COVID-19

Antiviral Therapies for Adults with Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Infection

Nathan Hinkle — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 21:39:53 +0000

Date Added:

June 30, 2026

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

The American Medical Association

Publication Date:

June 30, 2026

Pages:

E1-E2

URL:

Antiviral Therapies for Adults with Mild to Moderate COVID-19 Infection

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

doi: 10.1001/jama.2026.6918

Keywords

MeSH

RPR Commentary: 2025 Clinical Practice Guideline Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) on the Treatment and Management of COVID-19: Antiviral Treatment for Mild to Moderate COVID-19 in Adults. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

With increasing population immunity through vaccination and prior infection, the risk of severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death has substantially decreased in all age groups in the US since 2021.1 However, certain populations, especially those aged 65 years or older, remain at increased risk for progression to severe disease. This updated guideline provides a risk-stratified approach to antiviral therapies for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 (defined as symptoms of respiratory infection with oxygen saturation >94% while breathing room air). Antiviral therapies are most effective when initiated within 5 to 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset.

Author/s:

Kristen M. Marks, Andrew M. Davis

Measles 2025

Megan George — Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:42:59 +0000

Date Added:

January 5, 2026

Journal/Publication:

New England Journal of Medicine

Publication Date:

June 25, 2025

URL:

Measles 2025

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1056/NEJMra2504516

Keywords

MeSH

Vaccination Hesitancy

World Health Organization

Immunization Programs

Measles Vaccine

A review of our current understanding of measles. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

View

Measles is a highly contagious virus with a primary case reproduction number (i.e., the average number of secondary cases per case patient) of 12 to 18. It is currently spreading rapidly owing to reduced measles vaccination coverage, which is due primarily to the disruption of local immunization programs by the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic and of growing vaccine hesitancy.1 Since 2024, all World Health Organization (WHO) regions have reported increased numbers of measles cases, with 395,521 laboratory-confirmed measles cases reported in 2024 and 16,147 reported during the first 2 months of 2025.2 Patients in more than half the reported cases were hospitalized, so the true number is probably much higher.3
This review covers clinical presentations and complications of measles, current recommendations, and the epidemiologic background of measles. It also addresses the current debates on immunization and the treatment of measles and presents information on the origins of the various measles vaccines and updates on measles diagnostic testing and molecular genotypes.

Author/s:

Lien Anh Ha Do, Kim Mulholland

What Do I Need to Know About the Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?

Megan George — Tue, 21 Oct 2025 13:35:47 +0000

Date Added:

October 21, 2025

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Internal Medicine Patient Page

Publication Date:

October 20, 2025

URL:

What Do I Need to Know About the Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?

Type:

Patient Education Materials

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.5277

Keywords

'Vaccination

Infectious diseases

Patient Information

Pneumococcal Vaccines

PMID (1):

41114997

MeSH

23-valent pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide vaccine

pneumonia

13-valent pneumococcal vaccine

spleen

COVID-19

Streptococcus pneumoniae

Influenza

Pneumococcal Vaccines

Pneumococcal Infections

Hypersensitivity

Herpes Zoster

Information for patients about pneumococcal immunizations. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

View

What Is the Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?
The pneumococcal vaccine protects against infections from a type of bacteria called pneumococcus. Pneumococcus is a common cause of pneumonia (a lung infection), as well as other serious infections. The vaccine prepares your immune system to recognize and fight pneumococcal bacteria. The vaccine is usually given through an injection into the arm. Some versions can also be inhaled. The vaccines do not contain living or dead bacteria. The pneumococcal vaccine does not protect you from other lung infections like the flu (influenza), COVID-19, RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), or other kinds of bacteria that cause pneumonia. It is still important to get your flu shot every year and other vaccines your doctor recommends, even if you already got the pneumococcal vaccine.

What Are Benefits of Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccines?
The vaccine substantially lowers your risk of hospitalization or dying from serious pneumococcal infection. Vaccination can reduce the risk of pneumonia-related deaths by almost half.

Why Is There a New Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine, and How Does It Differ From Prior Versions?
There are several types of pneumococcal bacteria that can cause pneumonia. Being vaccinated against one type of pneumococcus may not protect you from other types that could make you sick. Previous pneumococcal pneumonia vaccines like PPSV23 or PCV13 do not protect against all types of the pneumococcal bacteria that cause pneumonia. Newer vaccines were made in 2021 (PCV15 and PCV20) and 2024 (PCV21). These help to prevent infections from types of bacteria not covered by older versions.

