Background: Many recent studies have investigated the role of drug interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, an important question has been raised about how to select the effective and secure medications for COVID-19 patients. The aim of this analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of the various medications available for severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients based on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs). Methods: We did an updated network meta-analysis. We searched the databases from inception until July 31, 2021, with no language restrictions. We included RPCTs comparing 49 medications and placebo in the treatment of severe and non-severe patients (aged 18 years or older) with COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on the trial and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, the ratios of virological cure, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect estimates. Results: From 3,869 publications, we included 61 articles related to 73 RPCTs (57 in non-severe COVID-19 patients and 16 in severe COVID-19 patients), comprising 20,680 patients. The mean sample size was 160 (interquartile range 96–393) in this study. The median duration of follow-up drugs intervention was 28 days (interquartile range 21–30). For increase in virological cure, we only found that proxalutamide (OR 9.16, 95% CI 3.15–18.30), ivermectin (OR 6.33, 95% CI 1.22–32.86), and low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.29, 95% CI 1.12–24.99) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo, in which proxalutamide seemed to be better than low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.69, 95% CI 2.43–17.65). For decrease in all-cause mortality, we found that proxalutamide (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.09–0.19), imatinib (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25–0.96), and baricitinib (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42–0.82) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we only found that immunoglobulin gamma (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08–0.89) was related to severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo. For change in treatment-emergent adverse events, we only found that sotrovimab (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13–0.34) was associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we did not find any medications that presented a statistical difference when compared with placebo among severe COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: We conclude that marked variations exist in the efficacy and safety of medications between severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19. It seems that monoclonal antibodies (e.g., low dosage bamlanivimab, baricitinib, imatinib, and sotrovimab) are a better choice for treating severe or non-severe COVID-19 patients. Clinical decisions to use preferentially medications should carefully consider the risk-benefit profile based on efficacy and safety of all active interventions in patients with COVID-19 at different levels of infection.

BackgroundFew studies have attempted to compare the differences in the prevalence and impact factors of hysterical tendencies (HTs) in adolescents. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine gender differences in the prevalence and impact factors of adolescents’ HTs across three eastern Chinese provinces (Anhui, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang).MethodsA multicenter, school-based, cross-sectional study was conducted in three provinces (Anhui, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang) in China in 2014. The sample included 10,131 middle-school students aged 13–18 years who were randomly selected using a multiphase, stratified, cluster sampling technique. A two-stage appraisal procedure was used to determine the adolescents’ HTs. We also designed a multicenter, school-based, case control (1329 cases with 2661 control individuals) study to collect data on the common factors affecting this population using a common protocol and questionnaire.ResultsAn overall positive rate of HTs among adolescents across the three eastern Chinese provinces studied was found at 13.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.5–13.8%), at 14.5% (95% CI 13.3–15.7%) for females, and at 12.2% (95% CI 11.1–13.4%) for males. Gender-stratified, multiple conditional regression analyses revealed that superstitious beliefs pertaining to life, somatotype, teacher–student satisfaction, and family achievement orientation were significantly linked to HTs only in males, while left-behind adolescents, emotional and social adaptation, teacher–student support, family cohesion, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression scores were significantly associated with female HTs only. The models indicated that of all the independent variables studied, family medical history was the strongest impact factor for both male HTs (adjusted matched odds ratio (amOR) = 2.92, 95% CI = 1.84–4.86) and female HTs (amOR = 2.74, 95% CI = 1.59–4.98).ConclusionsHTs are prevalent among adolescents in the three eastern Chinese provinces studied. Gender differences in the prevalence and impact factors of HTs are significant in adolescents, and HTs seem to affect more females than males. Therefore, sex-specific intervention programs against HTs in adolescents should be considered to reduce HT prevalence in adolescents by modifying influential social, school, and family factors.

Improvements in immunity, early case identification and treatment, and personal protection measures are key to addressing the high human avian influenza A(H7N9) case fatality rate.