-
Journal of Infection and Public Health Oct 2023Dengue is caused by the dengue virus (DENVs) infection and clinical manifestations include dengue fever (DF), dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF), or dengue shock syndrome...
Dengue is caused by the dengue virus (DENVs) infection and clinical manifestations include dengue fever (DF), dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF), or dengue shock syndrome (DSS). Due to a lack of antiviral drugs and effective vaccines, several therapeutic and control strategies have been proposed. A systemic literature review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines to select proper references to give an overview of DENV infection. Results indicate that understanding the virus characteristics and epidemiology are essential to gain the basic and clinical knowledge as well as dengue disseminated pattern and status. Different factors and mechanisms are thought to be involved in the presentation of DHF and DSS, including antibody-dependent enhancement, immune dysregulation, viral virulence, host genetic susceptibility, and preexisting dengue antibodies. This study suggests that dissecting pathogenesis and risk factors as well as developing different types of therapeutic and control strategies against DENV infection are urgently needed.
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; Dengue; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Risk Factors; Virulence
PubMed: 37595484
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiph.2023.08.001 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2021Antiviral treatment of influenza is recommended for patients with influenza-like illness during periods of community cocirculation of influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antiviral treatment of influenza is recommended for patients with influenza-like illness during periods of community cocirculation of influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2; however, questions remain about which treatment is associated with the best outcomes and fewest adverse events.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of neuraminidase inhibitors and the endonuclease inhibitor for the treatment of seasonal influenza among healthy adults and children.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials were searched from inception to January 2020 (the last search was updated in October 2020).
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies were randomized clinical trials conducted among patients of all ages with influenza treated with neuraminidase inhibitors (ie, oseltamivir, peramivir, zanamivir, or laninamivir) or an endonuclease inhibitor (ie, baloxavir) compared with other active agents or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators identified studies and independently abstracted data. Frequentist network meta-analyses were performed; relative ranking of agents was conducted using P-score probabilities. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria. Data were analyzed in October 2020.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The time to alleviation of influenza symptoms (TTAS), complications of influenza, and adverse events (total adverse events, nausea, and vomiting).
RESULTS
A total of 26 trials were identified that investigated antiviral drugs at high or low doses; these trials included 11 897 participants, among whom 6294 (52.9%) were men and the mean (SD) age was 32.5 (16.9) years. Of all treatments comparing with placebo in efficacy outcomes, high-quality evidence indicated that zanamivir was associated with the shortest TTAS (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.77), while baloxavir was associated with the lowest risk of influenza-related complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80) based on moderate-quality evidence. In safety outcomes, baloxavir was associated with the lowest risk of total adverse events (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96) compared with placebo based on moderate-quality evidence. There was no strong evidence of associations with risk of nausea or vomiting among all comparisons, except for 75 mg oseltamivir, which was associated with greater occurrence of nausea (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.38-2.41) and vomiting (RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.47-2.41).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, all 4 antiviral agents assessed were associated with shortening TTAS; zanamivir was associated with the shortest TTAS, and baloxavir was associated with reduced rate of influenza-related complications.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antiviral Agents; Child; Dibenzothiepins; Endonucleases; Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza, Human; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Network Meta-Analysis; Neuraminidase; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seasons; Triazines; Young Adult; Zanamivir
PubMed: 34387680
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.19151 -
Safety and Efficacy of Long-Acting Injectable Agents for HIV-1: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR Public Health and Surveillance Jul 2023HIV-1 infection continues to affect global health. Although antiretrovirals can reduce the viral load or prevent HIV-1 infection, current drugs require daily oral use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
HIV-1 infection continues to affect global health. Although antiretrovirals can reduce the viral load or prevent HIV-1 infection, current drugs require daily oral use with a high adherence level. Long-acting antiretrovirals (LA-ARVs) significantly improve medication adherence and are essential for HIV-1 prophylaxis and therapy.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of long-acting cabotegravir (CAB-LA) and long-acting rilpivirine (RPV-LA) in the prevention and treatment of HIV-1 infection.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies from database inception to November 12, 2022. We included studies that reported efficacy and safety data on LA-ARV intervention in people living with HIV and excluded reviews, animal studies, and articles with missing or duplicate data. Virological suppression was defined as plasma viral load <50 copies/mL 6 months after antiviral therapy initiation. We extracted outcomes for analysis and expressed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences. Depending on the heterogeneity assessment, a fixed- or random-effects model was used for data synthesis. We performed subgroup analyses of the partial safety and efficacy outcomes of CAB-LA+RPV-LA. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework.