What Are the Potential Side Effects?
Side effects are frequent but generally mild. The most common side effect is pain or redness at the site of injection. Less common side effects include fever, feeling tired, muscle ache, and headache. These are less severe than for other vaccines like flu and shingles. These effects can be treated with over-the-counter medications and generally go away within 24 to 48 hours. Life-threatening allergic reactions are extremely rare but possible. Seek immediate medical attention if you experience severe symptoms like difficulty breathing or progressive weakness after vaccination. The pneumonia vaccine cannot cause pneumonia or other bacterial illness.

Who Should Get a New Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine?
All adults 50 years and older who have not been vaccinated should receive one of the new vaccines: PCV21, PCV20, or a sequence of PCV15 followed by PPSV23. People younger than 50 years with certain health problems should also get the new vaccine. These health problems include diabetes; chronic conditions affecting the heart, lungs, liver, or kidneys; current tobacco use or heavy alcohol consumption; a weak immune system from certain health problems or medications; absence or prior removal of the spleen; and a history of spinal fluid leak or a cochlear (inner ear) implant.

Most adults who got either PPSV23 and/or PCV13 should still get a booster with one of the newer vaccines. The different pneumococcal vaccines protect against different types of bacteria. Some types of bacteria are more common in people depending on their age, health, and where they live. Talk to your doctor about which vaccine is best for you.

Author/s:

Jerard Z. Kneifati-Hayek, Michael A. Incze

An Evidence-Based Approach to Covid-19 Vaccination

Alex Haga — Tue, 27 May 2025 13:16:39 +0000

Date Added:

May 27, 2025

Journal/Publication:

NEJM

Publication Date:

May 20, 2025

URL:

An Evidence-Based Approach to Covid-19 Vaccination

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1056/NEJMsb2506929

Keywords

COVID-19

vaccination

Policy

PMID (1):

40392534

MeSH

COVID-19

vaccination

Policy

An evidence-based review and recommendations regarding COVID vaccination. James W. Mold, MPH

Free full text

View

No abstract available.

Author/s:

Vinay Prasad, Martin A Makary

Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Review

Alex Haga — Wed, 18 Sep 2024 17:02:31 +0000

Date Added:

September 18, 2024

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publication Date:

September 16, 2024

URL:

Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Review

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2024.14796

Keywords

community acquired pneumonia

pneumonia

PMID (1):

39283629

MeSH

pneumonia

Streptococcus pneumoniae

Ceftriaxone

COVID-19

Respiratory Distress Syndrome

A review of current thinking regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients with community acquired pneumonia. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Importance: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) results in approximately 1.4 million emergency department visits, 740 000 hospitalizations, and 41 000 deaths in the US annually.

Observations: Community-acquired pneumonia can be diagnosed in a patient with 2 or more signs (eg, temperature >38 °C or ≤36 °C; leukocyte count <4000/μL or >10 000/μL) or symptoms (eg, new or increased cough or dyspnea) of pneumonia in conjunction with consistent radiographic findings (eg, air space density) without an alternative explanation. Up to 10% of patients with CAP are hospitalized; of those, up to 1 in 5 require intensive care. Older adults (≥65 years) and those with underlying lung disease, smoking, or immune suppression are at highest risk for CAP and complications of CAP, including sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and death. Only 38% of patients hospitalized with CAP have a pathogen identified. Of those patients, up to 40% have viruses identified as the likely cause of CAP, with Streptococcus pneumoniae identified in approximately 15% of patients with an identified etiology of the pneumonia. All patients with CAP should be tested for COVID-19 and influenza when these viruses are common in the community because their diagnosis may affect treatment (eg, antiviral therapy) and infection prevention strategies. If test results for influenza and COVID-19 are negative or when the pathogens are not likely etiologies, patients can be treated empirically to cover the most likely bacterial pathogens. When selecting empirical antibacterial therapy, clinicians should consider disease severity and evaluate the likelihood of a bacterial infection-or resistant infection-and risk of harm from overuse of antibacterial drugs. Hospitalized patients without risk factors for resistant bacteria can be treated with β-lactam/macrolide combination therapy, such as ceftriaxone combined with azithromycin, for a minimum of 3 days. Systemic corticosteroid administration within 24 hours of development of severe CAP may reduce 28-day mortality.

