-
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis May 2016Minimisation of the placebo responses in randomised controlled trials [RCTs] is essential for efficient evaluation of new interventions. Placebo rates have been high in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Minimisation of the placebo responses in randomised controlled trials [RCTs] is essential for efficient evaluation of new interventions. Placebo rates have been high in ulcerative colitis [UC] clinical trials, and factors influencing this are poorly understood. We quantify placebo response and remission rates in UC RCTs and identify trial design factors influencing them.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception through April 2014 for placebo-controlled trials in adult patients with UC of a biological agent, corticosteroid, immunosuppressant, or aminosalicylate. Data were independently doubly extracted. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
In all, 51 trials [48 induction and 10 maintenance phases] were identified. Placebo response and remission rates were pooled according to random-effects models, and mixed-effects meta-regression models were used to evaluate effects of study-level characteristics on these rates. Pooled estimates of placebo remission and response rates for induction trials were 10% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7-13%) and 33% [95% CI 29-37%], respectively. Corresponding values for maintenance trials were 19% [95% CI 11-30%] and 22% [95% CI 17-28%]. Trials enrolling patients with more active disease confirmed by endoscopy [endoscopy subscore ≥ 2] were associated with lower placebo rates. Conversely, placebo rates increased with increasing trial duration and number of study visits.
CONCLUSIONS
Objective assessment of greater disease activity at trial entry by endoscopy lowered placebo rates, whereas increasing trial duration and more interactions with healthcare providers increased placebo rates. These findings have important implications for design and conduct of clinical trials.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Induction Chemotherapy; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Models, Statistical; Placebo Effect; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26746169
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021This is an updated Cochrane Review, first published in 2006 and updated in 2014. Gout is one of the most common rheumatic diseases worldwide. Despite the use of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated Cochrane Review, first published in 2006 and updated in 2014. Gout is one of the most common rheumatic diseases worldwide. Despite the use of colchicine as one of the first-line therapies for the treatment of acute gout, evidence for its benefits and harms is relatively limited.
OBJECTIVES
To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of colchicine for the treatment of acute gout.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP registries to 28 August 2020. We did not impose any date or language restrictions in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) evaluating colchicine therapy compared with another therapy (placebo or active) in acute gout; low-dose colchicine at clinically relevant doses compared with placebo was the primary comparison. The major outcomes were pain, participant global assessment of treatment success (proportion with 50% or greater decrease in pain from baseline up to 32 to 36 hours), reduction of inflammation, function of target joint, serious adverse events, total adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane in this review update.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four trials (803 randomised participants), including two new trials, in this updated review. One three-arm trial compared high-dose colchicine (52 participants), low-dose colchicine (74 participants) and placebo (59 participants); one trial compared high-dose colchicine with placebo (43 participants); one trial compared low-dose colchicine with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (399 participants); and one trial compared low-dose colchicine with Chuanhu anti-gout mixture (traditional Chinese Medicine compound) (176 participants). We did not identify any trials comparing colchicine to glucocorticoids (by any route). The mean age of participants ranged from 51.2 to 70 years, and trial duration from 48 hours to 12 weeks. Two trials were at low risk of bias, one was possibly susceptible to selection bias (random sequence generation), reporting bias and other bias, and one open-label trial was at high risk of performance and detection bias. For the primary comparison, low-quality evidence from one trial (103 participants, downgraded for imprecision and bias) suggests low-dose colchicine may improve treatment outcome compared to placebo with little or no increased risk of adverse events. The number of people who reported treatment success (50% or greater pain reduction) at 32 to 36 hours was slightly larger with low-dose colchicine (418 per 1000) compared with placebo (172 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 5.64; absolute improvement 25% more reported success (7% more to 42% more, the 95% CIs include both a clinically important and unimportant benefit); relative change of 143% more people reported treatment success (5% more to 464% more). The incidence of total adverse events was 364 per 1000 with low-dose colchicine compared with 276 per 1000 with placebo: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.56; absolute difference 9% more events with low-dose colchicine (9% fewer to 43% more, the 95% CIs include both a clinically important effect and no effect); relative change of 32% more events (32% fewer to 156% more). No participants withdrew due to adverse events or reported any serious adverse events. Pain, inflammation and function were not reported. Low-quality evidence (downgraded for imprecision and bias) from two trials (124 participants) suggests that high-dose colchicine compared to placebo may improve symptoms, but with increased risk of harms. More participants reported treatment success at 32 to 36 hours with high-dose colchicine (518 per 1000) compared with placebo (240 per 1000): RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.65, absolute improvement 28% (8% more to 46% more); more also had reduced inflammation at this time point with high-dose colchicine (504 per 1000) compared with placebo (48 per 1000): RR 10.