key: cord-0897406-jubwcobb
authors: Wang, J.; Tang, Y.; Ma, Y.; Zhou, Q.; Li, W.; Baskota, M.; Yang, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, Q.; Luo, X.; Fukuoka, T.; Ahn, H. S.; Lee, M. S.; Luo, Z.; Liu, E.; Chen, Y.
title: Efficacy and Safety of Antibiotic Agents in Children with COVID-19: A Rapid Review
date: 2020-04-17
journal: nan
DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.13.20064402
sha: 011b990ec2188e41db4495006bd0f0408fdcd319
doc_id: 897406
cord_uid: jubwcobb

Background: The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antibiotic agents in children with COVID-19, as well as to introduce the present situation of antibiotics use and bacterial coinfections in COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched Cochrane library, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, Wanfang Data and CNKI from their inception to March 31, 2020. In addition, we searched related studies on COVID-19 published before March 31, 2020 through Google Scholar. We evaluated the risk of bias of included studies, and synthesized the results using a qualitative synthesis. Results: Six studies met our inclusion criteria. Five studies on SARS showed an overall risk of death of 7.2% to 20.0%. One study of SARS patients who used macrolides, quinolones or beta lactamases showed that the mean duration of hospital stay was 14.2, 13.8 and 16.2 days, respectively, and their average duration of fever was 14.3, 14.0 and 16.2 days, respectively. One cohort study on MERS indicated that macrolide therapy was not associated with a significant reduction in 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.51, P = 0.56) and improvement in MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.47, -1.64], P = 0.68). According to the findings of 33 studies, the proportion of antibiotics use ranged from 19.4% to 100.0% in children and 13.2% to 100.0% in adults, despite the lack of etiological evidence. The most commonly used antibiotics in adults were quinolones, cephalosporins and macrolides and in children meropenem and linezolid. Conclusions: The benefits of antibiotic agents for adults with SARS or MERS were questionable in the absence of bacterial coinfections. There is no evidence to support the use of antibiotic agents for children with COVID-19 in the absence of bacterial coinfection.

4 a majority of the patients (58.0%) received intravenous antibiotic therapy (12). Moreover, multiple case series and a cohort study of SARS patients testified that the proportion of patients receiving antibiotic agents used in the absence of a confirmed bacterial coinfection was between 50.0% and 100.0%, among whom 50.0% to 96.0% were treated with a combination of several antibiotic agents. The use of antibiotics over a long duration and in combinations of multiple agents not only showed no efficacy to the disease progress, but also caused complications such as potentially fatal secondary infections (13-18). However, some authors have argued that prophylactic use of antibiotics in the early stage can play a role in preventing infections in SARS patients (19) . One study on SARS patients reported one patient recovered after receiving antibacterial treatment alone, and the condition of other patients improved after comprehensive treatment including antibiotics (20).

It is undisputed that antibiotic agents are essential for the treatment of confirmed bacterial infections, but whether antibiotic agents should be used to treat children with COVID-19 still remains a controversial issue. Therefore, we performed a rapid review to assess the value of antibiotic agents in children with COVID-19 and provide supporting evidence for the Rapid Advice Guideline for Management of Children with COVID-19. In addition, we intended to evaluate the current condition of the use of antibiotics and secondary infections in patients with COVID-19.

All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020 . . https://doi.org/10.1101 About the value of antibiotic agents in children with COVID-19, the following seven 

To assess the current condition of the use of antibiotics and bacterial coinfections in patients with COVID-19, we included all case series, case reports and descriptive studies related to COVID-19, which reported the information on antibiotics use or bacterial coinfections. However, we ruled out studies without clear description on whether antibiotics were used for treating COVID-19, such as routinely use antibiotics after surgery or antibiotics used as eye drops. To assess the value of antibiotic use in children with 6 COVID-19, we included studies that met the following criteria: 1) Types of studies: We primarily considered all types of studies about the use of antibiotics to treat patients with COVID-19. If we failed to identify sufficiently many studies, we also included studies about using antibiotics to treat SARS and MERS. 2) Types of participants: Studies including patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (and SARS and MERS if necessary), without restrictions on age, race, gender, geographical location or setting, were included. 3) Types of interventions: We included studies that compared the outcomes between patients taking antibiotic agents and those not. The types of antibiotics were not limited. We also included case series and case reports on comprehensive treatment with antibiotics and other drugs.

