Search

Background: Recent clinical trials have investigated the use of fluvoxamine in preventing clinical deterioration in nonhospitalized patients with acute COVID-19 infection via stimulation of sigma-1 receptors, which regulates cytokine production and functional inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase activity, which may prevent infection of epithelial cells with SARS-CoV-2. However, the role of fluvoxamine is currently unclear because of a paucity of studies, particularly because the drug is being repurposed as an immunomodulatory and antiviral agent., Study Question: Aim of our meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of fluvoxamine in nonhospitalized patients with acute COVID-19 infection., Data Source: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Web of Science was performed from inception to February 10, 2022, for studies comparing fluvoxamine versus placebo for outpatient management of COVID-19., Study Design: The primary outcome of interest was rate of hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were rates of patients requiring mechanical ventilation and mortality. The random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RR) and confidence intervals (CI). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I2 index., Results: Three studies (2 randomized controlled trials and one prospective cohort trial) involving 1762 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In patients who received fluvoxamine compared with placebo, there was no significant difference in rates of hospitalization (RR 0.26, 95% CI, 0.04-1.73, P = 0.16, I2 = 62%), mechanical ventilation (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.45-1.19, P = 0.21, I2 = 0%), and mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.37-1.22, P = 0.19, I2 = 0%)., Conclusion: Current evidence does not indicate a significant effect of fluvoxamine on the rates of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and mortality of patients with COVID-19 infection., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) may develop in systolic heart failure or after acute myocardial infarction. The current recommendations support the use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of LVT. Limited data exist regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with LVT. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus VKAs for LVT., Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases through November 2020 for all studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus VKAs in patients with LVT. The primary outcomes were LVT resolution, overall thromboembolic events, and thromboembolic stroke. The secondary outcomes were major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic., Results: A total of 11 studies including 2153 patients with LVT on anticoagulation (570 on DOACs vs. 1583 on VKAs) were included. LVT resolution was significantly higher in DOACs compared with VKAs [RR: 1.18 (95% CI: 1.04-1.35); P = 0.01, I2 = 25%]. However, no significant difference existed between DOACs and VKAs regarding overall thromboembolic events [RR: 1.10 (95% CI: 0.75-1.62); P = 0.61, I2 = 0%] and thromboembolic stroke [RR: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.39-1.02); P = 0.06, I2 = 0%]. Major bleeding [RR: 1.00 (95% CI: 0.66-1.51); P = 0.99, I2 = 4%] and all-cause mortality [RR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.50-1.43); P = 0.53, I2 = 0%] were similar between the 2 groups., Conclusions: DOACs seem to be more efficacious in achieving LVT resolution compared with VKAs. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in thromboembolic events, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)