Preventive interventions for post Covid-19 condition: systematic review update
Pillay, J.; Rahman, S.; Gehring, N.; Guitard, S.; Ashiq, A. R.; Hartling, L.
Show abstract
BackgroundPost COVID-19 condition (PCC) can affect individuals regardless of the severity of their initial illness, and its impact on daily life can be significant. There are uncertainties about whether treatments in the acute or post-acute phase of infection can prevent PCC. We report an update to a previous systematic review on the effects of interventions to prevent PCC. MethodsWe updated our previous peer-reviewed searches on February 9, 2024. We searched bibliographic databases and grey literature resources to identify trials and comparative observational studies reporting on any intervention provided during the acute (symptom onset to 4 weeks) or post-acute phase (4-8 weeks) of COVID-19 and our primary outcome of incidence of PCC, ascertained at 3 months or longer following infection and capturing, at a minimum, symptoms of fatigue, dyspnea and one or more aspects of cognitive function. Non-recovery from COVID-19 was included if necessary. Secondary outcomes included fatigue, breathlessness/dyspnea, post-exertional malaise, health-related quality of life, psychopathology, cognitive impairment, hospitalization, return to work/education, and adverse effects of the intervention. For screening we employed artificial intelligence to prioritize records and modified our methods to rely on single-reviewer screening after 50% of citations were screened in duplicate. Study selection and risk of bias assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers and data extraction relied on verification of another reviewers work. We grouped studies by intervention type and timing, and by acute-care setting, and performed meta-analysis where appropriate. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for the primary outcome, excluding studies with high risk of bias, using non-recovery as a proxy outcome, and evaluating the outcome at more than 12 months of follow-up. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. ResultsTwenty-four studies (5 randomized and 19 non-randomized), all among adults, were included. The acute care setting in nine studies was outpatient and in 15 studies was in-patient; all but one intervention was administered during the acute-phase of illness. The use of convalescent plasma in outpatient acute COVID-19 care probably does not reduce the risk of PCC (relative risk [RR]: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.77-1.12; 1 RCT; moderate certainty). There was low-certainty evidence suggesting that probiotics (RR [95% CI]: 0.32 [0.13-0.78]; 1 RCT) and metformin (0.50 [0.25-0.99]; 1 RCT among individuals with a BMI [≥]25 kg/m2) reduce PCC to a small-to-moderate extent in outpatients, while ivermectin (outpatients), antivirals (outpatients), steroids (in-patients), and therapeutic-dose heparin (vs. prophylactic dose; in-patients) may not be effective. Evidence was very low certainty for several other acute-phase pharmacologic intervention and post-acute outpatient assessment and referrals. For outpatient antiviral treatment, while overall PCC risk may not decrease, there might be a slight reduction in psychopathology. Similarly, inpatient antiviral use may not prevent PCC but may offer a small reduction in prolonged general malaise after light exertion. Therapeutic-dose heparin may slightly reduce the risk of cognitive impairment compared to prophylactic-dose heparin among in-patients. The findings remained consistent across all these sensitivity analyses. ConclusionsEvidence suggests that PCC can be prevented to some extent among outpatients with the use of probiotics and metformin during the acute phase of COVID-19. Effects from interventions used among in-patients and within the post-acute phase are uncertain at this time. Evidence on commonly recommended interventions including rehabilitation or multidisciplinary care was lacking. Protocol registrationCRD42024513247
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Colchicine use in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis 94%
- Population risk factors for severe disease and mortality in COVID-19: A global systematic review and meta-analysis 94%
- Laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection triggers for acute myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review protocol 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 93%
- Adverse events of iron and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy in preoperatively anaemic elective surgery patients: a systematic review 93%
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
- Accuracy and clinical effectiveness of risk prediction tools for pressure injury occurrence: An umbrella review 93%
- Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of confounder-adjusted 20212 hospitalized patients 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 95%
- An Analysis of Controlled Human Infection Studies Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 94%
- Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Review and methodological analysis of trials currently testing treatment and prevention options for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) globally. 92%
- GRADING prognostic factors for severe and recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: expected and unexpected findings. A systematic review 91%
- A placebo-controlled double blind trial of hydroxychloroquine in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.