Studies that only mentioned antibiotic treatment without explaining the specific methods of use and treatment effects were excluded. 4) Types of outcomes: The primary outcomes were mortality, duration of hospitalization and duration of fever. Secondary outcomes included chest X-ray absorptivity and other relevant indicators mentioned in the included studies.

We excluded: 1) animal studies and in vitro experiments; 2) studies not published in English or Chinese; 3) duplicates; or 4) conference abstracts, comments, and similar documents.

After eliminating duplicates, two reviewers performed independent searches in two steps as described below. Discrepancies were settled by discussion or consultation with a third reviewer. We used the bibliographic software EndNote. Prior to the formal selection, a All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020 . . https://doi.org/10.1101 training exercise of a random sample of 50 citations was conducted to ensure the reliability and feasibility of selection, until sufficient agreement on the selecting methods was reached.

Step 1, all titles and abstracts were screened using pre-defined criteria. Studies were categorized into three groups (potentially eligible, excluded, and unclear). In Step 2, fulltexts of potentially eligible and unclear studies were reviewed to identify the final inclusion.

All reasons for exclusion of ineligible studies were recorded, and the process of study selection was documented using a PRISMA flow diagram (21).

Two reviewers extracted the data independently with a standard data collection form. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus, and a third reviewer checked the consistency and accuracy of the data. Before the formal extraction, the form was piloted on a random sample of three included studies. The extraction form was finalized after counselling with clinicians.

Data extracted included: 1) Basic information: title, first author, publication year, study design and sample size; 2) Participants: baseline characteristics and disease of patients; 3) Details of the intervention and control conditions; and 4) Outcomes. For dichotomous outcomes, we abstracted the number of events and total number participants in each group; for continuous outcomes, we abstracted means, standard deviations (SD), and the number of total participants in each group. Outcomes with zero events were reported, but excluded from analysis. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020 . . https://doi.org/10.1101 About the case series and case reports of the use of antibiotics and bacterial coinfections in patients with COVID-19, we extracted basic information and the types and ratio of antibiotics and bacterial coinfections.

We applied the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool (22) for RCTs, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale(NOS) (23,24) for cohort studies and case-control studies, and the criteria recommended by the National Institute of Health and Clinical Optimization (NICE) for case series to assess the risk of bias (25). Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias independently following the overall assessment principle and disagreements were discussed in a consensus meeting. We used the above tools to produce a "Risk of Bias" summary table that included items, judgements, and support for judgements.

We did not assess the quality of case series and case reports on the use of antibiotics and bacterial coinfections in patients with COVID-19.

If the data were similar enough to be summarized in a meaningful way, we would conduct a meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3. We would use fixed-effect meta-analysis for combining data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were evaluating the same underlying treatment effect, that was where trials all took the same intervention, and the trials' populations and methods were judged to be sufficiently similar. If the clinical heterogeneity was sufficient enough to expect that the underlying treatment effects differ All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020 . . https://doi.org/10.1101 between trials, or if statistical heterogeneity was detected (I²statistic > 50%), we used a random-effects meta-analysis to produce an overall summary, on the condition that an average treatment effect across trials was considered clinically meaningful. A qualitative synthesis was performed when significant heterogeneity existed.

For the case series and case reports on the use of antibiotics and bacterial coinfections in patients with COVID-19, we only described the current situation.

Two reviewers (Jianjian Wang and Yuyi Tang) assessed the quality of evidence independently by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. In the GRADE approach, direct evidence from RCTs begins at high quality, and evidence from observational studies at low level. The quality can be downgraded for five reasons (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) and upgraded for three reasons (large magnitude of effect, dose-response relation, and plausible confounders or biases) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) . In order to reflect the extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct, the quality of evidence will be graded as high, moderate, low, or very low. We produced a "Summary of Findings" table, which presented the overall quality of a body of evidence for each outcome, by using the GRADEpro software (32, 33) . We did not assess the quality of evidence of the case series and case reports on the use of antibiotics and bacterial coinfections in patients with COVID-19.