Conclusions: Community-acquired pneumonia is common and may result in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or death. First-line therapy varies by disease severity and etiology. Hospitalized patients with suspected bacterial CAP and without risk factors for resistant bacteria can be treated with β-lactam/macrolide combination therapy, such as ceftriaxone combined with azithromycin, for a minimum of 3 days.

Author/s:

Valerie M Vaughn, Robert P Dickson, Jennifer K Horowit, Scott A Flanders

Personal protective effect of wearing surgical face masks in public spaces on self-reported respiratory symptoms in adults: pragmatic randomised superiority trial

Erin Blanchette — Mon, 26 Aug 2024 15:29:19 +0000

Date Added:

August 26, 2024

Journal/Publication:

BMJ

Publisher:

BMJ Publishing Group

Publication Date:

July 24, 2024

Volume:

386

Pages:

e078918

URL:

Personal protective effect of wearing surgical face masks in public spaces on self-reported respiratory symptoms in adults: pragmatic randomised superiority trial

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1136/bmj-2023-078918

Keywords

respiratory tract infections

PMID (1):

39048132

MeSH

Betacoronavirus

COVID-19

masks

respiratory tract infections

Coronavirus Infections

SARS-CoV-2

Advising high-risk patients to wear facial masks when out in public appears to make some sense. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Objective: To evaluate the personal protective effects of wearing versus not wearing surgical face masks in public spaces on self-reported respiratory symptoms over a 14 day period.

Design: Pragmatic randomised superiority trial.

Setting: Norway.

Participants: 4647 adults aged ≥18 years: 2371 were assigned to the intervention arm and 2276 to the control arm.

Interventions: Participants in the intervention arm were assigned to wear a surgical face mask in public spaces (eg, shopping centres, streets, public transport) over a 14 day period (mask wearing at home or work was not mentioned). Participants in the control arm were assigned to not wear a surgical face mask in public places.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was self-reported respiratory symptoms consistent with a respiratory infection. Secondary outcomes included self-reported and registered covid-19 infection.

Results: Between 10 February 2023 and 27 April 2023, 4647 participants were randomised of whom 4575 (2788 women (60.9%); mean age 51.0 (standard deviation 15.0) years) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 2313 (50.6%) in the intervention arm and 2262 (49.4%) in the control arm. 163 events (8.9%) of self-reported symptoms consistent with respiratory infection were reported in the intervention arm and 239 (12.2%) in the control arm. The marginal odds ratio was 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.87; P=0.001) favouring the face mask intervention. The absolute risk difference was -3.2% (95% CI -5.2% to -1.3%; P<0.001). No statistically significant effect was found on self- reported (marginal odds ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.98; P=0.82) or registered covid-19 infection (effect estimate and 95% CI not estimable owing to lack of events in the intervention arm).

Conclusion: Wearing a surgical face mask in public spaces over 14 days reduces the risk of self-reported symptoms consistent with a respiratory infection, compared with not wearing a surgical face mask.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05690516.

Author/s:

Runar Barstad Solberg, Atle Fretheim, Ingeborg Hess Elgersma, Mette Fagernes, Bjørn Gunnar Iversen, Lars G Hemkens, Christopher James Rose, Petter Elstrøm

Olgotrelvir as a Single-Agent Treatment of Nonhospitalized Patients with Covid-19

Alex Haga — Sun, 16 Jun 2024 18:56:52 +0000

Date Added:

June 16, 2024

Journal/Publication:

NEJM Evidence

Publication Date:

May 28, 2024

Issue:

Volume:

URL:

Olgotrelvir as a Single-Agent Treatment of Nonhospitalized Patients with Covid-19

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1056/EVIDoa2400026

Keywords

COVID-19

Antiviral

oral

PMID (1):

38804790

MeSH

COVID-19

COVID-19 Drug Treatment

SARS-CoV-2

Antiviral Agents* / administration & dosage

Antiviral Agents* / adverse effects

Antiviral Agents* / therapeutic use

Olgotrelvir (Ovydso) is an oral antiviral that can reduce the severity and duration of COVID-19 infections in outpatients. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Background: Olgotrelvir is an oral antiviral with dual mechanisms of action targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease (i.e., Mpro) and human cathepsin L. It has potential to serve as a single-agent treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).

