Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and adverse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background There are concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase the risk of adverse outcomes among patients with coronavirus COVID-19. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on associations between the use of NSAIDs and adverse outcomes. Methods A systematic search of WHO COVID-19 Database, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database for all articles published from January 1, 2020, to November 7, 2021, as well as a supplementary search of Google Scholar. We included all comparative studies that enrolled patients who took NSAIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data extraction and quality assessment of methodology of included studies were completed by two reviewers independently. We conducted a meta-analysis on the main adverse outcomes, as well as selected subgroup analyses stratified by the type of NSAID and population (both positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or not). Findings Forty comparative studies evaluating 4,867,795 adult cases were identified. Twenty-eight (70%) of the included studies enrolled patients positive to SARS-CoV-2 tests. The use of NSAIDs did not reduce mortality outcomes among people with COVID-19 (number of studies [N] = 29, odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.14, I2  = 89%). Results suggested that the use of NSAIDs was not significantly associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with or without COVID-19 (N = 10, OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.07, I2  = 78%; N = 8, aOR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.09, I2  = 26%), or an increased probability of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (N = 12, OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.75, I2  = 82% ; N = 4, aOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.22, I2  = 60%), requiring mechanical ventilation (N = 11, OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.54, I2  = 63%; N = 5, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 66%), or administration of supplemental oxygen (N = 5, OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 63%; N = 2, aOR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.12, I2  = 0%). The subgroup analysis revealed that, compared with patients not using any NSAIDs, the use of ibuprofen (N = 5, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.39; N = 4, aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.16) and COX-2 inhibitor (N = 4, OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11; N = 2, aOR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.18) were not associated with an increased risk of death. Interpretation Data suggests that NSAIDs such as ibuprofen, aspirin and COX-2 inhibitor, can be used safely among patients positive to SARS-CoV-2. However, for some of the analyses the number of studies were limited and the quality of evidence was overall low, therefore more research is needed to corroborate these findings. Funding There was no funding source for this study

Photodynamic therapy in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment in advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: A phase 2–3 clinical trial protocol

Introduction: The immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) has been approved as the first-line therapy for metastatic gastric cancer in China. The treatment response of immune checkpoint inhibitor is highly dependent on the immune condition within the tumor microenvironment. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has a long history in cancer treatment, and recent studies showed it had an immunomodulatory effect on the tumor. Here we will conduct a trial to assess whether or not a combination with Photodynamic therapy will improve the outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer.Methods: This study is a single-center, open-label, randomized controlled, phase 2–3 trial. Patients (18–65 years old) with untreated gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma will be eligible for this trial. Sixty participants will be enrolled and randomly divided into the test group (n = 30) and control group (n = 30) to receive photodynamic therapy in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy, respectively. The primary is progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary outcomes include objective response rates (ORRs) and the occurrence of adverse events. In addition, we will also assess the changes in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and tumor microenvironment after photodynamic therapy treatment in the test group. Evaluation of the tumor response will be performed every two cycles for a maximum of eight cycles.Discussion: Photodynamic therapy has an immunomodulatory effect on the tumor microenvironment; however, this has not been demonstrated for gastric cancer in a clinical trial. Based on our experience of photodynamic therapy treatment in digestive tract tumors, we plan to conduct a randomized controlled trial on this topic. This will be the first study to evaluate the synergistic effect of photodynamic therapy with immunochemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer.Ethics and dissemination: It was approved by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee of Lanzhou University Second Hospital (No. 2022A-491). When this trial is completed, it will be shared at conferences and submitted for a potential publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Clinical Trial Registration:http://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR2200064280

Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations: A Systematic Review.

Background Hundreds of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements have been developed and published since the outbreak of the epidemic. However, these CPGs are of widely variable quality. So, this review is aimed at systematically evaluating the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs, exploring factors that may influence their quality, and analyzing the change of recommendations in CPGs with evidence published. Methods We searched five electronic databases and five websites from 1 January to 31 December 2020 to retrieve all COVID-19 CPGs. The assessment of the methodological and reporting qualities of CPGs was performed using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist. Recommendations and evidence used to make recommendations in the CPGs regarding some treatments for COVID-19 (remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir) were also systematically assessed. And the statistical inference was performed to identify factors associated with the quality of CPGs. Results We included a total of 92 COVID-19 CPGs developed by 19 countries. Overall, the RIGHT checklist reporting rate of COVID-19 CPGs was 33.0%, and the AGREE II domain score was 30.4%. The overall methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs gradually improved during the year 2020. Factors associated with high methodological and reporting qualities included the evidence-based development process, management of conflicts of interest, and use of established rating systems to assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The recommendations of only seven (7.6%) CPGs were informed by a systematic review of evidence, and these seven CPGs have relatively high methodological and reporting qualities, in which six of them fully meet the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of guidelines. Besides, a rapid advice CPG developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the seven CPGs got the highest overall scores in methodological (72.8%) and reporting qualities (83.8%). Many CPGs covered the same clinical questions (it refers to the clinical questions on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients) and were published by different countries or organizations. Although randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir for patients with COVID-19 have been published, the recommendations on those treatments still varied greatly across COVID-19 CPGs published in different countries or regions, which may suggest that the CPGs do not make sufficient use of the latest evidence. Conclusions Both the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs increased over time, but there is still room for further improvement. The lack of effective use of available evidence and management of conflicts of interest were the main reasons for the low quality of the CPGs. The use of formal rating systems for the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations may help to improve the quality of CPGs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, we suggest developing a living guideline of which recommendations are supported by a systematic review for it can facilitate the timely translation of the latest research findings to clinical practice. We also suggest that CPG developers should register the guidelines in a registration platform at the beginning for it can reduce duplication development of guidelines on the same clinical question, increase the transparency of the development process, and promote cooperation among guideline developers all over the world. Since the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform has been created, developers could register guidelines prospectively and internationally on this platform

