4.7 Article

Evaluation of safety, efficacy, tolerability, and treatment-related outcomes of type I interferons for human coronaviruses (HCoVs) infection in clinical practice: An updated critical systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 86, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106740

关键词

Human coronavirus; MERS-CoV; SARS-CoV; SARS-CoV-2; Type I interferons

资金

  1. Foundation of Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University
  2. Venture & Innovation Support Program for Chongqing Overseas Retureness [cx2018150]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is no vaccine or specific antiviral treatment for HCoVs infection. The use of type I interferons for coronavirus is still under great debate in clinical practice. Materials and methods: A literature search of all relevant studies published on PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science database, Science Direct, Wanfang Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) until February 2020 was performed. Results: Of the 1081 identified articles, only 15 studies were included in the final analysis. Comorbidities and delay in diagnosis were significantly associated with case mortality. Type I interferons seem to improve respiratory distress, relieve lung abnormalities, present better saturation, reduce needs for supplemental oxygen support. Type I interferons seem to be well tolerated, and don't increase life threating adverse effects. Data on IFNs in HCoVs are limited, heterogenous and mainly observational. Conclusions: Current data do not allow making regarding robust commendations for the use of IFNs in HCoVs in general or in specific subtype. But we still recommend type I interferons serving as first-line antivirals in HCoVs infections within local protocols, and interferons may be adopted to the treatments of the SARS-CoV-2 as well. Well-designed large-scale prospective randomized control trials are greatly needed to provide more robust evidence on this topic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据