All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020 . . https://doi.org/10.1101 As COVID-19 is a public health emergency of international concern and the situation is evolving rapidly, our study was not registered in order to speed up the process (34) .

The literature search ( Figure 1 ) yielded 2183 relevant records of studies on the value of the use of antibiotic agents (including studies on SARS and MERS), 778 of which were duplicates. After application of the exclusion criteria, six studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. There were no studies on COVID-19, therefore, we included studies on SARS and MERS fulfilling the inclusion criteria.

The six included studies were published between 2003 and 2019 (18, [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] . Sample sizes ranged between 10 and 349, with a total of 626 participants ( Table 1) . All participants of the six studies were adults; no studies on children were found. Five studies investigated SARS patients and one study enrolled patients with MERS. Due to the significant heterogeneity, we only conducted qualitative synthesis instead of a meta-analysis.

An overview of the quality of the included studies is presented in Table 1 . Four case series had a moderate risk (score 4 to 5 out of 8), one case series had a high risk (score 2 out of 8), and the cohort study had a low risk (score 8 out of 9). All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.13.20064402 doi: medRxiv preprint

Mortality was the main outcome of all studies. In one study on SARS patients who took cephalosporin, macrolides and some broad-spectrum antibiotics, the risk of death was 13.0% (35) . One case series of SARS patients showed that the risk of death in patients who used macrolides, quinolones and beta lactamases separately was 6.7%, 3.3% and 13.0%, respectively (36) . Another case series of SARS patients showed a risk of death of 14.3% after using antibiotic agents for patients with confirmed secondary infection (37) . One case series of patients using broad-spectrum antibiotics in the first two days, and another case series where the participants used a combination of beta-lactams and macrolide, showed overall risk of death of 10.9% and 20.0%, respectively (18, 38) . For MERS patients (39), there was no difference in the risk of death between patients treated with or without macrolide (adjusted OR=0.84, 95% CI [0.47, 1.51], P=0.56).

Only one study of SARS patients investigated the duration of hospital stay. In patients who used macrolides, quinolones or beta lactamases, the mean duration of hospital stay was 14.2, 13.8, and 16.2 days, respectively (36) .

All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020. . https://doi.org/10. 1101 One case series investigated the time from hospitalization until reaching normal body temperature in SARS patients. Patients treated with macrolides, quinolones or beta lactamases had an average fever duration of 14.3, 14.0, or 16.2 days, respectively (36) .

One study of MERS patients revealed that macrolide therapy was not associated with MERS-CoV RNA clearance (adjusted HR=0.88, 95% CI [0.47, 1.64], P = 0.68) (39).

For studies on SARS, the quality of evidence on mortality, duration of hospitalization and duration of fever was very low. The main reason was the risk of bias. For studies on MERS, the quality of evidence for the RNA clearance and 90-day mortality was low ( Table 2) .

We identified 33 studies on COVID-19 that reported on antibiotic use or bacterial coinfections. Four studies on children with COVID-19 revealed that the proportion of the use of antibiotics ranged from 19.4% to 100.0% ( Table 3) . The most commonly used types were meropenem and linezolid. However, none of the four studies mentioned etiological findings. Twenty-nine studies of COVID-19 in adults showed that 13.2% to 100.0% of patients received antibiotics during hospital stay. The most commonly used types in adults were quinolones (especially moxifloxacin) cephalosporin and macrolides. However, only 1.0% to 27.3% of the patients had bacterial coinfections and the most common pathogens All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020. . https://doi.org/10. 1101 were Gram-negative bacillus such as Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae. (12, .