Methodology and experiences of rapid advice guideline development for children with COVID-19: responding to the COVID-19 outbreak quickly and efficiently

BACKGROUND: Rapid Advice Guidelines (RAG) provide decision makers with guidance to respond to public health emergencies by developing evidence-based recommendations in a short period of time with a scientific and standardized approach. However, the experience from the development process of a RAG has so far not been systematically summarized. Therefore, our working group will take the experience of the development of the RAG for children with COVID-19 as an example to systematically explore the methodology, advantages, and challenges in the development of the RAG. We shall propose suggestions and reflections for future research, in order to provide a more detailed reference for future development of RAGs. RESULT: The development of the RAG by a group of 67 researchers from 11 countries took 50 days from the official commencement of the work (January 28, 2020) to submission (March 17, 2020). A total of 21 meetings were held with a total duration of 48 h (average 2.3 h per meeting) and an average of 16.5 participants attending. Only two of the ten recommendations were fully supported by direct evidence for COVID-19, three recommendations were supported by indirect evidence only, and the proportion of COVID-19 studies among the body of evidence in the remaining five recommendations ranged between 10 and 83%. Six of the ten recommendations used COVID-19 preprints as evidence support, and up to 50% of the studies with direct evidence on COVID-19 were preprints. CONCLUSIONS: In order to respond to public health emergencies, the development of RAG also requires a clear and transparent formulation process, usually using a large amount of indirect and non-peer-reviewed evidence to support the formation of recommendations. Strict following of the WHO RAG handbook does not only enhance the transparency and clarity of the guideline, but also can speed up the guideline development process, thereby saving time and labor costs

Methodology and experiences of rapid advice guideline development for children with COVID-19: responding to the COVID-19 outbreak quickly and efficiently.

BACKGROUND Rapid Advice Guidelines (RAG) provide decision makers with guidance to respond to public health emergencies by developing evidence-based recommendations in a short period of time with a scientific and standardized approach. However, the experience from the development process of a RAG has so far not been systematically summarized. Therefore, our working group will take the experience of the development of the RAG for children with COVID-19 as an example to systematically explore the methodology, advantages, and challenges in the development of the RAG. We shall propose suggestions and reflections for future research, in order to provide a more detailed reference for future development of RAGs. RESULT The development of the RAG by a group of 67 researchers from 11 countries took 50 days from the official commencement of the work (January 28, 2020) to submission (March 17, 2020). A total of 21 meetings were held with a total duration of 48 h (average 2.3 h per meeting) and an average of 16.5 participants attending. Only two of the ten recommendations were fully supported by direct evidence for COVID-19, three recommendations were supported by indirect evidence only, and the proportion of COVID-19 studies among the body of evidence in the remaining five recommendations ranged between 10 and 83%. Six of the ten recommendations used COVID-19 preprints as evidence support, and up to 50% of the studies with direct evidence on COVID-19 were preprints. CONCLUSIONS In order to respond to public health emergencies, the development of RAG also requires a clear and transparent formulation process, usually using a large amount of indirect and non-peer-reviewed evidence to support the formation of recommendations. Strict following of the WHO RAG handbook does not only enhance the transparency and clarity of the guideline, but also can speed up the guideline development process, thereby saving time and labor costs

The gut microbiome dysbiosis and regulation by fecal microbiota transplantation: umbrella review

BackgroundGut microbiome dysbiosis has been implicated in various gastrointestinal and extra-gastrointestinal diseases, but evidence on the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for therapeutic indications remains unclear.MethodsThe gutMDisorder database was used to summarize the associations between gut microbiome dysbiosis and diseases. We performed an umbrella review of published meta-analyses to determine the evidence synthesis on the efficacy and safety of FMT in treating various diseases. Our study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022301226).ResultsGut microbiome dysbiosis was associated with 117 gastrointestinal and extra-gastrointestinal. Colorectal cancer was associated with 92 dysbiosis. Dysbiosis involving Firmicutes (phylum) was associated with 34 diseases. We identified 62 published meta-analyses of FMT. FMT was found to be effective for 13 diseases, with a 95.56% cure rate (95% CI: 93.88–97.05%) for recurrent Chloridoids difficile infection (rCDI). Evidence was high quality for rCDI and moderate to high quality for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease but low to very low quality for other diseases.ConclusionGut microbiome dysbiosis may be implicated in numerous diseases. Substantial evidence suggests FMT improves clinical outcomes for certain indications, but evidence quality varies greatly depending on the specific indication, route of administration, frequency of instillation, fecal preparation, and donor type. This variability should inform clinical, policy, and implementation decisions regarding FMT

Ruthenium Complexes as Promising Candidates against Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is one of the most common malignancies with the highest mortality rate and the second-highest incidence rate after breast cancer, posing a serious threat to human health. The accidental discovery of the antitumor properties of cisplatin in the early 1960s aroused a growing interest in metal-based compounds for cancer treatment. However, the clinical application of cisplatin is limited by serious side effects and drug resistance. Therefore, other transition metal complexes have been developed for the treatment of different malignant cancers. Among them, Ru(II/III)-based complexes have emerged as promising anticancer drug candidates due to their potential anticancer properties and selective cytotoxic activity. In this review, we summarized the latest developments of Ru(II/III) complexes against lung cancer, focusing mainly on the mechanisms of their biological activities, including induction of apoptosis, necroptosis, autophagy, cell cycle arrest, inhibition of cell proliferation, and invasion and metastasis of lung cancer cells