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 74.38; absolute improvement 45% greater (22% greater to 68% greater); but more adverse events were reported with high-dose colchicine (829 per 1000 compared with 260 per 1000): RR 3.21, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.11, absolute difference 57% (26% more to 74% more). Pain and function were not reported. Low-quality evidence from a single trial comparing high-dose to low-dose colchicine indicates there may be little or no difference in benefit in terms of treatment success at 32 to 36 hours but more adverse events associated with the higher dose. Similarly, low-quality evidence from a single trial indicates there may also be little or no benefit of low-dose colchicine over NSAIDs in terms of treatment success and pain reduction at seven days, with a similar number of adverse events reported at four weeks follow-up. Reduction of inflammation, function of target joint and withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported in either of these trials, and pain was not reported in the high-dose versus low-dose colchicine trial. We were unable to estimate the risk of serious adverse events for most comparisons as there were few events reported in the trials. One trial (399 participants) reported three serious adverse (one in a participant receiving low-dose colchicine and two in participants receiving NSAIDs), due to reasons unrelated to the trial (low-quality evidence downgraded for bias and imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-quality evidence that low-dose colchicine may be an effective treatment for acute gout when compared to placebo and low-quality evidence that its benefits may be similar to NSAIDs. We downgraded the evidence for bias and imprecision. While both high- and low-dose colchicine improve pain when compared to placebo, low-quality evidence suggests that high-dose (but not low-dose) colchicine may increase the number of adverse events compared to placebo, while low-quality evidence indicates that the number of adverse events may be similar with low-dose colchicine and NSAIDs. Further trials comparing colchicine to placebo or other treatment will likely have an important impact on our confidence in the effect estimates and may change the conclusions of this review. There are no trials reporting the effect of colchicine in populations with comorbidities or in comparison with other commonly used treatments, such as glucocorticoids.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child, Preschool; Colchicine; Glucocorticoids; Gout; Humans; Infant; Pain
PubMed: 34438469
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006190.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015This represents the first update of this review, which was published in 2012. Atorvastatin is one of the most widely prescribed drugs and the most widely prescribed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This represents the first update of this review, which was published in 2012. Atorvastatin is one of the most widely prescribed drugs and the most widely prescribed statin in the world. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of atorvastatin on blood lipids.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of atorvastatin on serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol and triglycerides in individuals with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. The primary focus of this review was determination of the mean per cent change from baseline of LDL-cholesterol. Secondary objectives • To quantify the variability of effects of various doses of atorvastatin.• To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to December Week 2 2013), EMBASE (1980 to December Week 2 2013), Web of Science (1899 to December Week 2 2013) and BIOSIS Previews (1969 to December Week 2 2013). We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of atorvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included and extracted data. We collected information on withdrawals due to adverse effects from placebo-controlled trials.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we found an additional 42 trials and added them to the original 254 studies. The update consists of 296 trials that evaluated dose-related efficacy of atorvastatin in 38,817 participants. Included are 242 before-and-after trials and 54 placebo-controlled RCTs. Log dose-response data from both trial designs revealed linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides. The Summary of findings table 1 documents the effect of atorvastatin on LDL-cholesterol over the dose range of 10 to 80 mg/d, which is the range for which this systematic review acquired the greatest quantity of data. Over this range, blood LDL-cholesterol is decreased by 37.1% to 51.7% (Summary of findings table 1). The slope of dose-related effects on cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol was similar for atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, but rosuvastatin is about three-fold more potent. Subgroup analyses suggested that the atorvastatin effect was greater in females than in males and was greater in non-familial than in familial hypercholesterolaemia. Risk of bias for the outcome of withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) was high, but the mostly unclear risk of bias was judged unlikely to affect lipid measurements. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were not statistically significantly different between atorvastatin and placebo groups in these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.40).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This update resulted in no change to the main conclusions of the review but significantly increases the strength of the evidence. Studies show that atorvastatin decreases blood total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol in a linear dose-related manner over the commonly prescribed dose range. New findings include that atorvastatin is more than three-fold less potent than rosuvastatin, and that the cholesterol-lowering effects of atorvastatin are greater in females than in males and greater in non-familial than in familial hypercholesterolaemia. This review update does not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with atorvastatin because included trials were of short duration and adverse effects were not reported in 37% of placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Controlled Before-After Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Heptanoic Acids; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Hyperlipidemias; Lipids; Male; Pyrroles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sex Factors; Triglycerides
PubMed: 25760954
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008226.pub3 -
Neurological Sciences : Official... Feb 2022Nocebo effect is prevalent among neurological diseases, resulting in low adherence and treatment outcome. We sought to examine the nocebo effect in randomized controlled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nocebo effect is prevalent among neurological diseases, resulting in low adherence and treatment outcome. We sought to examine the nocebo effect in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple system atrophy (MSA).
