Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.4103/ijp.ijp_998_20 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.4103/ijp.ijp_998_20 33283773!8025763!33283773     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=33283773&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215       Indian+J+Pharmacol 2020 ; 52 (5): 414-421 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=33283773|t=2020. Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety of favipiravir in the management of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) patients |pdf=|usr=}}{{33283773}} gab.com Text Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety of favipiravir in the management of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) patients JO: Indian J Pharmacol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33283773 #FOAvip Multiple options are being tried for the management of 2019-nCoV infection since its pandemic started. Favipiravir (FPV) is one of drugs, which is also being tried for the management of 2019-nCoV infection. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FPV in published literature. Comparative randomized or nonrandomized controlled clinical trials comparing FPV to the standard of care (SOC)/control or other antiviral agent/combinations were included. A total of 12 databases were searched and identify four studies which were further used for final analysis. The data analysis was done as pooled prevalence using a random effect model by "RevMan manager version 5.4.1 and "R" software. The point estimate, odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for dichotomous data. In the present study, the marginal beneficial effect was seen in the FPV group in overall clinical improvement comparison to SOC/control, i.e., (4 studies, log OR [95% CI] (-0.19 [-0.51, 0.13]). However, in all other outcomes, it was found to be comparable to the SOC/control arm namely "clinical improvement on day 7-10" (3 studies, OR [95% CI] 1.63 [1.07, 2.48]) while "clinical improvement on day 10-14" (3 studies, OR [95% CI] 1.37 [0.24, 7.82]) and viral negativity was seen (4 studies, OR [95% CI] 1.91 [0.91, 4.01]). No difference in efficacy was found between FPV versus lopinavir/ritonavir or arbidol groups. Regarding adverse effects, except for the occurrence of rash (higher in the FPV group), safety was comparable to SOC. In our study, there was a marginal difference between the FPV and the SOC arm in terms of "clinical improvement" on day 7-10 or 10-14, and "virological negativity" on day 10-14." However, some benefit was observed in a few studies, but it was also comparable to the control drugs or SOC. Twit Text FOAVip Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety of favipiravir in the management of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) patients ????Indian J Pharmacol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33283773 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=33283773 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|33283773}}</ref> Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety of favipiravir in the management of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) patients #MMPMID33283773 Prakash A; Singh H; Kaur H; Semwal A; Sarma P; Bhattacharyya A; Dhibar DP; Medhi B Indian J Pharmacol 2020[Sep]; 52 (5): 414-421 PMID33283773show ga Multiple options are being tried for the management of 2019-nCoV infection since its pandemic started. Favipiravir (FPV) is one of drugs, which is also being tried for the management of 2019-nCoV infection. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FPV in published literature. Comparative randomized or nonrandomized controlled clinical trials comparing FPV to the standard of care (SOC)/control or other antiviral agent/combinations were included. A total of 12 databases were searched and identify four studies which were further used for final analysis. The data analysis was done as pooled prevalence using a random effect model by "RevMan manager version 5.4.1 and "R" software. The point estimate, odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for dichotomous data. In the present study, the marginal beneficial effect was seen in the FPV group in overall clinical improvement comparison to SOC/control, i.e., (4 studies, log OR [95% CI] (-0.19 [-0.51, 0.13]). However, in all other outcomes, it was found to be comparable to the SOC/control arm namely "clinical improvement on day 7-10" (3 studies, OR [95% CI] 1.63 [1.07, 2.48]) while "clinical improvement on day 10-14" (3 studies, OR [95% CI] 1.37 [0.24, 7.82]) and viral negativity was seen (4 studies, OR [95% CI] 1.91 [0.91, 4.01]). No difference in efficacy was found between FPV versus lopinavir/ritonavir or arbidol groups. Regarding adverse effects, except for the occurrence of rash (higher in the FPV group), safety was comparable to SOC. In our study, there was a marginal difference between the FPV and the SOC arm in terms of "clinical improvement" on day 7-10 or 10-14, and "virological negativity" on day 10-14." However, some benefit was observed in a few studies, but it was also comparable to the control drugs or SOC. |*COVID-19 Drug Treatment[MESH] |Amides/adverse effects/*therapeutic use[MESH] |Antiviral Agents/adverse effects/*therapeutic use[MESH] |Humans[MESH] |Pyrazines/adverse effects/*therapeutic use[MESH]Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety of fav(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing