-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir and standard care for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to standard care plus/minus placebo irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken. Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Disease Progression; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36695483
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014962.pub2 -
The Australian and New Zealand Journal... Feb 2021Currently, pharmaceutical treatment options for autism spectrum disorder are limited. Brain glutaminergic dysregulation is observed in autism spectrum disorder.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Currently, pharmaceutical treatment options for autism spectrum disorder are limited. Brain glutaminergic dysregulation is observed in autism spectrum disorder. -acetylcysteine, which can be converted to glutathione and subsequently release glutamate into the extracellular space, and thus reduce glutamatergic neurotransmission at synapses, is considered a potential drug for autism spectrum disorder treatment. Here, we analyzed the treatment effects of -acetylcysteine on autism spectrum disorder in randomized controlled trials.
STUDY DESIGN
Updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
By systematically searching the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library, we obtained five randomized controlled trials.
STUDY SELECTION
Meta-analyses were performed to examine the improvement in autistic behaviors as measured by the Aberrant Behavior Checklist, Social Responsiveness Scale and Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised, using mean difference with a 95% confidence interval and a random-effects model.
DATA SYNTHESIS
After 8-12 weeks of -acetylcysteine supplementation, the pooled result of four trials revealed an improvement in Aberrant Behavior Checklist total score (mean difference = 1.31, 95% confidence interval = [0.42, 2.20]). When one trial was excluded, the sensitivity test result was stronger (mean difference = 1.88, 95% confidence interval = [0.92, 2.83]). The pooled results of three trials revealed significant improvements in hyperactivity (mean difference = 4.80, 95% confidence interval = [1.20, 8.40]) and irritability (mean difference = 4.07, 95% confidence interval = [1.13, 7.04]). Regarding Social Responsiveness Scale, the pooled result of two trials showed significant improvement in social awareness after 8-12 weeks of -acetylcysteine supplementation (mean difference = 1.34, 95% confidence interval = [0.09, 2.59]). No differences were observed in the pooled results of two trials using Repetitive Behavior Scale, either in the total or the subscales.
CONCLUSION
We concluded that -acetylcysteine is safe and tolerable, reduces hyperactivity and irritability and enhances social awareness in children with autism spectrum disorder. However, further evidence should be sought before a general recommendation.
Topics: Acetylcysteine; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child; Humans; Irritable Mood; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32900213
DOI: 10.1177/0004867420952540 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) May 2024Epidemiological studies have shown that a diet rich in bioactive components significantly reduces cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality. In this sense, there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Epidemiological studies have shown that a diet rich in bioactive components significantly reduces cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality. In this sense, there is a need for meta-analytical research that confirms this phenomenon and increases specific knowledge about certain bioactive compounds such as carotenoids. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aim to disseminate knowledge about the sources of carotenoids in fruit consumed in the north of Brazil which are outside the Brazilian trade balance. A systematic review and a meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines were conducted based on a random effects synthesis of multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RRs). Searches of seven sources were carried out, including PubMed, Science Direct from Elsevier, Web of Science, Scielo, Eric Research and Google Scholar databases. The systematic review was guided by a systematic review protocol based on the POT strategy (population, outcome and type of study) adapted for use in this research. Mendeley was a resource used to organize and manage references and exclude duplicates of studies selected for review. In this review, we present the potential bioactive compounds concentrated in little-known fruit species from the Amazon and their benefits. Consuming fruits that are rich in notable constituents such as carotenoids is important for the prevention of chronic non-communicable diseases through anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant properties, as well as antivirals, immunomodulators and antioxidants agents that directly affect the immune response.
