Currently approved therapies for COVID‐19 are mostly limited by their low availability, high costs or the requirement of parenteral administration by trained medical personnel in an in‐hospital setting. Quercetin is a cheap and easily accessible therapeutic option for COVID‐19 patients. However, it has not been evaluated in a systematic review until now. We aimed to conduct a meta‐analysis to assess the effect of quercetin on clinical outcomes in COVID‐19 patients. Various databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from inception until 5 October 2022 and results from six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were pooled using a random‐effects model. All analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure. Quercetin decreased the risk of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.99) and the incidence of hospitalisation (OR = 0.25; 95% CI 0.10–0.62) but did not decrease the risk of all‐cause mortality and the rate of no recovery. Quercetin may be of benefit in COVID‐19 patients, especially if administered in its phytosome formulation which greatly enhances its bioavailability but large‐scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Awake prone positioning (APP) has been widely applied in non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, the results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of APP and to identify the subpopulations that may benefit the most from it. Methods: We searched five electronic databases from inception to August 2022 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022342426). We included only RCTs comparing APP with supine positioning or standard of care with no prone positioning. Our primary outcomes were the risk of intubation and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included the need for escalating respiratory support, length of ICU and hospital stay, ventilation-free days, and adverse events. Results: We included 11 RCTs and showed that APP reduced the risk of requiring intubation in the overall population (RR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74–0.95; moderate certainty). Following the subgroup analyses, a greater benefit was observed in two patient cohorts: those receiving a higher level of respiratory support (compared with those receiving conventional oxygen therapy) and those in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (compared to patients in non-ICU settings). APP did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.77–1.11; moderate certainty) and did not increase the risk of adverse events. Conclusions: In patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, APP likely reduced the risk of requiring intubation, but failed to demonstrate a reduction in overall mortality risk. The benefits of APP are most noticeable in those requiring a higher level of respiratory support in an ICU environment.