Efficacy of treatments for β-coronaviruses associated respiratory diseases: A systematic review

A reappraisal of corticosteroids use for COVID-19

Common concerns in managing bronchial asthma during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Weight excess association with severity in children and adolescents with COVID-19: A systematic review.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

Urogenital System Damaging Manifestations of 3 Human Infected Coronaviruses.

To systematically summarize the clinical features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Weipu Database, and Wanfang Database were searched for clinical studies on COVID-19 in children published up to May 21, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies included. A descriptive analysis was then performed for the studies. Related indices between children with COVID-19 and severe acute respiratory syndromes (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) were compared. A total of 75 studies were included, with a total of 806 children with COVID-19. The research results showed that the age of the children ranged from 36 hours after birth to 18 years, with a male-female ratio of 1.21 : 1. Similar to SARS and MERS, COVID-19 often occurred with familial aggregation, and such cases accounted for 74.6% (601/806). The children with COVID-19, SARS, and MERS had similar clinical symptoms, mainly fever and cough. Some children had gastrointestinal symptoms. The children with asymptomatic infection accounted for 17.9% (144/806) of COVID-19 cases, 2.5% (2/81) of SARS cases, and 57.1% (12/21) of MERS cases. The children with COVID-19 and MERS mainly had bilateral lesions on chest imaging examination, with a positive rate of lesions of 63.4% (421/664) and 26.3% (5/19) respectively, which were lower than the corresponding positive rates of viral nucleic acid detection, which were 99.8% and 100% respectively. The chest radiological examination of the children with SARS mainly showed unilateral lesion, with a positive rate of imaging of 88.9% (72/81), which was higher than the corresponding positive rate of viral nucleic acid detection (29.2%). Viral nucleic acid was detected in the feces of children with COVID-19 or SARS, with positive rates of 60.2% (56/93) and 71.4% (5/7) respectively. The children with COVID-19 had a rate of severe disease of 4.6% (31/686) and a mortality rate of 0.1% (1/806), the children with SARS had a rate of severe disease of 1.5% (1/68) and a mortality rate of 0%, and those with MERS had a rate of severe disease of 14.3% (3/21) and a mortality rate of 9.5% (2/21). Children with COVID-19 have similar symptoms to those with SARS or MERS, mainly fever and cough. Asymptomatic infection is observed in all three diseases. Children with COVID-19 or SARS have milder disease conditions than those with MERS. COVID-19 in children often occurs with familial aggregation. Epidemiological contact history, imaging examination findings, and viral nucleic acid testing results are important bases for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

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-β1b (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.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.

Mental health implications for aviators from COVID-19

KEY IDEAS Case series studying convalescent plasma use in the treatment of COVID‐19 have been promising, but additional, high‐quality studies are needed to determine the efficacy of the treatment when applied for prophylaxis, for early phases of illness, and for severe illness.Previous studies of convalescent plasma in treating other viral diseases have identified factors to consider when designing treatment protocols, including timing of administration relative to onset of illness, timing of donation relative to resolution of symptoms, severity of illness of the donor, pretransfusion serology of the recipient, and antibody titers of the donor.There are many clinical trials studying treatment of, and prophylaxis against, COVID‐19 using convalescent plasma. In addition to clinical trials, the FDA also allows treatment through two other pathways: the “Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients with COVID‐19” protocol, and emergency investigational new drug applications. The FDA also provides criteria for donation of convalescent plasma.

A comparison of mortality-related risk factors of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of current therapeutic options for COVID-19 - lessons to be learnt from SARS and MERS epidemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

COVID-19, SARS and MERS: are they closely related?

Manifestations caused by coronavirus family have presented it in many ways during the previous years. The aim of this systematic review was to gather all possible cardiovascular manifestations of the coronavirus family in the literature. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and ProQuest which were updated on May 1, 2020 for the last time. Regarding to the novelty and speed of publications on COVID-19, we searched Google Scholar and also references of included studies and review articles in the systematic search results were searched manually. The searched keywords were the combination of the following MeSH terms: "COVID-19", "SARS", "MERS" and "cardiovascular presentation". The systematic review was registered with ID CRD42020180736 in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). After screening, 28 original articles and ten case studies (five case reports and five case series) were included. Most of the studies were focused on COVID-19 (20 original articles and four case studies) while the only studies about Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) were a case report and a case series. Almost all the cardiovascular presentations and complications including acute cardiac injury, arrhythmias and the thrombotic complications were more prevalent in COVID-19 than severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS. The cardiac injury was the most common cardiovascular presentation and complication in COVID-19 whereas thrombotic complications were commonly reported in SARS. The cardiac injury was the predictor of disease severity and mortality in both COVID-19 and SARS.Coronavirus 2019 may present with cardiovascular manifestations and complications in signs and symptoms, laboratory data and other paraclinical findings. Also, cardiovascular complications in the course of COVID-19 may result in worse outcomes.

Lopinavir/ritonavir has been used for the treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus infections. It has been suggested that, based on this experience, this drug should also be studied in SARS-CoV2 infection. We performed a systematic review of the literature regarding the use of lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of these three infections. We systematically searched the PubMed database from inception to April 30th, 2020, to identify in-vitro and animal studies and any reports of human use of lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of SARS, MERS and COVID-19. We also searched the Clinicatrial.gov to identify ongoing trials. Five in-vitro studies evaluated the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir in SARS. Three additional in-vitro studies reported the EC50 of the antiviral activity of lopinavir/ritonavir in MERS. We identified no in vitro studies evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir on the novel coronavirus. Two retrospective matched-cohort studies reported the use of lopinavir/ritonavir in combination with ribavirin for SARS patients. Three case reports and one retrospective study described the use of lopinavir/ritonavir in MERS. Twenty-two papers describe the use of lopinavir/ritonavir in adult patients with COVID-19. The existing literature does not suffice for assessing whether Lopinavir/ritonavir has any benefit in SARS, MERS or COVID-19.