-
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Jan 2023Several psychotropic drugs, including antidepressants (AD), mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics (AP) have been suggested to have favorable effects in the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Several psychotropic drugs, including antidepressants (AD), mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics (AP) have been suggested to have favorable effects in the treatment of COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to collect evidence from studies concerning the scientific evidence for the repurposing of psychotropic drugs in COVID-19 treatment. Two independent authors searched PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases, and reviewed the reference lists of articles for eligible articles published up to 13th December 2021. All computational, preclinical and clinical (observational and/or RCTs) studies on the effect of any psychotropic drug on Sars-CoV-2 or patients with COVID-19 were considered for inclusion. We conducted random effect meta-analyses on clinical studies reporting the effect of AD or AP on COVID-19 outcomes. 29 studies were included in the synthesis: 15 clinical, 9 preclinical, and 5 computational studies. 9 clinical studies could be included in the quantitative analyses. AD did not increase the risk of severe COVID-19 (RR= 1.71; CI 0.65-4.51) or mortality (RR=0.94; CI 0.81-1.09). Fluvoxamine was associated with a reduced risk of mortality for COVID-19 (OR=0.15; CI 0.02-0.95). AP increased the risk of severe COVID-19 (RR=3.66; CI 2.76-4.85) and mortality (OR=1.53; CI 1.15-2.03). Fluvoxamine might be a possible candidate for psychotropic drug repurposing in COVID-19 due to its anti-inflammatory and antiviral potential, while evidence on other AD is still controversial. Although AP are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, their use should be evaluated case to case and ongoing treatment with antipsychotics should be not discontinued in psychiatric patients.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Fluvoxamine; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Drug Repositioning; Psychotropic Drugs; Antipsychotic Agents
PubMed: 36399837
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2022.10.004 -
Reviews in Medical Virology Jan 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fluvoxamine for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fluvoxamine for the outpatient management of COVID-19. We conducted this review in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL up to 14 September 2023. Outcomes included incidence of hospitalisation, healthcare utilization (emergency room visits and/or hospitalisation), mortality, supplemental oxygen and mechanical ventilation requirements, serious adverse events (SAEs) and non-adherence. Fluvoxamine 100 mg twice a day was associated with reductions in the risk of hospitalisation (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.97; I = 0%) and reductions in the risk of healthcare utilization (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.86; I = 0%). While no increased SAEs were observed, fluvoxamine 100 mg twice a day was associated with higher treatment non-adherence compared to placebo (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.22-2.14; I = 53%). In subgroup analyses, fluvoxamine reduced healthcare utilization in outpatients with BMI ≥30 kg/m , but not in those with lower BMIs. While fluvoxamine offers potential benefits in reducing healthcare utilization, its efficacy may be most pronounced in high-risk patient populations. The observed non-adherence rates highlight the need for better patient education and counselling. Future investigations should reassess trial endpoints to include outcomes relating to post-COVID sequelaes. Registration: This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023463829).
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Outpatients; Fluvoxamine; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 38148036
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2501 -
Dermatologic Therapy Mar 2020The current systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib-trametinib with those of other therapeutic alternatives in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of dabrafenib-trametinib in the treatment of unresectable advanced/metastatic melanoma with BRAF-V600 mutation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
The current systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib-trametinib with those of other therapeutic alternatives in the treatment of patients with unresectable advanced/metastatic melanoma with BRAF-V600 mutation. The search was carried out on four databases up to July 2018. Two separate network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed using the frequentist method (random effects): one with an exclusive population with BRAF-V600 mutation (NMA-pBRAFV600) and another with mixed population (with or without the mutation: NMA-pMixed). An evidence profile was included using the GRADE method for NMA. The validity of the final estimator in the NMA-pMixed was assessed via a sensitivity analysis. Nine clinical trials were included in the NMA-pBRAFV600. Dabrafenib-trametinib was found to have a favorable effect on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with dabrafenib, vemurafenib, and dacarbazine and on partial response rate (PRR) and overall response rate compared with dacarbazine and vemurafenib. In the NMA-pMixed, dabrafenib-trametinib was found to have a positive effect on OS versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and on PFS and PRR versus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. However, dabrafenib-trametinib and vemurafenib-cobimetinib significantly differed in terms of efficacy. In addition, dabrafenib-trametinib has a favorable effect on Grades 3 and 4 adverse events.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Humans; Imidazoles; Melanoma; Mutation; Network Meta-Analysis; Oximes; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Pyridones; Pyrimidinones; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 31664762
DOI: 10.1111/dth.13145 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Dec 2019Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment's relative effectiveness and safety.