RESULTS
We included 12 trials comprising 10,957 individuals, of which 7 were prevention trials and 5 were treatment trials. CAB-LA and RPV-LA demonstrated safety profiles comparable with those of the placebo in terms of adverse event-related withdrawal. Moreover, the efficacy data showed that CAB-LA had a better effect on HIV-1 prevention than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine (17/5161, 0.33% vs 75/5129, 1.46%; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.61; I=70%). Although CAB-LA+RPV-LA had more drug-related adverse events (556/681, 81.6% vs 37/598, 6.2%; RR 12.50, 95% CI 3.98-39.23; I=85%), a mild or moderate injection site reaction was the most common reaction, and its frequency decreased over time. The efficacy of CAB-LA+RPV-LA was comparable with that of daily oral drugs at 48 and 96 weeks (1302/1424, 91.43% vs 915/993, 92.2%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97-1.02; I=0%), and a high level of virological suppression of 80.9% (186/230) was maintained even after 5 years of LA-ARV use. Similar efficacy outcomes were observed in both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients (849/911, 93.2% vs 615/654, 94%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.02; I=0%). According to the questionnaires, more than 85% of people living with HIV favored LA-ARVs.
CONCLUSIONS
LA-ARVs showed favorable safety profiles for both the prevention and treatment of HIV-1 infection and were well tolerated. CAB-LA has more satisfactory efficacy than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-emtricitabine, significantly reducing the rate of HIV-1 infection. CAB-LA+RPV-LA maintains virological suppression for a long time and may be a viable switching strategy with enhanced public health benefits by reducing transmission. However, further trials are required to confirm the efficacy of these drugs.
Topics: Humans; Anti-HIV Agents; Emtricitabine; HIV Infections; HIV-1; Tenofovir
PubMed: 37498645
DOI: 10.2196/46767 -
The Journal of Antibiotics Sep 2020Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly...
Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of ivermectin are summarized including in vitro and in vivo studies over the past 50 years. Several studies reported antiviral effects of ivermectin on RNA viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, Hendra, Newcastle, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, chikungunya, Semliki Forest, Sindbis, Avian influenza A, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, Human immunodeficiency virus type 1, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Furthermore, there are some studies showing antiviral effects of ivermectin against DNA viruses such as Equine herpes type 1, BK polyomavirus, pseudorabies, porcine circovirus 2, and bovine herpesvirus 1. Ivermectin plays a role in several biological mechanisms, therefore it could serve as a potential candidate in the treatment of a wide range of viruses including COVID-19 as well as other types of positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses. In vivo studies of animal models revealed a broad range of antiviral effects of ivermectin, however, clinical trials are necessary to appraise the potential efficacy of ivermectin in clinical setting.
Topics: Animals; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; Cell Line; DNA Viruses; Disease Models, Animal; Global Health; Humans; Ivermectin; Molecular Structure; RNA Viruses; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32533071
DOI: 10.1038/s41429-020-0336-z -
BMJ Open May 2022To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the effectiveness and safety of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical effectiveness, safety, adherence and risk compensation in all populations.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the effectiveness and safety of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV.
METHODS
Databases (PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials) were searched up to 5 July 2020. Search terms for 'HIV' were combined with terms for 'PrEP' or 'tenofovir/emtricitabine'. RCTs were included that compared oral tenofovir-containing PrEP to placebo, no treatment or alternative medication/dosing schedule. The primary outcome was the rate ratio (RR) of HIV infection using a modified intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included safety, adherence and risk compensation. All analyses were stratified a priori by population: men who have sex with men (MSM), serodiscordant couples, heterosexuals and people who inject drugs (PWIDs). The quality of individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
RESULTS
Of 2803 unique records, 15 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. Over 25 000 participants were included, encompassing 38 289 person-years of follow-up data. PrEP was found to be effective in MSM (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.61; absolute rate difference (RD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to -0.05), serodiscordant couples (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to -0.02) and PWID (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.92; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.00 to -0.01), but not in heterosexuals (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.29). Efficacy was strongly associated with adherence (p<0.01). PrEP was found to be safe, but unrecognised HIV at enrolment increased the risk of viral drug resistance mutations. Evidence for behaviour change or an increase in sexually transmitted infections was not found.