Methods: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olgotrelvir in 1212 nonhospitalized adult participants with mild to moderate Covid-19, irrespective of risk factors, who were randomly assigned to receive orally either 600 mg of olgotrelvir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary and key secondary end points were time to sustained recovery of a panel of 11 Covid-19-related symptoms and the viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) load. The safety end point was incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events.

Results: The baseline characteristics of 1212 participants were similar in the two groups. In the modified intention-to-treat population (567 patients in the placebo group and 558 in the olgotrelvir group), the median time to symptom recovery was 205 hours in the olgotrelvir group versus 264 hours in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 1.46; P<0.001). The least squares mean (95% CI) changes of viral RNA load from baseline were -2.20 (-2.59 to -1.81) log10 copies/ml in olgotrelvir-treated participants and -1.40 (-1.79 to -1.01) in participants receiving placebo at day 4. Skin rash (3.3%) and nausea (1.5%) were more frequent in the olgotrelvir group than in the placebo group; there were no treatment-related serious adverse events, and no deaths were reported.

Conclusions: Olgotrelvir as a single-agent treatment significantly improved symptom recovery. Adverse effects were not dose limiting. (Funded by Sorrento Therapeutics, a parent company of ACEA Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05716425.).

Author/s:

Rongmeng Jiang, Bing Han, Wanhong Xu, Xiaoying Zhang, Chunxian Peng, Qiang Dang, Wei Sun, Ling Lin

Tilt Table Testing

Alex Haga — Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:41:24 +0000

Date Added:

April 23, 2024

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

JAMA

Publication Date:

April 11, 2024

URL:

Tilt Table Testing

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2024.0004

Keywords

Cardiac Catheterization

PMID (1):

38602671

MeSH

hydrocortisone

Methacholine Chloride

Cardiac Catheterization

A summary and example of how to use tilt table testing in patients with syncope and various other fairly common symptoms. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

A 43-year-old woman presented with a 1-year history of recurring symptoms of sudden onset of fatigue, palpitations, dyspnea, chest pain, lightheadedness, and nausea that were associated with standing and resolved with sitting. These symptoms began 1 month after mild COVID-19 infection. At presentation, while supine, blood pressure (BP) was 123/70 mm Hg and heart rate (HR) was 90/min; while seated, BP was 120/80 and HR was 93/min; after standing for 1 minute, BP was 124/80 and HR was 119/min. Physical examination results were normal. Oxygen saturation was 98% at rest while breathing room air. She had no oxygen desaturation during a 6-minute walk test but walked only 282 m (45% predicted). Complete blood cell count, morning cortisol, and thyrotropin blood levels were normal. Electrocardiogram (ECG), chest computed tomography, pulmonary function testing, methacholine challenge, bronchoscopy, echocardiography, and cardiac catheterization findings were normal. During tilt table testing, the patient experienced lightheadedness and nausea when moved from horizontal to the upright position. Results of the tilt table test are shown in the Table and Figure.

Author/s:

Chesire, W.P., Dudenkov, D.V., Munipalli, B.

Tilt Table Testing

Alex Haga — Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:40:59 +0000

Date Added:

April 23, 2024

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

JAMA

Publication Date:

April 11, 2024

URL:

Tilt Table Testing

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2024.0004

Keywords

Cardiac Catheterization

PMID (1):

38602671

MeSH

hydrocortisone

Methacholine Chloride

Cardiac Catheterization

A summary and example of how to use tilt table testing in patients with syncope and various other fairly common symptoms. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Author/s:

Chesire, W.P., Dudenkov, D.V., Munipalli, B.

Dynamics of Naturally-Acquired Immunity Against SARS-CoV-2 in Children and Adolescents

Aubrey Delammermore — Sat, 04 Mar 2023 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

March 4, 2023

Journal/Publication:

The Journal of Pediatrics

Publisher:

Elsevier

Publication Date:

March 2, 2023

URL:

Dynamics of Naturally-Acquired Immunity Against SARS-CoV-2 in Children and Adolescents

