Search

Background: Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management guideline, we conducted a systematic review that addressed the benefits and harms of 7 antiviral treatments for COVID-19.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and 3 Chinese databases (CNKI, WANFANG and SinoMed) through Apr. 19, medRxiv and Chinaxiv through Apr. 27, and Chongqing VIP through Apr. 30, 2020. We included studies of ribavirin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, umifenovir (arbidol), favipravir, interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir. If direct evidence from COVID-19 studies was not available, we included indirect evidence from studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) for efficacy outcomes and other acute respiratory viral infections for safety outcomes.Results: In patients with nonsevere COVID-19 illness, the death rate was extremely low, precluding an important effect on mortality. We found only very low-quality evidence with little or no suggestion of benefit for most treatments and outcomes in both nonsevere and severe COVID-19. An exception was treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, for which we found low-quality evidence for a decrease in length of stay in the intensive care unit (risk difference 5 d shorter, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 9 d) and hospital stay (risk difference 1 d shorter, 95% CI 0 to 2 d). For safety outcomes, evidence was of low or very low quality, with the exception of treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir for which moderate-quality evidence suggested likely increases in diarrhea, nausea and vomiting.Interpretation: To date, persuasive evidence of important benefit in COVID-19 does not exist for any antiviral treatments, although for each treatment evidence has not excluded important benefit. Additional randomized controlled trials involving patients with COVID-19 will be needed before such treatments can be administered with confidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reperfusion in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) improves survival. Moreover, early reperfusion can abort the infarct and avoid significant myocardial necrosis. Yet, limited real world data exist and comparison between reperfusion strategies has not been established., Methods: Using a comprehensive Canadian registry of consecutive STEMI patients, we prospectively collected serial electrocardiograms (ECGs) and clinical data from August 2006 to March 2011. Aborted myocardial infarction (AbMI) was defined as a maximal creatine kinase ≤ 2 times the upper limit of normal with evolutionary ECG changes of STEMI. ECG confounders and subjects with incomplete data were excluded., Results: Of the 2235 STEMI patients reperfused within 12 hours, 16.0% were considered to have an AbMI. Numerically, higher rates of AbMI with fibrinolysis vs primary percutaneous coronary intervention were reported (17.0% vs 14.7%; P = 0.15) with a temporal pattern seen up to 4 hours from symptom onset in favour of fibrinolysis (P trend < 0.001). Most notably, the highest frequency of AbMI was observed within the first hour with fibrinolysis (31.1%). Improved in-hospital outcomes (death/shock/congestive heart failure) were seen with AbMI (5.6% vs 13.6%; P < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.57)., Conclusions: In a large contemporary Canadian STEMI registry, AbMI appears to be common and associated with improved clinical outcome. Early reperfusion seems to enhance AbMI particularly when fibrinolysis is administered within 1 hour of symptom onset., (Copyright © 2014 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)