1.
Laboratory features of severe vs. non-severe COVID-19 patients in Asian populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ghahramani, S, Tabrizi, R, Lankarani, KB, Kashani, SMA, Rezaei, S, Zeidi, N, Akbari, M, Heydari, ST, Akbari, H, Nowrouzi-Sohrabi, P, et al
European journal of medical research. 2020;25(1):30
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak started in December 2019 in China has spread sharply all over the world. Apart from the clinical symptoms and pulmonary computed tomography findings, a large number of COVID-19 confirmed patients showed laboratory fluctuations. The aim of this study was to quantify the results of previously published studies, comparing the laboratory fluctuations, and some new combined inflammatory laboratory tests in severe/critical versus non-severe confirmed infected cases of COVID-19. This study is a systemic review and meta-analysis which included 22 studies with a total of 3396 patients who were classed into two groups: 720 in severe and 2676 in non-severe groups. Results showed that the results of complete blood count test, liver and kidney function tests, inflammatory/infection markers, serum electrolytes and glucose were significantly different between severe and non-severe cases of COVID-19. In fact, there was significant decreased levels of certain types of white blood cells (lymphocyte, monocyte, eosinophil), haemoglobin, and platelet, whereas elevated neutrophil [white blood cell] counts among the complete blood count indices in severe vs. non-severe patients. Authors conclude that further well-methodologically designed studies from other populations are strongly recommended.
Abstract
BACKGROUND More severe cases of COVID- 19 are more likely to be hospitalized and around one-fifth, needing ICU admission. Understanding the common laboratory features of COVID-19 in more severe cases versus non-severe patients could be quite useful for clinicians and might help to predict the model of disease progression. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the laboratory test findings in severe vs. non-severe confirmed infected cases of COVID-19. METHODS Electronic databases were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from the beginning of 2019 to 3rd of March 2020. Heterogeneity across included studies was determined using Cochrane's Q test and the I2 statistic. We used the fixed or random-effect models to pool the weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). FINDINGS Out of a total of 3009 citations, 17 articles (22 studies, 21 from China and one study from Singapore) with 3396 ranging from 12 to1099 patients were included. Our meta-analyses showed a significant decrease in lymphocyte, monocyte, and eosinophil, hemoglobin, platelet, albumin, serum sodium, lymphocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LCR), leukocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LeCR), leukocyte to IL-6 ratio (LeIR), and an increase in the neutrophil, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine (Cr), erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), Procalcitonin (PCT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), fibrinogen, prothrombin time (PT), D-dimer, glucose level, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in the severe group compared with the non-severe group. No significant changes in white blood cells (WBC), Creatine Kinase (CK), troponin I, myoglobin, IL-6 and K between the two groups were observed. INTERPRETATION This meta-analysis provides evidence for the differentiation of severe cases of COVID-19 based on laboratory test results at the time of ICU admission. Future well-methodologically designed studies from other populations are strongly recommended.
2.
Pharmaceutical Interventions in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Literature-based Commentary.
Richman, S, Morris, MC, Broderick, G, Craddock, TJA, Klimas, NG, Fletcher, MA
Clinical therapeutics. 2019;41(5):798-805
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/ CFS), is a disease characterized by an inability to exert oneself physically, often coupled with a combination of other symptoms, including sleep disorders, severe unpredictable pain, and compromised cognitive abilities. The aim of this review was to delineate a number of the more prominent treatments for ME/CFS into different categories and evaluate the methods and results of corresponding drug trials. Results indicate that: • antiviral drugs appear to show limited efficacy in treating ME/CFS over a broad demographic. • there is a lack of clinical research focusing on the use of specific cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors [analgesic] to treat ME/CFS. • antidepressants may be of use in delivering improvements in the quality of life of patients with ME/CFS. • recalibration of endocrine-immune regulation may be involved in supporting the persistence of ME/CFS and may be responsible at least in part for its resistance to single agent interventions. Authors conclude that there is a great need for larger, longitudinal studies focused on a more clearly defined subset of ME/CFS as well as a greater consideration of potential synergies between interventions and the suitability of combination therapies.
Abstract
Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a debilitating disorder characterized by prolonged periods of fatigue, chronic pain, depression, and a complex constellation of other symptoms. Currently, ME/CFS has no known cause, nor are the mechanisms of illness well understood. Therefore, with few exceptions, attempts to treat ME/CFS have been directed mainly toward symptom management. These treatments include antivirals, pain relievers, antidepressants, and oncologic agents as well as other single-intervention treatments. Results of these trials have been largely inconclusive and, in some cases, contradictory. Contributing factors include a lack of well-designed and -executed studies and the highly heterogeneous nature of ME/CFS, which has made a single etiology difficult to define. Because the majority of single-intervention treatments have shown little efficacy, it may instead be beneficial to explore broader-acting combination therapies in which a more focused precision-medicine approach is supported by a systems-level analysis of endocrine and immune co-regulation.