Topics: Humans; Antioxidants; Brazil; Carotenoids; Feeding Behavior; Fruit; Cardiovascular Diseases
PubMed: 38792052
DOI: 10.3390/molecules29102190 -
Infection and Drug Resistance 2022Antigen-presenting cells recognize respiratory syncytial virus antigens, and produce cytokines and chemokines that act on immune cells. Dendritic cells play the main... (Review)
Review
Antigen-presenting cells recognize respiratory syncytial virus antigens, and produce cytokines and chemokines that act on immune cells. Dendritic cells play the main role in inflammatory cytokine responses. Similarly, alveolar macrophages produce IFN-β, IFN-α, TNF-α, IL-6, CXCL10, and CCL3, while alternatively activated macrophages differentiate at the late phase, and require IL-13 or IL-4 cytokines. Furthermore, activated NKT cells secrete IL-13 and IL-4 that cause lung epithelial, endothelial and fibroblasts to secrete eotaxin that enhances the recruitment of eosinophil to the lung. CD8 and CD4T cells infection by the virus decreases the IFN-γ and IL-2 production. Despite this, both are involved in terminating virus replication. CD8T cells produce a larger amount of IFN-γ than CD4T cells, and CD8T cells activated under type 2 conditions produce IL-4, down regulating CD8 expression, granzyme and IFN-γ production. Antiviral inhibitors inhibit biological functions of viral proteins. Some of them directly target the virus replication machinery and are effective at later stages of infection; while others inhibit F protein dependent fusion and syncytium formation. TMC353121 reduces inflammatory cytokines, TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-1β and chemokines, KC, IP-10, MCP and MIP1-α. EDP-938 inhibits viral nucleoprotein (N), while GRP-156784 blocks the activity of respiratory syncytial virus ribonucleic acid (RNA) polymerase. PC786 inhibits non-structural protein 1 (NS-1) gene, RANTES transcripts, virus-induced CCL5, IL-6, and mucin increase. In general, it is an immune reaction that is blamed for the disease severity and pathogenesis in respiratory syncytial virus infection. Anti-viral inhibitors not only inhibit viral entry and replication, but also may reduce inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. Many respiratory syncytial virus inhibitors are proposed; however, only palivizumab and ribavirin are approved for prophylaxis and treatment, respectively. Hence, this review is focused on immunity cell responses to respiratory syncytial virus and the role of antiviral inhibitors.
PubMed: 36540102
DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S387479 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Coronavirus disease 2019 was first discovered in December 2019 and subsequently became a global pandemic with serious political, economic, and social implications...
Coronavirus disease 2019 was first discovered in December 2019 and subsequently became a global pandemic with serious political, economic, and social implications worldwide. We urgently need to find drugs that can be effective against COVID-19. Among the many observational studies, ivermectin has attracted the attention of many countries. Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic drug that also has some antiviral effects. We reviewed studies related to ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 over the last 2 years (2019.12-2022.03) search engines such as PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost. Seven studies showed a lower mortality rate in the ivermectin group than in the control group, six studies found that the ivermectin group had a significantly fewer length of hospitalization than the control group, and eight studies showed better negative RT-PCR responses in the IVM group than in the control group. Our systematic review indicated that ivermectin may be effective for mildly to moderately ill patients. There is no clear evidence or guidelines to recommend ivermectin as a therapeutic agent for COVID-19, so physicians should use it with caution in the absence of better alternatives in the clinical setting, and self-medication is not recommended for patients.
PubMed: 35800451
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.858693 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has been approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a variety of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Fluvoxamine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has been approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a variety of anxiety disorders; it is available as an oral preparation. Fluvoxamine has not been approved for the treatment of infections, but has been used in the early treatment of people with mild to moderate COVID-19. As there are only a few effective therapies for people with COVID-19 in the community, a thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an anti-inflammatory and possible anti-viral treatment for COVID-19, based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine in addition to standard care, compared to standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies up to 1 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared fluvoxamine in addition to standard care (also including no intervention), with standard care (alone or with placebo), or any other active pharmacological comparator with proven efficacy in clinical trials for the treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, in both inpatients and outpatients. Co-interventions needed to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing fluvoxamine 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 2 tool for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence to treat people with asymptomatic to severe COVID-19 for the primary outcomes including mortality, clinical deterioration, clinical improvement, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events of any grade, and suicide or suicide attempt.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two completed studies with a total of 1649 symptomatic participants. One study was conducted in the USA (study with 152 participants, 80 and 72 participants per study arm) and the other study in Brazil (study with 1497 high-risk participants for progression to severe disease, 741 and 756 participants per study arm) among outpatients with mild COVID-19. Both studies were double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in which participants were prescribed 100 mg fluvoxamine two or three times daily for a maximum of 15 days. We identified five ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification (due to translation issues, and due to missing published data). We found no published studies comparing fluvoxamine to other pharmacological interventions of proven efficacy. We assessed both included studies to have an overall high risk of bias. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in inpatients We did not identify any completed studies of inpatients. Fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients Fluvoxamine in addition to standard care may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; risk difference (RD) 9 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce clinical deterioration defined as all-cause hospital admission or death before hospital admission (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.89; RD 57 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; RD 54 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events of any grade (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37; RD 7 per 1000; 2 studies, 1649 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies reported on symptom resolution (clinical improvement), quality of life or suicide/suicide attempt.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on a low-certainty evidence, fluvoxamine may slightly reduce all-cause mortality at day 28, and may reduce the risk of admission to hospital or death in outpatients with mild COVID-19. However, we are very uncertain regarding the effect of fluvoxamine on serious adverse events, or any adverse events. In accordance with the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials as they arise, to complete any gaps in the evidence.