There is no direct evidence to support the efficacy of antibiotic agents in children with COVID-19. A high proportion of patients with COVID-19 were treated with antibiotics, despite the lack of etiological evidence. Current evidence suggests that secondary bacterial infections such as Acinetobacter baumannii and Klebsiella pneumoniae may occur in COVID-19 patients, and antibiotic agents are widely used in the clinical treatment of COVID-19. For SARS, evidence suggests that early use of antibiotics has no effect on the clinical outcomes, but the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics increased the risk of dysbacteriosis, which can cause nosocomial infections. However, when bacterial infections are identified, rational use of antibiotic agents showed valid results in relieving symptoms and reducing the leukocyte count.

The use of antibiotic agents is one of the most important clinical questions related to the management of COVID-19 in children. Most current guidelines suggest avoiding use of antibiotic agents blindly or inappropriately. They should only be used when there are confirmed secondary bacterial infections (72) . Meanwhile, some guidelines and expert consensus statements believe that the use of antibiotic agents could be taken into consideration after glucocorticoid treatment, or if the patient has severe or critical illness, extensive lesion range, or large amount of airway secretions (73) . A systematic review of non-severe pneumonia in children however found no evidence to support or question the continued use of antibiotic agents in children with non-severe pneumonia (74) . Some All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020. . https://doi.org/10. 1101 researchers have emphasized the importance of toxic side effects and drug resistance to antibiotics (75) , and many studies have also analyzed the bacterial types and drug resistance of secondary bacterial infections in SARS patients. Secondary infections are considered as an important risk factor for mortality in SARS patients (76, 77) . This is the first systematic review aiming to assess the application of antibiotic agents for children with COVID-19. This study summarizes the literature on the efficacy and safety of antibiotic agents in the treatment of patients with COVID-19, SARS, and MERS.

Both the amount and quality of the literature covered by this systematic review are however limited. This review mainly covered studies on the treatment of COVID-19 in adults and on SARS and MERS since we found no direct evidence for the treatment of COVID-19 in children. Due to the difference of patients' inclusion criteria, treatment protocols, and outcomes measures among different studies, we were unable to carry out a meta-analysis.

Therefore, high-quality clinical trials are needed to further confirm the efficacy of antibiotic agents for children with COVID-19. In addition, future studies should allow sufficient follow-up time and focus more on the adverse reactions to better evaluate the safety of antibiotic agents. Since the outbreak of COVID-19 is a public health emergency, in order to complete the rapid review as fast as possible, this review was not registered.

In summary, we found no direct evidence to support the efficacy of antibiotic agents in children with COVID-19. Therefore, it remains unclear whether antibiotic agents should be used to treat children with COVID-19. Our rapid review showed that the benefits of antibiotics for adults infected with SARS or MERS was questionable in the absence of All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020. 

We thank Janne Estill, Institute of Global Health of University of Geneva for providing guidance and comments for our review. We thank all the authors for their wonderful collaboration. (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020. (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020 . . https://doi.org/10.1101 (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020. (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020. (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020 . . https://doi.org/10.1101 (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020 . . https://doi.org/10.1101 (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020 . . https://doi.org/10.1101 (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020. (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.13.20064402 doi: medRxiv preprint

All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020 . . https://doi.org/10.1101 (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020 . . https://doi.org/10.1101 

All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 17, 2020 . . https://doi.org/10.1101 

GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias

GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision

GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency

GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness

GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence

GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables

GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool

Available online: www

Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study

Clinical diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of elderly patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome

38 cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome

The secondary infection in the treatment of patients with SARS

A cluster of cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong

Macrolides in critically ill patients with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome

Clinical analysis of 31 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. infection in children from six provinces (autonomous region) of northern China

First case of severe childhood novel coronavirus pneumonia in China

A Case Series of children with 2019 novel coronavirus infection: clinical and epidemiological features

Detection of Covid-19 in Children in Early

Clinical findings in a group of patients infected with the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2) outside of Wuhan, China: retrospective case series

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study

Analysis of Clinical Features of 29 Patients With

Clinical characteristics and treatment strategies of 79 patients with COVID-19

Clinical characteristics and therapeutic procedure for four cases with 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia receiving combined Chinese and Western medicine treatment

Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China

Clinical Characteristics of Imported Cases of COVID-19 in Jiangsu Province: A Multicenter Descriptive Study