METHODS
A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments.
RESULTS
The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57).
CONCLUSIONS
Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Azetidines; Benzimidazoles; Cancer Vaccines; Carboplatin; Dacarbazine; Humans; Hydrazines; Imidazoles; Interleukin-2; Ipilimumab; Lenalidomide; Melanoma; Network Meta-Analysis; Nitrosourea Compounds; Nivolumab; Organophosphorus Compounds; Oximes; Paclitaxel; Piperidines; Progression-Free Survival; Proportional Hazards Models; Pyridones; Pyrimidinones; Skin Neoplasms; Sorafenib; Survival Rate; Temozolomide; Treatment Outcome; Vemurafenib; gp100 Melanoma Antigen
PubMed: 31670077
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.08.032 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... May 2023The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of acute COVID-19 is still under investigation, with conflicting results reported from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of acute COVID-19 is still under investigation, with conflicting results reported from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Different dosing regimens may have contributed to the contradictory findings.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SSRIs and the effect of different dosing regimens on the treatment of acute COVID-19.
DATA SOURCES
Seven databases were searched from January 2020 to December 2022. Trial registries, previous reviews, and preprint servers were hand-searched.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
RCTs and observational studies with no language restrictions.
PARTICIPANTS
COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients.
INTERVENTIONS
SSRIs prescribed after diagnosis were compared against a placebo or standard of care.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS
Risk of bias was rated using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials version 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions.
METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
Outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, hypoxemia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, ventilator support, and serious adverse events. RCT data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Observational findings were narratively described. Subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of SSRI dose, and sensitivity analyses were performed excluding studies with a high risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework was used to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Six RCTs (N = 4197) and five observational studies (N = 1156) were included. Meta-analyses associated fluvoxamine with reduced mortality (risk ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82) and hospitalization (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99) on the basis of moderate quality of evidence. Medium-dose fluvoxamine (100 mg twice a day) was associated with reduced mortality, hospitalization, and composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, but low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice a day) was not. Fluvoxamine was not associated with increased serious adverse events. Observational studies support the use of fluvoxamine and highlight fluoxetine as a possible alternative to SSRIs for the treatment of COVID-19.
DISCUSSION
Fluvoxamine remains a candidate pharmacotherapy for treating COVID-19 in outpatients. Medium-dose fluvoxamine may be preferable over low-dose fluvoxamine.
Topics: Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; COVID-19; Fluoxetine; Fluvoxamine
PubMed: 36657488
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2023.01.010 -
JAMA Network Open Apr 2022Widely available and affordable options for the outpatient management of COVID-19 are needed, particularly for therapies that prevent hospitalization. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Widely available and affordable options for the outpatient management of COVID-19 are needed, particularly for therapies that prevent hospitalization.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a meta-analysis of the available randomized clinical trial evidence for fluvoxamine in the outpatient management of COVID-19.
DATA SOURCES
World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies with completed outpatient trials with available results that compared fluvoxamine with placebo were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed and study details in terms of inclusion criteria, trial demographics, and the prespecified outcome of all-cause hospitalization were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and a bayesian random effects meta-analysis with different estimates of prior probability was conducted: a weakly neutral prior (50% chance of efficacy with 95% CI for risk ratio [RR] between 0.5 and 2.0) and a moderately optimistic prior (85% chance of efficacy). A frequentist random-effects meta-analysis was conducted as a senstivity analysis, and the results were contextualized by estimating the probability of any association (RR ≤ 1) and moderate association (RR ≤ 0.9) with reduced hospitalization.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
All-cause hospitalization.
