Clinical efficacy of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir combination for treating diabetic patients with COVID-19.

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (NMV-r) for treating COVID-19 in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). This retrospective cohort study used the TriNetX research network to identify adult diabetic patients with COVID-19 between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022. Propensity score matching was used to match patients who received NMV-r (NMV-r group) with those who did not receive NMV-r (control group). The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization or death during the 30-day follow-up period. Two cohorts comprising 13 822 patients with balanced baseline characteristics were created using propensity score matching. During the follow-up period, the NMV-r group had a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization or death than the control group (1.4% [n = 193] vs. 3.1% [n = 434]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.497; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.420-0.589). Compared with the control group, the NMV-r group also had a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.606; 95% CI, 0.508-0.723) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.076; 95% CI, 0.033-0.175). This lower risk was consistently observed in almost all subgroup analyses, which examined sex (male: 0.520 [0.401-0.675]; female: 0.586 [0.465-0.739]), age (age 18-64 years: 0.767 [0.601-0.980]; ≥65 years: 0.394 [0.308-0.505]), level of HbA1c (<7.5%: 0.490 [0.401-0.599]; ≥7.5%: 0.655 [0.441-0.972]), unvaccinated (0.466 [0.362-0.599]), type 1 DM (0.453 [0.286-0.718]) and type 2 DM (0.430 [0.361-0.511]). NMV-r can help reduce the risk of all-cause hospitalization or death in nonhospitalized patients with DM and COVID-19.

Clinical efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to assess the clinical efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of patients with COVID19. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies from their inception to 8 February 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical efficacy of probiotics with usual care or standard care for patients with COVID19 were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Random-effects model using MantelHaenszel and inverse variance methods were performed to analyze the data. RESULTS: Eight RCTs with 900 patients were included. The study group receiving probiotics had a non-significantly lower rate of mortality than the control group had, but this difference was not significant (risk ratio [RR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.16). However, the study group had significantly lower rates of dyspnea (RR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.60), fever (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.85) and headache (RR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.65). Higher complete remission of COVID-19-associated symptoms was observed in the study group than the control group (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.40-2.55). CONCLUSIONS: Although probiotics use did not improve clinical outcomes or reduce inflammatory markers, it may relieve COVID-19-associated symptoms.

Clinical efficacy of enteral nutrition feeding modalities in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In intensive care units (ICUs), both continuous and intermittent feeding are commonly used for early enteral nutrition (EN). However, whether continuous feeding is a preferable feeding modality compared to intermittent feeding remains unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy of both EN feeding modalities in critically ill patients. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception dates to December 29, 2022. The search did not involve language restrictions (PROSPERO CRD42022371756). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of continuous feeding and intermittent feeding in critically ill patients in ICUs were included. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs involving 785 patients. Compared with intermittent feeding, continuous feeding was associated with a lower mortality rate (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47, 0.98; p = 0.04) but a higher risk of constipation (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02, 2.43; p = 0.04). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) for mortality rate presented a cumulative Z-curve crossing the traditional boundary, but the curve did not cross the TSA boundary for benefit. No significant differences were found in the aspiration/pneumonia rate (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.51, 2.75; p = 0.69), diarrhea rate (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58, 1.16; p = 0.26), or increased gastric residual volumes (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.58, 1.90; p = 0.86) between the groups. CONCLUSION: Despite the low certainty of evidence, compared with intermittent feeding, continuous feeding may reduce the mortality rate in critically ill patients in ICU. Additional studies are needed to provide more evidence and validate the findings.

Adenosine-based molecular beacons as light-up probes for sensing heparin in plasma.

This study presents an adenosine-based molecular beacon (MB) for the selective and sensitive detection of heparin based on the competitive binding between heparin and the MB stem to coralyne.