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/j.jpeds.2023.02.016

Keywords

COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2

waning immunity

naturally aquired immunity

infection-induced immunity

MeSH

retrospective studies

Children and adolescents appear to develop long-lasting immunity after natural infection with COVID-19. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Background
To evaluate the duration of protection against reinfection conferred by a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents.
Methods
We applied two complementary approaches: a matched test-negative, case-control design and a retrospective cohort design. 458,959 unvaccinated individuals aged 5-18 years were included. Analyses focused on July 1 to December 13, 2021, a period of Delta variant dominance in Israel. We evaluated three SARS-CoV-2-related outcomes: documented PCR confirmed infection or reinfection, symptomatic infection or reinfection, and SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization or death.
Findings
Overall, children and adolescents who were previously infected acquired durable protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 for at least 18 months. Importantly, no SARS-CoV-2-related deaths were recorded in either the SARS-CoV-2 naïve group or the previously infected group. Effectiveness of naturally-acquired immunity against a recurrent infection reached 89.2% (95% CI: 84.7%-92.4%) three to six months after first infection, mildly declining to 82.5% (95% CI, 79.1%-85.3%) 9-12 months after infection, with a slight non-significant waning trend up to 18 months after infection. Additionally, we found that ages 5-11 years exhibited no significant waning of naturally acquired protection throughout the outcome period, whereas waning protection in the 12-18 year-old age group was more prominent, but still mild.
Interpretation
Children and adolescents who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain protected to a high degree for 18 months. Further research is needed to examine naturally-acquired immunity against Omicron and newer emerging variants.

Author/s:

Patalon, T., Saciuk, Y., Perez, G., Peretz, A., Ben-Tov, A., Gazit, S.

Management of chronic respiratory diseases during viral pandemics: A concise review of guidance and recommendations

Aubrey Delammermore — Sat, 07 Jan 2023 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

January 7, 2023

Journal/Publication:

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care

Publisher:

Wolters Kluwer

Publication Date:

November 1, 2022

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

6633-6639

URL:

Management of chronic respiratory diseases during viral pandemics: A concise review of guidance and recommendations

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_974_21

Keywords

asthma

interstitial lung disease

MeSH

Respiration Disorders

pulmonary disease, chronic obstructive

COVID-19

Respiratory Insufficiency

Important evidence-based strategies for reducing morbidity and mortality from acute respiratory infections in patients with chronic lung diseases. James W. Mold MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is an acute respiratory disease that can lead to respiratory failure and death. Although anticipated that patients with chronic respiratory diseases would be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and more severe presentations of COVID-19, it is striking that these diseases appear to be underrepresented in the comorbidities reported for patients with COVID-19. The first wave of COVID-19 has taught us important lessons concerning the enormous burden on the hospitals, shortage of beds, cross infections and transmissions, which we coped together. However, with the subsequent waves of COVID-19 or any other viral pandemic, to ensure that patients with respiratory illnesses receive adequate management for their diseases while minimizing their hospital visits for their own safety. Hence, we prepared an evidence-based summary to manage outpatients and inpatients suspected or diagnosed with COPD, asthma and ILD based on the experience of the first wave of COVID-19 and recommendations by expert societies and organizations.

Author/s:

Sharma, P., Mishra, M., Dua, R., Saini, L. K., Sindhwani, G.

Antibody Response Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implications for Immunity: A Rapid Living Review

Aubrey Delammermore — Sat, 12 Nov 2022 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 12, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publisher:

US Department of Health and Human Services

Publication Date:

March 15, 2021

Issue:

21-EHC016

URL:

Antibody Response Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implications for Immunity: A Rapid Living Review

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCOVIDIMMUNITY

Keywords

Health Services Research

PMID (1):

33784032

MeSH

Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) induces substantial (around 90%) protection from reinfection for at least 6 months and probably longer. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

The aims of this rapid systematic review are to synthesize evidence on the prevalence, levels, and durability of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection among adults and how antibodies correlate with protective immunity. Given the rapidly evolving evidence within this field, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Evidence-based Practice Center (AHRQ EPC) Program will maintain this report as a living review with planned ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal. We will provide regular report updates as additional evidence becomes available, modifying the scope of the review as new directions in SARS-CoV-2 immunity research emerge. This review was conducted in coordination with the American College of Physicians (ACP) as part of AHRQ’s standing work to provide health professional organizations and systems with evidence reviews to support the development of clinical guidance for their clinician members.

Author/s:

Mackey, K., Arkhipova-Jenkins, I., Armstrong, C., Gean, E., Anderson, J., Paynter, R. A., Helfand, M.

Effect of fluvoxamine on outcomes of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aubrey Delammermore — Sun, 06 Nov 2022 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 6, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Journal of Infection and Public Health

Publisher:

Elsevier B. V.