RESULTS
This systematic review and meta-analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials and included 2196 participants. The RRs for hospitalization were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.58-1.08) for the bayesian weakly neutral prior, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the bayesian moderately optimistic prior, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97) for the frequentist analysis. Depending on the scenario, the probability of any association with reduced hospitalization ranged from 94.1% to 98.6%, and the probability of moderate association ranged from 81.6% to 91.8%.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 3 trials, under a variety of assumptions, fluvoxamine showed a high probability of being associated with reduced hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19. Ongoing randomized trials are important to evaluate alternative doses, explore the effectiveness in vaccinated patients, and provide further refinement to these estimates. Meanwhile, fluvoxamine could be recommended as a management option, particularly in resource-limited settings or for individuals without access to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy or direct antivirals.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Fluvoxamine; Hospitalization; Humans; Outpatients; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35385087
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6269 -
PloS One 2022Clinical Depression and the subsequent low immunity is a comorbidity that can act as a risk factor for the severity of COVID-19 cases. Antidepressants such as Selective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Clinical Depression and the subsequent low immunity is a comorbidity that can act as a risk factor for the severity of COVID-19 cases. Antidepressants such as Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors are associated with immune-modulatory effects, which dismiss inflammatory responses and reduce lung tissue damage. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of antidepressant drugs on the prognosis and severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out in PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus up to June 14, 2022. The following keywords were used: "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "2019-nCoV", "SSRI", "SNRI", "TCA", "MAOI", and "Antidepressant". A fixed or random-effect model assessed the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We considered P < 0.05 as statistically significant for publication bias. Data were analyzed by Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, Version 2.0 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ).
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included in our systematic review. Five of them were experimental with 2350, and nine of them were observational with 290,950 participants. Eight out of fourteen articles revealed the effect of antidepressants on reducing the severity of COVID-19. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors drugs, including Fluvoxamine, Escitalopram, Fluoxetine, and Paroxetine, and among the Serotonin-norepinephrine inhibitors medications Venlafaxine, are reasonably associated with reduced risk of intubation or death. Five studies showed no significant effect, and only one high risk of bias article showed the negative effect of antidepressants on the prognosis of Covid-19. The meta-analysis of clinical trials showed that fluvoxamine could significantly decrease the severity outcomes of COVID-19 (RR: 0.763; 95% CI: 0.602-0.966, I2: 0.0).
FINDINGS
Most evidence supports that the use of antidepressant medications, mainly Fluvoxamine, may decrease the severity and improve the outcome in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2. Some studies showed contradictory findings regarding the effects of antidepressants on the severity of COVID-19. Further clinical trials should be conducted to clarify the effects of antidepressants on the severity of COVID-19.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Fluoxetine; Fluvoxamine; Humans; Norepinephrine; Paroxetine; SARS-CoV-2; Serotonin; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36201406
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267423 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination with a (point) mutation in the second SMN1 allele. This results in degeneration of anterior horn cells, which leads to progressive muscle weakness. Children with SMA type II do not develop the ability to walk without support and have a shortened life expectancy, whereas children with SMA type III develop the ability to walk and have a normal life expectancy. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate if drug treatment is able to slow or arrest the disease progression of SMA types II and III, and to assess if such therapy can be given safely.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science conference proceedings in October 2018. In October 2018, we also searched two trials registries to identify unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought all randomised or quasi-randomised trials that examined the efficacy of drug treatment for SMA types II and III. Participants had to fulfil the clinical criteria and have a homozygous deletion or hemizygous deletion in combination with a point mutation in the second allele of the SMN1 gene (5q11.2-13.2) confirmed by genetic analysis. The primary outcome measure was change in disability score within one year after the onset of treatment. Secondary outcome measures within one year after the onset of treatment were change in muscle strength, ability to stand or walk, change in quality of life, time from the start of treatment until death or full-time ventilation and adverse events attributable to treatment during the trial period. Treatment strategies involving SMN1-replacement with viral vectors are out of the scope of this review, but a summary is given in Appendix 1. Drug treatment for SMA type I is the topic of a separate Cochrane Review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
