged >60, the pooled prevalence of acute confusion/delirium was 34% and the presence of any neurological manifestations in this age group was associated with mortality (OR 1.80; 95%CI 1.11 to 2.91). ConclusionsUp to one-third of COVID-19 patients analysed in this review experienced at least one neurological manifestation. One in 50 patients experienced stroke. In those over 60, more than one-third had acute confusion/delirium; the presence of neurological manifestations in this group was associated with near doubling of mortality. Results must be interpreted keeping in view the limitations of observational studies and associated bias. Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020181867. What is already known on this topicThe frequency of neurological manifestations including fatigue, myalgia, taste and smell impairments, headache and dizziness in COVID-19 patients has been reported in a few systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, considerable heterogeneity has been observed in terms of methodological quality of the studies, severity of the disease, mean age and hospitalization status of the patients. The evidence regarding the frequency of neurological diagnoses including stroke, encephalitis, Guillain Barre syndrome (GBS) is also limited to case reports and case series and no data exists thus far on the pooled prevalence estimates for neurological diagnoses in COVID-19 patients. What this study addsTo the best of the authors knowledge, this is the largest systematic review and meta-analysis to date (including 350 studies with data on 145,634 cases) summarizing the evidence on the frequency of the full spectrum of neurological manifestations in COVID-19 patients in the overall, young and elderly populations. For the first time, our review reports the pooled prevalence of stroke in COVID-19 patients. Risk of bias, old age and disease severity were potential determinants of the frequency and nature of neurological manifestations as well as its association with mortality. Our review also highlights the need to develop reporting standards for studies describing the frequency of clinical features. Moreover, we note that this will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis on this subject to include studies reported in all languages.
RESUMEN
Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues unabated in many parts of the world. In the absence of any definite antiviral therapy except some benefit of remdesivir, there is an ongoing search for effective therapy. Famotidine has been shown to reduce mortality in hospitalized patients in a few studies. We conducted a systematic review on the use of famotidine in COVID-19. Methods: We searched the databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and Medrxiv. Title/abstract screening, full text screening and data abstraction were carried out in by two reviewers. Case series, cohort studies and randomized trials were included. Results: Five studies were eligible for inclusion: all were retrospective cohort or case series. Low quality evidence suggests a likely clinical benefit for the use of famotidine in decreasing mortality in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. A meta-analysis of two cohort studies showed a statistically significant decrease in the composite outcome for death and intubation with famotidine (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.73). Conclusion: Further evidence from RCTs is required for famotidine to treat COVID 19.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThere is no effective therapy for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) have been used for its treatment but their safety and efficacy remain uncertain. ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review to synthesize the available data on the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. MethodsTwo reviewers searched for published and pre-published relevant articles between December 2019 to 8th June 2020. The data from the selected studies were abstracted and analyzed for efficacy and safety outcomes. Critical appraisal of the evidence was done by Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa scale. The quality of evidence was graded as per the GRADE approach. ResultsWe reviewed 12 observational and 3 randomized trials which included 10659 patients of whom 5713 received CQ/HCQ and 4966 received only standard of care. The efficacy of CQ/HCQ for COVID-19 was inconsistent across the studies. Meta-analysis of included studies revealed no significant reduction in mortality with HCQ use [RR 0.98 95% CI 0.66-1.46], time to fever resolution [mean difference -0.54 days (-1.19-011)] or clinical deterioration/development of ARDS with HCQ [RR 0.90 95% CI 0.47-1.71]. There was a higher risk of ECG abnormalities/arrhythmia with HCQ/CQ [RR 1.46 95% CI 1.04 to 2.06]. The quality of evidence was graded as very low for these outcomes. Authors ConclusionThe available evidence suggests that CQ or HCQ does not improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19. Well-designed randomized trials are required for assessing the efficacy and safety of HCQ and CQ for COVID-19..
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the precise association between beta-2 adrenergic receptor (beta2AR) polymorphism and Ischemic stroke. METHODS: Published case control studies on association between beta2AR and ischemic stroke were searched from electronic databases. Pooled Odds ratio and 95% Confidence interval were calculated by using software RevMan version 5.2. RESULTS: A total of three studies involving 1,642 cases and 1,673 controls, which were published from 2007 to 2014, were subjected to meta-analysis for allelic association and 518 cases and 510 controls for genotypic association. Pooled analysis of two studies for genotypic association suggested that subjects carrying Gln27Glu polymorphism of beta2AR had an increased risk for Ischemic stroke under recessive model (OR 2.09; 95% CI; 1.20 to 3.64) and under dominant model (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.90). Pooled analysis of three studies for allelic association showed a significantly higher Glu27 allele of beta2AR in the patients with ischemic stroke (OR 1.58; 95% CI; 1.38 to 1.81). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggests that Gln27Glu polymorphism of beta2AR gene is associated with increased risk for ischemic stroke.