RESUMEN

Background: Tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Tix/Cil) shows promise as a prophylactic treatment against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). This study was performed to assess the effectiveness of Tix/Cil for preexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 in this population. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases to identify articles relevant to our study up to December 15, 2023. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (ver. 3.0) was used for data analysis. Results: The meta-analysis included seven eligible retrospective studies, encompassing a total of 4,026 SOTRs. The analysis revealed significant differences in SOTRs who received Tix/Cil preexposure prophylaxis relative to those who did not. Specifically, these differences were observed in the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.60), hospitalization (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.70), and intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.22). However, mortality rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.06). Conclusions: The evidence supporting the effectiveness of Tix/Cil as preexposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 in SOTRs is of a low to moderate level. Further high-quality research is necessary to understand its effects on this population.

RESUMEN

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) with molnupiravir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To end this, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to collect relevant evidence up to February 15, 2023. The risk of bias was evaluated using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Eighteen studies involving 57 659 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed a significant difference between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in terms of all-cause mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.67), all-cause hospitalization rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.54-0.69), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.38-0.99), and negative polymerase chain reaction conversion time (mean difference = -1.55, 95% CI: -1.74 to -1.37). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of COVID-19 rebound (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.71-1.07). In terms of safety, although the incidence of any adverse events was higher in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.57-4.06), no significant difference was observed between the two treatments in terms of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.69-2.00). The present meta-analysis demonstrated the significant superiority of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir over molnupiravir in improving clinical efficacy in COVID-19 patients during the prevalence of Omicron variant. These findings, however, need to be further confirmed.

Asunto(s)

COVID-19 , Humanos , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Ritonavir/efectos adversos , SARS-CoV-2 , Antivirales/efectos adversos

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of opium addiction among Iranians is considerable. Since endogenous opioid systems may be altered as a consequence of addiction, it is very important to determine the plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of morphine in Iranian patients addicted to opiates who will undergo surgery. METHODS: We obtained CSF and plasma samples from 50 volunteers with an established opioid addiction pattern. Samples were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Additionally, frequency of nausea and vomiting, baseline heart rate (BHR), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were recorded within the surgery and postoperatively during a 10-min interval. FINDINGS: 84% of participants were men with a median age of 39.08 years. Mean score of body mass index (BMI) was 23.30 and most of the participants (46%) used opium in its traditional inhaled form. A higher concentration of morphine in blood was found in comparison with CSF (P < 0.001) in relation to the way of use. However, no statistically significant differences were found in relation to the type of addictive substance. No other association was found between the levels of morphine and the clinical characteristics of the patients. Moreover, results revealed no difference between hemodynamic-related data with blood and CSF level in opium-dependent patients. CONCLUSION: Quantification of plasma and CSF morphine, both immediately before initiation of surgery and subsequently on recovery room, showed that although clinical efficacy of systemic morphine was poor in addicted patients, it had no effect on patients' hemodynamic variable and following complications after surgery.