Clinical characteristics of novel coronavirus cases in tertiary hospitals in Hubei Province

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in FuYang city, AnHui province

Analysis and recommendations of coronavirus disease 2019 related medication in Fangcang Hospital with 290 cases

Clinical Effectiveness and Case Analysis in 54 NCP Patients Treated with Lianhuaqingwen Granules

Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in pregnancy: analysis of nine cases

A report of clinical diagnosis and treatment of 9 cases of coronavirus disease 2019

Patients in Northeast Chongqing

The clinical characteristics of pneumonia patients coinfected with 2019 novel coronavirus and influenza virus in Wuhan

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of 2019 novel coronavirus infection in children: experts' consensus statement

Management of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19): the Zhejiang experience

Antibiotic therapy versus no antibiotic therapy for children aged two to 59 months with WHO-defined non-severe pneumonia and wheeze

The research and analysis of future potential applications of the antibiotic. The #63

COVID-19" #2. TOPIC: "SARS-COV-2" #3. TOPIC

Wuhan Coronavirus" #13.TOPIC: "Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus

SARS-Related" #21.TOPIC: "SARS-Associated

Anti-Bacterial Agents" #24.TOPIC: "Anti Bacterial Agents" #25.TOPIC: "Antibacterial Agents" #26.TOPIC: "Anti-Bacterial Compounds" #27.TOPIC: "Anti Bacterial Compounds" #28.TOPIC: "Bacteriocidal Agents" #29.TOPIC: "Bacteriocides" #30.TOPIC: "Anti-Mycobacterial Agents" #31.TOPIC: "Anti Mycobacterial Agents" #32.TOPIC: "Antimycobacterial" #33.TOPIC: "Antibiotic" #34.TOPIC: "Antibiotics" #35.TOPIC: "Antimicrobial Agents" #36.TOPIC: "Anti-infective agents" #37.TOPIC: "Monobactams" #38.TOPIC: "Monobactam Antibiotics" #39.TOPIC: "Monocyclic beta-Lactams" #40.TOPIC: "Monocyclic beta Lactams" #41.TOPIC: "Beta-lactam antibiotic*" #42.TOPIC: "Penicillins" #43.TOPIC: "Penicillin Antibiotic*" #44.TOPIC: "Amoxicillin" #45.TOPIC: "Cephalosporins" #46.TOPIC: "Cephalosporin Antibiotics" #47.TOPIC: "Cephalosporanic Acids

抗菌药物

抗细菌药

抗菌素

内酰胺

#23

青霉素

青霉素类

阿莫西林

阿莫西林

头孢菌素类

头孢

大环内酯

大环内酯类

阿奇霉素

氟喹诺酮

四环素

四环素

万古霉素

万古霉素

No reuse allowed without permission. (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity

COVID-19

COVID 19

2019-nCoV

2019-CoV

SARS-CoV-2

武汉冠状病毒

中东呼吸综合征

MERS

MERS-CoV

严重急性呼吸综合征

SARS

抗菌药物

抗细菌药

抗菌素

内酰胺

No reuse allowed without permission. (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. #19

青霉素

阿莫西林

头孢

大环内酯

阿奇霉素

氟喹诺酮

四环素

万古霉素

#28.#14-#27/ OR #29.#13 AND #28 CNKI #1

COVID-19

COVID 19

2019-nCoV

2019-CoV

SARS-CoV-2

武汉冠状病毒

中东呼吸综合征

No reuse allowed without permission. (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. #9

MERS-CoV

严重急性呼吸综合征

SARS

抗菌药物

抗细菌药

抗菌素

内酰胺

#19

青霉素

阿莫西林

头孢

大环内酯

阿奇霉素

氟喹诺酮

四环素

万古霉素

No reuse allowed without permission. (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted

Children 31 / 6 (19.4%) / / Chen F, 2020 (41) Case report Children 1 Meropenem, Linezolid 1 (100.0%) / / Cai JH, 2020 (42) Case report Children 10 / 5 (50.0%) / / Liu WY, 2020 (43) Case report Children 6 / 6 (100.0%) / / Xu XW, 2020 (44) Case