CONCLUSIONS
PrEP is safe and effective in MSM, serodiscordant couples and PWIDs. Additional research is needed prior to recommending PrEP in heterosexuals. No RCTs reported effectiveness or safety data for other high-risk groups, such as transgender women and sex workers.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42017065937.
Topics: Anti-HIV Agents; Emtricitabine; Female; HIV Infections; Humans; Male; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; Tenofovir; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35545381
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048478 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Jan 2021To eliminate mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of hepatitis B virus (HBV), peripartum antiviral prophylaxis might be required for pregnant women infected with HBV who... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To eliminate mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of hepatitis B virus (HBV), peripartum antiviral prophylaxis might be required for pregnant women infected with HBV who have a high risk of MTCT despite infant immunoprophylaxis. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of peripartum antiviral prophylaxis to inform the 2020 WHO guidelines.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, CNKI, and Wanfang for randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of peripartum antiviral prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis, with no language restriction, published from database inception until March 28, 2019. We used search terms covering HBV, antiviral therapy, and pregnancy. We included studies that enrolled pregnant women with chronic infection with HBV who received antiviral prophylaxis anytime during pregnancy; that included any of the following antivirals: adefovir, emtricitabine, entecavir, lamivudine, telbivudine, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; and that reported the following outcomes: MTCT, indicated by infant HBsAg positivity or HBV DNA positivity, or both, at age 6-12 months, and any infant or maternal adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Our primary endpoint was MTCT based on infant HBsAg positivity. We assessed pooled odds ratios (ORs) of the efficacy of peripartum antiviral prophylaxis to reduce the risk of MTCT. We assessed safety of prophylaxis by pooling risk differences. The protocol for the systematic review was pre-registered in PROSPERO, CRD42019134614.
FINDINGS
Of 7463 articles identified, 595 articles were eligible for full-text review and 129 studies (in 157 articles) were included. The following antivirals were assessed in the meta-analysis: tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg (19 studies, with 1092 mothers and 1072 infants), lamivudine 100-150 mg (40 studies, with 2080 mothers and 2007 infants), and telbivudine 600 mg (83 studies, with 6036 mothers and 5971 infants). The pooled ORs for randomised controlled trials were similar, at 0·10 (95% CI 0·03-0·35) for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 0·16 (0·10-0·26) for lamivudine, and 0·14 (0·09-0·21) for telbivudine. The pooled ORs in non-randomised studies were 0·17 (0·10-0·29) for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 0·17 (0·12-0·24) for lamivudine, and 0·09 (0·06-0·12) for telbivudine. We found no increased risk of any infant or maternal safety outcomes after peripartum antiviral prophylaxis.
INTERPRETATION
Peripartum antiviral prophylaxis is highly effective at reducing the risk of HBV MTCT. Our findings support the 2020 WHO recommendation of administering antivirals during pregnancy, specifically tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, for the prevention of HBV MTCT.
FUNDING
World Health Organization.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Female; Hepatitis B virus; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Humans; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Prenatal Care; Tenofovir
PubMed: 32805200
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30586-7 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Jul 2022Randomized trial evidence suggests that some antiviral drugs are effective in patients with COVID-19. However, the comparative effectiveness of antiviral drugs in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Randomized trial evidence suggests that some antiviral drugs are effective in patients with COVID-19. However, the comparative effectiveness of antiviral drugs in nonsevere COVID-19 is unclear.
METHODS
We searched the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE (Living Overview of Evidence) database for randomized trials comparing antiviral treatments, standard care or placebo in adult patients with nonsevere COVID-19 up to Apr. 25, 2022. Reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
We identified 41 trials, which included 18 568 patients. Compared with standard care or placebo, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir each reduced risk of death with moderate certainty (10.9 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.6 to 4.5 fewer for molnupiravir; 11.7 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 13.1 fewer to 2.6 more). Compared with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced risk of hospital admission (27.8 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 32.8 to 18.3 fewer; moderate certainty). Remdesivir probably has no effect on risk of death, but may reduce hospital admissions (39.1 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 48.7 to 13.7 fewer; low certainty).