Topics: Clinical Deterioration; Fluvoxamine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36103313
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015391 -
Zeitschrift Fur Naturforschung. C,... Sep 2023Suppressors of cytokine signaling (SOCSs) are implicated in viral infection and host antiviral innate immune response. Recent studies demonstrate that viruses can hijack... (Review)
Review
Suppressors of cytokine signaling (SOCSs) are implicated in viral infection and host antiviral innate immune response. Recent studies demonstrate that viruses can hijack SOCSs to inhibit Janus kinase-signal transducers and activators of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway, block the production and signaling of interferons (IFNs). At the same time, viruses can hijack SOCS to regulate non-IFN factors to evade antiviral response. Host cells can also regulate SOCSs to resist viral infection. The competition of the control of SOCSs may largely determine the fate of viral infection and the susceptibility or resistance of host cells, which is of significance for development of novel antiviral therapies targeting SOCSs. Accumulating evidence reveal that the regulation and function of SOCSs by viruses and host cells are very complicated, which is determined by characteristics of both viruses and host cell types. This report presents a systematic review to evaluate the roles of SOCSs in viral infection and host antiviral responses. One of messages worth attention is that all eight SOCS members should be investigated to accurately characterize their roles and relative contribution in each viral infection, which may help identify the most effective SOCS to be used in "individualized" antiviral therapy.
Topics: Humans; Virus Diseases; Antiviral Agents; Signal Transduction; Immunity, Innate
PubMed: 37233326
DOI: 10.1515/znc-2023-0024 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune response. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory medicine and is thought to improve disease outcomes in COVID-19 through a wide range of anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Patients and healthcare systems need more and better treatment options for COVID-19 and a thorough understanding of the current body of evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of Colchicine as a treatment option for COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard care alone in any setting, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 21 May 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials evaluating colchicine for the treatment of people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating the prophylactic effects of colchicine for people without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to assess bias in included studies and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following prioritised outcome categories considering people with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, worsening and improvement of clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events and for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease: all-cause mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, duration to symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs with 11,525 hospitalised participants (8002 male) and one RCT with 4488 (2067 male) non-hospitalised participants. Mean age of people treated in hospital was about 64 years, and was 55 years in the study with non-hospitalised participants. Further, we identified 17 ongoing studies and 11 studies completed or terminated, but without published results. Colchicine plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo) Treatment of hospitalised people with moderate to severe COVID-19 All-cause mortality: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to 28 days compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 11,445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Worsening of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in worsening of clinical status assessed as new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death compared to standard care alone (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 10,916 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in improvement of clinical status, assessed as number of participants discharged alive up to day 28 without clinical deterioration or death compared to standard care alone (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; 1 RCT, 11,340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.78; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine plus standard care on serious adverse events compared to standard care alone (0 events observed in 1 RCT of 105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment of non-hospitalised people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 All-cause mortality: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality at 28 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.62; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; low-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital or death within 28 days: colchicine probably slightly reduces the need for hospitalisation or death within 28 days compared to placebo (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Symptom resolution: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo . Results are from one RCT reporting treatment-related events only in 4412 participants (low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: colchicine probably slightly reduces serious adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 4412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Colchicine versus another active treatment (e.g. corticosteroids, anti-viral drugs, monoclonal antibodies) No studies evaluated this comparison. Different formulations, doses, or schedules of colchicine No studies assessed this.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current evidence, in people hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 the use of colchicine probably has little to no influence on mortality or clinical progression in comparison to placebo or standard care alone. We do not know whether colchicine increases the risk of (serious) adverse events. We are uncertain about the evidence of the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. However, colchicine probably results in a slight reduction of hospital admissions or deaths within 28 days, and the rate of serious adverse events compared with placebo. None of the studies reported data on quality of life or compared the benefits and harms of colchicine versus other drugs, or different dosages of colchicine. We identified 17 ongoing and 11 completed but not published RCTs, which we expect to incorporate in future versions of this review as their results become available. Editorial note: due to the living approach of this work, we monitor newly published results of RCTs on colchicine on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.