METHODS
We searched RCTs in MSA from Medline since September, 2021. RCTs for drug treatment conducted in adult MSA patients with more than 5 cases in each treatment arm were included. We assessed the number of dropout due to placebo intolerance. We also did a symptomatic/disease-modifying subgroup analysis based on two different treatment purposes. The STATA software was used for statistical analysis. Overall heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q and I.
RESULTS
Data were extracted from 11 RCTs fulfilling our search criteria. Of 540 placebo-treated patients, 64.2% reported at least one adverse event (AE) and 7.5% reported dropout because of AEs. The chance of dropping out because of an AE and experiencing at least one AE did not differ between placebo and active drug treatment arms. Besides, the pooled nocebo dropout rate in the symptomatic subgroup was similar to that of the disease-modifying subgroup.
CONCLUSION
In MSA RCTs, nocebo dropout rate was not at a low level among neurological disorders. Nocebo effect was an important reason of dropout because of AE in placebo and active drug treatment arms. Different treatment purposes may not influence nocebo effect.
Topics: Humans; MEDLINE; Multiple System Atrophy; Nocebo Effect; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34973075
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-021-05758-2 -
The Lancet. Haematology Feb 2017Statins have been suggested to have a protective effect on venous thromboembolism (which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism), but the evidence is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Statins have been suggested to have a protective effect on venous thromboembolism (which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism), but the evidence is uncertain. We sought to evaluate the extent to which statins are associated with first venous thromboembolism events.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Relevant studies that reported associations between statins and first venous thromboembolism outcomes were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and a manual search of bibliographies for studies published up until July 18, 2016, and from email correspondence with investigators. Observational cohorts that assessed the association of statin use with venous thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism in adults were included, as were intervention studies that assessed the effects of statin therapy compared with a placebo or no treatment and collected data on venous thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism outcomes. Studies that compared statins with another statin or lipid-lowering agent were excluded. Study specific relative risks (RRs) were aggregated using random-effects models and were grouped by study-level characteristics. The review has been registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016035622.
FINDINGS
36 eligible studies (13 cohort studies comprising 3 148 259 participants and 23 RCTs of statins vs placebo or no treatment comprising 118 464 participants) were included. In observational studies, the pooled RR for venous thromboembolism was 0·75 (95% CI 0·65-0·87; p<0·0001) when statin use was compared with no statin use. This association remained consistent when grouped by various study-level characteristics. In RCTs, the RR for venous thromboembolism was 0·85 (0·73-0·99; p=0·038) when statin therapy was compared with placebo or no treatment. Subgroup analyses suggested significant differences in the effect of statins by type of statin, with rosuvastatin having the lowest risk on venous thromboembolism compared with other statins 0·57 (0·42-0·75; p=0·015). There was no evidence of an effect of statin use on pulmonary embolism. Statin use was associated with a significant reduction in risk of the specific endpoint of deep vein thrombosis compared with no statin use (RR 0·77, 95% CI 0·69-0·86; p<0·0001).
INTERPRETATION
Available evidence from observational and intervention studies suggest a beneficial effect of statin use on venous thromboembolism. In intervention studies, therapy with rosuvastatin significantly reduced venous thromboembolism compared with other statins. Further evidence is however needed to validate these findings.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Primary Prevention; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 28089655
DOI: 10.1016/S2352-3026(16)30184-3 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Feb 2021The aim of this systematic review was to explore and evaluate the efficacy of interventions to reduce the prevalence of look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) medication name... (Review)
Review
AIMS
The aim of this systematic review was to explore and evaluate the efficacy of interventions to reduce the prevalence of look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) medication name errors.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the literature, searching PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science up to December 2016, and re-ran the search in February 2020 for later results. We included studies of interventions to reduce LASA errors and included randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series. Details were registered in Prospero (ID: CRD42016048198).
RESULTS
We identified six studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. All were conducted in laboratories. Given the diversity in the included studies, we did not conduct a meta-analysis and instead report the findings narratively. The only intervention explored in RCTs was capitalization of selected letters ("Tall Man"), for which we found limited efficacy and no consensus.
