简介：AbstractBackground:The global pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major public health problem and presents an unprecedented challenge. However, no specific drugs were currently proven. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions in patients with COVID-19.Methods:Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/SARS-CoV. Random-effects network meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework was performed, followed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system assessing the quality of evidence. The primary outcome of interest includes mortality, cure, viral negative conversion, and overall adverse events (OAEs). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated as the measure of effect size.Results:Sixty-six RCTs with 19,095 patients were included, involving standard of care (SOC), eight different antiviral agents, six different antibiotics, high and low dose chloroquine (CQ_HD, CQ_LD), traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), corticosteroids (COR), and other treatments. Compared with SOC, a significant reduction of mortality was observed for TCM (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20-0.56, moderate quality) and COR (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.96, low quality) with improved cure rate (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.60-2.91, low quality for TCM; OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.05-1.30, low quality for COR). However, an increased risk of mortality was found for CQ_HD vs. SOC (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 1.18-8.73, low quality). TCM was associated with decreased risk of OAE (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.70, very low quality) but CQ_HD (OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.20-5.24) and interferons (IFN) (OR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.02-7.08) vs. SOC with very low quality were associated with an increased risk.Conclusions:COR and TCM may reduce mortality and increase cure rate with no increased risk of OAEs compared with standard care. CQ_HD might increase the risk of mortality. CQ, IFN, and other antiviral agents could increase the risk of OAEs. The current evidence is generally uncertain with low-quality and further high-quality trials are needed.

简介：AbstractBackground:Clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis (CADM) is a unique sub-type of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies with a high prevalence of interstitial lung disease (ILD). Poor prognosis of the patients was strongly associated with rapid progressive ILD. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for prediction of different types of ILD in CADM.Methods:In this study, data of 108 inpatients with CADM were collected, including 87 with ILD. The baseline clinical data and laboratory parameters, including myositis-specific and associated antibodies and tumor-associated antigens were analyzed to identify risk factors for acute or subacute interstitial pneumonitis (A/SIP) and chronic interstitial pneumonitis (CIP).Results:In 87 patients with CADM-ILD, 39 (36.1%) were A/SIP, and 48 (44.4%) were CIP. There were 22 (20.4%) patients with asymptomatic ILD who were detected by routine high resolution computed tomography. Cytokeratin-19 fragment (CYFRA21-1) was significantly higher in CADM-ILD than that in CADM patients without ILD; carcinoembryonic antigen and neuron-specific enolase were significantly elevated in A/SIP than that in CIP. Patients with A/SIP had a higher positive rate of anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5), while patients with CIP had a higher positive rate of anti PL-12 and anti-Ro-52. Logistic regression analysis indicated that elevation of CYFRA21-1 was a risk factor for ILD, higher titer of anti-MDA5 indicated increased likelihood for A/SIP, and higher titer of anti-Ro-52 was also clearly associated with CIP.Conclusions:This study indicated that the prevalence of ILD was high in CADM. Asymptomatic ILD has been previously underestimated. Anti-MDA5 was a risk factor for the presence of A/SIP, and CYFRA21-1 was a risk factor for ILD.

简介：AbstractBackground:At the end of 2019, a novel coronavirus outbreak causative organism has been subsequently designated the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The effectiveness of adjunctive glucocorticoid therapy in the management of 2019-nCoV-infected patients with severe lower respiratory tract infections is not clear, and warrants further investigation.Methods:The present study will be conducted as an open-labeled, randomized, controlled trial. We will enrol 48 subjects from Chongqing Public Health Medical Center. Each eligible subject will be assigned to an intervention group (methylprednisolone via intravenous injection at a dose of 1-2 mg/kg/day for 3 days) or a control group (no glucocorticoid use) randomly, at a 1:1 ratio. Subjects in both groups will be invited for 28 days of follow-up which will be scheduled at four consecutive visit points. We will use the clinical improvement rate as our primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints include the timing of clinical improvement after intervention, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospitalization, overall incidence of adverse events, as well as rate of adverse events at each visit, and mortality at 2 and 4 weeks.Discussion:The present coronavirus outbreak is the third serious global coronavirus outbreak in the past two decades. Oral and parenteral glucocorticoids have been used in the management of severe respiratory symptoms in coronavirus-infected patients in the past. However, there remains no definitive evidence in the literature for or against the utilization of systemic glucocorticoids in seriously ill patients with coronavirus-related severe respiratory disease, or indeed in other types of severe respiratory disease. In this study, we hope to discover evidence either supporting or opposing the systemic therapeutic administration of glucocorticoids in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019.Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, ChiCTR2000029386, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=48777.