The review authors found 10 randomised, placebo-controlled trials of treatments for SMA types II and III for inclusion in this review, with 717 participants. We added four of the trials at this update. The trials investigated creatine (55 participants), gabapentin (84 participants), hydroxyurea (57 participants), nusinersen (126 participants), olesoxime (165 participants), phenylbutyrate (107 participants), somatotropin (20 participants), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) (nine participants), valproic acid (33 participants), and combination therapy with valproic acid and acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) (61 participants). Treatment duration was from three to 24 months. None of the studies investigated the same treatment and none was completely free of bias. All studies had adequate blinding, sequence generation and reporting of primary outcomes. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, intrathecal nusinersen improved motor function (disability) in children with SMA type II, with a 3.7-point improvement in the nusinersen group on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE; range of possible scores 0 to 66), compared to a 1.9-point decline on the HFMSE in the sham procedure group (P < 0.01; n = 126). On all motor function scales used, higher scores indicate better function. Based on moderate-certainty evidence from two studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: creatine (median change 1 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1 to 2; on the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), scale 0 to 264; n = 40); and combination therapy with valproic acid and carnitine (mean difference (MD) 0.64, 95% CI -1.1 to 2.38; on the Modified Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (MHFMS), scale 0 to 40; n = 61). Based on low-certainty evidence from other single studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: gabapentin (median change 0 in the gabapentin group and -2 in the placebo group on the SMA Functional Rating Scale (SMAFRS), scale 0 to 50; n = 66); hydroxyurea (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.89 to 0.13 on the GMFM, scale 0 to 264; n = 57), phenylbutyrate (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.58 on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (HFMS) scale 0 to 40; n = 90) and monotherapy of valproic acid (MD 0.06, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.44 on SMAFRS, scale 0 to 50; n = 31). Very low-certainty evidence suggested that the following interventions had little or no effect on motor function: olesoxime (MD 2, 95% -0.25 to 4.25 on the Motor Function Measure (MFM) D1 + D2, scale 0 to 75; n = 160) and somatotropin (median change at 3 months 0.25 higher, 95% CI -1 to 2.5 on the HFMSE, scale 0 to 66; n = 19). One small TRH trial did not report effects on motor function and the certainty of evidence for other outcomes from this trial were low or very low. Results of nine completed trials investigating 4-aminopyridine, acetyl-L-carnitine, CK-2127107, hydroxyurea, pyridostigmine, riluzole, RO6885247/RG7800, salbutamol and valproic acid were awaited and not available for analysis at the time of writing. Various trials and studies investigating treatment strategies other than nusinersen (e.g. SMN2-augmentation by small molecules), are currently ongoing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nusinersen improves motor function in SMA type II, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Creatine, gabapentin, hydroxyurea, phenylbutyrate, valproic acid and the combination of valproic acid and ALC probably have no clinically important effect on motor function in SMA types II or III (or both) based on low-certainty evidence, and olesoxime and somatropin may also have little to no clinically important effect but evidence was of very low-certainty. One trial of TRH did not measure motor function.
Topics: Adolescent; Amines; Child; Child, Preschool; Creatine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Humans; Hydroxyurea; Neuroprotective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood; Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 32006461
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006282.pub5 -
Scientific Reports Jun 2024There have been 774,075,242 cases of COVID-19 and 7,012,986 deaths worldwide as of January 2024. In the early stages of the pandemic, there was an urgent need to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis, investigating dose and time of fluvoxamine treatment efficacy for COVID-19 clinical deterioration, death, and Long-COVID complications.
There have been 774,075,242 cases of COVID-19 and 7,012,986 deaths worldwide as of January 2024. In the early stages of the pandemic, there was an urgent need to reduce the severity of the disease and prevent the need for hospitalization to avoid stress on healthcare systems worldwide. The repurposing of drugs to prevent clinical deterioration of COVID-19 patients was trialed in many studies using many different drugs. Fluvoxamine (an SSRI and sigma-1 receptor agonist) was initially identified to potentially provide beneficial effects in COVID-19-infected patients, preventing clinical deterioration and the need for hospitalization. Fourteen clinical studies have been carried out to date, with seven of those being randomized placebo-controlled studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis covers the literature from the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019 until January 2024. Search terms related to fluvoxamine, such as its trade names and chemical names, along with words related to COVID-19, such as SARS-CoV-2 and coronavirus, were used in literature databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the ClinicalTrials.gov database from NIH, to identify the trials used in the subsequent analysis. Clinical deterioration and death data were extracted from these studies where available and used in the meta-analysis. A total of 7153 patients were studied across 14 studies (both open-label and double-blind placebo-controlled). 681 out of 3553 (19.17%) in the standard care group and 255 out of 3600 (7.08%) in the fluvoxamine-treated group experienced clinical deterioration. The estimated average log odds ratio was 1.087 (95% CI 0.200 to 1.973), which differed significantly from zero (z = 2.402, p = 0.016). The seven placebo-controlled studies resulted in a log odds ratio of 0.359 (95% CI 0.1111 to 0.5294), which differed significantly from zero (z = 3.103, p = 0.002). The results of this study identified fluvoxamine as effective in preventing clinical deterioration, and subgrouping analysis suggests that earlier treatment with a dose of 200 mg or above provides the best outcomes. We hope the outcomes of this study can help design future studies into respiratory viral infections and potentially improve clinical outcomes.
Topics: Fluvoxamine; Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; Clinical Deterioration; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 38862591
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-64260-9 -
The Journal of Infection Dec 2022
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Humans; Fluvoxamine; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36244547
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2022.10.012