CONCLUSIONS
Tall Man lettering is a marginally effective intervention to reduce LASA errors, with a number of caveats. We suggest that Tall Man gives rise to a "quasi-placebo effect", whereby a user derives more benefit from Tall Man lettering if they are aware of its purpose.
Topics: Consensus; Humans; Interrupted Time Series Analysis; Male; Medication Errors
PubMed: 33197079
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14644 -
Translational Psychiatry Sep 2023Depression is highly prevalent and easily relapses. Psychological interventions are effective for the prevention of depression relapse. This systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Depression is highly prevalent and easily relapses. Psychological interventions are effective for the prevention of depression relapse. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy at the same follow-up time points of psychological interventions in depression. We searched PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO via OVID, and the Cochrane Library published up to December 12, 2021, and PubMed up to July 1, 2022. The primary outcome was depression relapse, considering the same time points that were extracted on survival curves or relapse curves. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022343327. A total of 2,871 patients were included from 25 RCTs. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) was significantly better than placebo at the 3 months, the 6 months, and the 9 months at follow-up. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was significantly better than treatment as usual at the 3 months, the 9 months, the 12 months, and the 15 months at follow-up. CBT was significantly better than placebo at the 21 months and the 24 months at follow-up. Behavioral activation therapy was significantly better than placebo at the 21 months and the 24 months at follow-up. Interpersonal psychotherapy was significantly better than placebo at the 24-month follow-up. All psychological interventions included in the study were significantly better than supportive counseling most of the time. The results were robust in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses. In conclusion, MBCT had a continuous effect in preventing relapse of depression. CBT had the longest but not continuous effect in preventing relapse of depression. The effects of behavioral activation therapy and interpersonal therapy for the prevention of depression appeared late. All psychological interventions included in the study were more effective than supportive counseling. More evidence is needed from large comparative trials that provide long-term follow-up data.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychosocial Intervention; Depression; Behavior Therapy; Chronic Disease; Recurrence
PubMed: 37770471
DOI: 10.1038/s41398-023-02604-1 -
Journal of Pain Research 2021The literature lacks information about the characteristics of the placebo effect following sham spine procedures for chronic low back pain. We aim to evaluate the effect... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The literature lacks information about the characteristics of the placebo effect following sham spine procedures for chronic low back pain. We aim to evaluate the effect using pain score data from the sham arms of published trials.
METHODS
Relevant trials were selected and reviewed. Baseline and post-procedure pain scores were collected. Each follow up pain score was considered an episode and compared to its baseline for significance. Patients and episodes were pooled and analyzed using three parameters: patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Visual Analog Scale [VAS], Numerical Rating Scale [NRS] and Short Form-36 [SF]), anatomical targets (disc, facet, sacroiliac joint [SIJ], ramus communicans nerve [RCN], basivertebral nerve [BVN], and caudal) and follow up periods (early: 0-2, intermediate: >2-4 and late: >4-6) in months. The percentage of pooled patients in the episodes that had significant reduction in pain scores was termed placebo effect. The outcome was defining the magnitude of the placebo effect and determining if it was influenced by the three parameters.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies that reported 535 patients and 55 pain scoring episodes were considered eligible. Significant reduction in pain scores was reported in 21 episodes. The overall placebo effect among the patients during the studied period was 53.2%. The rate ranged according to PROMs from 42.4% to 72.1%, anatomical targets from 11.1% to 100% and follow up periods from 47.9% to 59%. The placebo effect differed significantly between the various domains in the three parameters.
CONCLUSION
Placebo effect was observed in nearly half of the patients during the first 6 months following a sham spine procedure. The effect was influenced by utilized PROMs, anatomical target and follow up period. The findings should be considered in the design of new sham spine procedure trials. Further research is required to delineate the effect of bias on the findings.
PubMed: 34616178
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S317697 -
Journal of Pain Research 2017The present review investigated whether there are systematic sex differences in the placebo and the nocebo effect. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The present review investigated whether there are systematic sex differences in the placebo and the nocebo effect.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in multiple electronic databases. Studies were included if the study compared a group or condition where a placebo was administered to a natural history group or similar cohort.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies were identified - 12 on placebo effects and 6 on nocebo effects. Chi-square tests revealed that 1) males responded more strongly to placebo treatment, and females responded more strongly to nocebo treatment, and 2) males responded with larger placebo effects induced by verbal information, and females responded with larger nocebo effects induced by conditioning procedures.
CONCLUSION
This review indicates that there are sex differences in the placebo and nocebo effects, probably caused by sex differences in stress, anxiety, and the endogenous opioid system.
PubMed: 28831271
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S134745 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; COVID-19; Cause of Death; Humans; Middle Aged; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34679203
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015025