Topics: COVID-19; Cause of Death; Colchicine; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34658014
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015045 -
Viruses Jun 2023About 5% of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients experienced treatment failure with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment. The global data on the practice and treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
About 5% of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients experienced treatment failure with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment. The global data on the practice and treatment outcomes of Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir/Voxilaprevir (SOF/VEL/VOX) in DAA-experienced CHC patients remains sparse. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SOF/VEL/VOX as a salvage treatment in DAA-experienced CHC patients. We searched five electronic databases from inception to 31 January 2023. The study outcomes were SVR12 and treatment-related adverse effects, with subgroup analysis performed based on genotype, cirrhosis, HCC, prior SOF/VEL exposure, and region. We identified and analyzed data from 24 studies (2877 DAA-experienced CHC patients); 17.2% had prior SOF/VEL exposure, 25% received ribavirin with SOF/VEL/VOX, and 42% had pre-treatment resistance-associated substitution (RAS) testing performed. Eastern Mediterranean had a higher pooled SVR12 than the America and Europe regions ( < 0.05). Predictors of SOF/VEL/VOX failure were genotype 3, active HCC, baseline cirrhosis, and prior SOF/VEL. Baseline RAS mutation and ribavirin supplementation were not associated with higher SVR12. Treatment discontinuation because of drug-related adverse events was uncommon (10 studies, 0.2%). In summary, SOF/VEL/VOX is efficacious and safe for retreatment in DAA-experienced CHC patients, even with RAS mutation. Our findings support SOF/VEL/VOX as a first-line rescue treatment for DAA-experienced CHC patients.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; Sofosbuvir; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Ribavirin; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Sustained Virologic Response; Liver Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Hepatitis C; Genotype; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 37515176
DOI: 10.3390/v15071489 -
Journal of Hepatology Apr 2023Hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) is a new biomarker for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) whose performance has not been critically or systematically appraised. Herein,...
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) is a new biomarker for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) whose performance has not been critically or systematically appraised. Herein, we performed a systematic review to determine its clinical utility.
METHODS
We evaluated the biological pathway of HBcrAg and performed a systematic review of PubMed for clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that evaluated the clinical utility of HBcrAg. The effectiveness of HBcrAg in predicting HBV-specific clinical events (e.g. HBeAg seroconversion, phases of CHB, HBsAg loss, treatment response, and relapse after stopping therapy) was examined using receiver-operating characteristic curves. The correlation coefficients of HBcrAg with HBV DNA, quantitative HBsAg (qHBsAg), HBV RNA, and cccDNA were summarised from published studies. Median values were used as estimates.
RESULTS
HBcrAg consists of three precore/core protein products: HBcAg, HBeAg, and a 22 kDa precore protein. HBcrAg assays have been associated with false-positive rates of 9.3% and false-negative rates of between 12-35% for CHB. The new iTACT-HBcrAg is more sensitive but does not reduce the false-positive rate. A PubMed search found 248 papers on HBcrAg, of which 59 were suitable for analysis. The clinical performance of HBcrAg was evaluated using AUROC analyses, with median AUROCs of 0.860 for HBeAg seroconversion, 0.867 for predicting HBeAg(-) hepatitis, 0.645 for HBsAg loss, 0.757 for treatment response, and 0.688 for relapse after stopping therapy. The median correlation coefficient (r) was 0.630 with HBV DNA, 0.414 with qHBsAg, 0.619 with HBV RNA and 0.550 with cccDNA. Correlation decreased during antiviral therapy, but combined biomarkers improved performance.
CONCLUSIONS
HBcrAg has a mixed performance and has a poor correlation with HBsAg loss and antiviral therapy, hence HBcrAg results should be interpreted with caution.
IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS
Hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) has been used to assess management of patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) without a systematic and critical Sreview of its performance. Our finding that HBcrAg had a false-positive rate of 9% and a false-negative rate of 12-35% raises concerns, although larger studies are needed for validation. A systematic review showed that the performance of HBcrAg was variable depending on the CHB endpoint; it was excellent at predicting HBeAg seroconversion and HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis (vs. chronic infection), which should be its main use, but it was poor for relapse after stopping antiviral therapy and for HBsAg loss. HBcrAg results should be interpreted with considerable caution, particularly by physicians, researchers, guideline committees and agencies that approve diagnostic tests.
Topics: Humans; Hepatitis B Core Antigens; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Hepatitis B Surface Antigens; Hepatitis B e Antigens; DNA, Viral; Biomarkers; Antiviral Agents; RNA; Hepatitis B virus
PubMed: 36586590
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.12.017