Publication Date:

October 13, 2022

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

1259-1264

URL:

Effect of fluvoxamine on outcomes of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/j.jiph.2022.10.010

Keywords

Odds Ratio

Artificial respiration

control groups

hospitalization

bibliometrics

PMID (1):

36272390

MeSH

Fluvoxamine can reduce risk of hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Objectives: This meta-analysis investigated the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies published before June 25, 2022. Only clinical studies that compared the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine with other alternatives or placebos in the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included.

Results: Four studies with 1814 patients, of whom 912 received fluvoxamine, were included in this study. Compared with the control group receiving placebo or no therapy, the study group receiving fluvoxamine demonstrated a lower risk of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95 % CI, 0.44-0.79; I2 = 26 %). In addition, the rate of hospitalization remained significantly lower in patients who received fluvoxamine than in the control group (OR, 0.69; 95 % CI, 0.51-0.94; I2 = 36 %). Although the study group demonstrated a lower risk of requirement of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit admission, and mortality than the control group, these differences were nonsignificant. Finally, fluvoxamine use was associated with a similar risk of adverse events as that observed in the control group.

Conclusion: Fluvoxamine can be safely used in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 and can reduce the hospitalization rate or ED visits in these patients.

Keywords: COVID-19; Emergency department; Fluvoxamine; Hospitalization; SARS-CoV-2.

Author/s:

Lu, L., Chao, C., Chang, S., Lan, S., Lai, C.

A review on oral manifestations of COVID-19 disease

Aubrey Delammermore — Sun, 06 Nov 2022 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 6, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care

Publisher:

Wolters Kluwer

Publication Date:

October 1, 2022

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

5879-5886

URL:

A review on oral manifestations of COVID-19 disease

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_205_22

Keywords

MeSH

A comprehensive review of orofacial manifestations that have been associated with COVID-19 infection. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

COVID-19, a multi-system-affecting disease presents with an extensive clinical spectrum, ranging from no symptoms at all to fatal lung involvement. Several orofacial manifestations have also been reported, among which dysgeusia is one of the earliest reported symptoms. Several other manifestations of extensive variety have also been reported by various authors worldwide since the outbreak of the disease. This comprehensive review dispenses a synopsis of the orofacial manifestations of COVID-19 along with a working classification, the knowledge of which is of utmost importance to medical and dental professionals for early detection and prevention of transmission of the disease.

Author/s:

Kumar, H., Nishat, R., Desai, A.

A Hitchhiker's Guide to Worldwide COVID-19 Vaccinations: A Detailed Review of Monovalent and Bivalent Vaccine Schedules, COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects, and Effectiveness Against Omicron and Delta Variants

Aubrey Delammermore — Sun, 09 Oct 2022 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

October 9, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Cureus

Publisher:

Cureus

Publication Date:

October 2, 2022

Issue:

Volume:

URL:

A Hitchhiker's Guide to Worldwide COVID-19 Vaccinations: A Detailed Review of Monovalent and Bivalent Vaccine Schedules, COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects, and Effectiveness Against Omicron and Delta Variants

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.7759/cureus.29837

Keywords

Cost-Benefit Analysis

PMID (1):

36204257

MeSH

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.

delivery of health care

A summary of recommended dosing intervals and effectiveness of currently available COVID-19 vaccines. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

For the primary prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there are currently four different vaccines available in the USA. These are Pfizer (messenger RNA [mRNA]), Moderna (mRNA), Novavax (recombinant protein), and Jansen/Johnson & Johnson (adenoviral vector). All individuals should get vaccinated, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has provided comprehensive guidelines on recommended doses, their frequency by age group, and vaccine types, all discussed in detail in this article. Vaccines are a critical and cost-effective tool for preventing the disease. Prior to receiving a vaccine, patients should get adequate counseling regarding any potential adverse effects post vaccination. Appropriate safety precautions must be taken for those more likely to experience adverse consequences. Healthcare professionals should be aware of the symptoms, indicators, and treatment of any adverse event post-vaccination. We have provided a comprehensive review of the different characteristics of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States, including their effectiveness against various variants, adverse effects, and precautions necessary for healthcare professionals and the general population. This article also briefly covers COVID-19 vaccines available worldwide, specifically their mode of action and effectiveness.

Author/s:

Goyal, L., Zapata, M., Ajmera, K., Churasia, P., Pandit, R., Pandit, T.