A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

N-acetylcysteine efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is being researched as a potential treatment for COVID-19 pneumonia due to its mucolytic and anti-inflammatory properties.
  • A systematic review analyzed 3 randomized controlled trials and 5 observational studies, involving a total of 21,141 patients, to assess NAC's effects on hospital mortality and the need for ICU care.
  • Findings suggested no conclusive benefits from NAC on key clinical outcomes, highlighting low certainty in the evidence and the need for further studies to confirm its safety and effectiveness in treating COVID-19 pneumonia.

Article Abstract

Background: N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is a mucolytic agents with anti-inflammatory properties that has been suggested as an adjunctive therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate available evidence on the possible beneficial effects of NAC on SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods: In September 2022, we conducted a comprehensive search on Pubmed/Medline and Embase on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on NAC in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed by two independent authors. RCTs and observational studies were analyzed separately.

Results: We included 3 RCTs and 5 non-randomized studies on the efficacy of NAC in patients with COVID-19, enrolling 315 and 20826 patients respectively. Regarding in-hospital mortality, the summary effect of all RCTs was OR: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.43 to 1.67, I=0%) and for non-randomized studies OR: 1.02 (95% CI: 0.47 to 2.23, I=91%). Need for ICU admission was only reported by 1 RCT (OR: 0.86, 95% CI:0.44-1.69, p=0.66), while all included RCTs reported need for invasive ventilation (OR:0.91, 95% CI:0.54 to 1.53, I=0). Risk of bias was low for all included RCTs, but certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes due to serious imprecision and indirectness.

Conclusion: The certainty of evidence in the included studies was very low, thus recommendations for clinical practice cannot be yet made. For all hard clinical outcomes point estimates in RCTs are close to the line of no effect, while observational studies have a high degree of heterogeneity with some of them suggesting favorable results in patients receiving NAC. More research is warranted to insure that NAC is both effective and safe in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/rjim-2023-0001DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

patients covid-19
16
covid-19 pneumonia
12
observational studies
12
included rcts
12
systematic review
8
review meta-analysis
8
rcts observational
8
nac patients
8
risk bias
8
non-randomized studies
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!