INTERPRETATION
Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduce risk of hospital admissions and death among patients with nonsevere COVID-19. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is probably more effective than molnupiravir for reducing risk of hospital admissions. Most trials were conducted with unvaccinated patients, before the emergence of the Omicron variant; the effectiveness of these drugs must thus be tested among vaccinated patients and against newer variants.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35878897
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.220471 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2020To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN
Living systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.
METHODS
After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.
RESULTS
463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.
READERS' NOTE
This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Antiviral Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.; China; Coronavirus Infections; Databases, Factual; Drug Combinations; Evidence-Based Medicine; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Lopinavir; Network Meta-Analysis; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index; Standard of Care; Treatment Outcome; United States; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32732190
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2980 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is...
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is uncertain. This review was first published in 2001 and most recently updated in 2015. Since a significant benefit of corticosteroids for the early management of Bell's palsy has been demonstrated, the main focus of this update, as in the previous version, was to determine the effect of adding antivirals to corticosteroid treatment. We undertook this update to integrate additional evidence and to better assess the robustness of findings, taking risk of bias fully into account.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antiviral treatments alone or in combination with any other therapy for Bell's palsy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS in July 2019. We reviewed the bibliographies of the identified trials and contacted trial authors to identify additional published or unpublished data. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antivirals with and without corticosteroids versus control therapies for the treatment of Bell's palsy. We excluded trials that followed-up participants for less than three months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently assessed trials for relevance, eligibility, and risk of bias, using standard Cochrane procedures. We performed sensitivity analyses excluding trials at high or unclear risk of bias in at least five domains, and reported these data as the primary analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen trials, including 2488 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias in multiple domains. We included four new studies at this update.Incomplete recoveryA combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in people with Bell's palsy compared to corticosteroids alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.74; 3 trials, N = 766; random-effects; low-certainty evidence). We excluded 10 trials that were at high or unclear risk of bias in several domains from this analysis and limited all analyses to studies at lower risk of bias. Recovery rates were better in participants receiving corticosteroids alone than antivirals alone (RR 2.69, 95% CI 0.73 to 10.01; 2 trials, N = 667; random-effects), but the result was imprecise and allowed for the possibility of no effect. The rate of incomplete recovery was lower with antivirals plus corticosteroids than with placebo or no treatment (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.76; 2 trials, N = 658; random-effects). Antivirals alone had no clear effect on incomplete recovery rates compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40; 2 trials, N = 658; fixed-effect). For people with severe Bell's palsy (House-Brackmann score of 5 and 6, or equivalent on other scales), we found that the combination of antivirals and corticosteroids had no clear effect on incomplete recovery at month six compared to corticosteroids alone, although the result was again imprecise (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 trials, N = 98; random-effects).Motor synkinesis or crocodile tearsAntivirals plus corticosteroids reduced the proportion of participants who experienced these long-term sequelae from Bell's palsy compared to placebo plus corticosteroids (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 2 trials, N = 469; fixed-effect; moderate-certainty evidence). Antivirals plus corticosteroids reduced long-term sequelae compared to placebo but there was no clear difference in this outcome with antivirals alone compared to placebo.Adverse events Adverse event data were available in four studies providing data on 1592 participants. None of the four comparisons showed clear differences in adverse events between treatment and comparison arms (very low-certainty evidence); for the comparison of antivirals plus corticosteroids and corticosteroids alone in studies at lower risk of bias, the RR was 1.17 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.69; 2 trials, N = 656; fixed-effect; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in comparison to corticosteroids alone in Bell's palsy of various degrees of severity, or in people with severe Bell's palsy, but the results were very imprecise. Corticosteroids alone were probably more effective than antivirals alone and antivirals plus corticosteroids were more effective than placebo or no treatment. There was no clear benefit from antivirals alone over placebo.The combination of antivirals and corticosteroids probably reduced the late sequelae of Bell's palsy compared with corticosteroids alone. Studies also showed fewer episodes of long-term sequelae in corticosteroid-treated participants than antiviral-treated participants.We found no clear difference in adverse events from the use of antivirals compared with either placebo or corticosteroids, but the evidence is too uncertain for us to draw conclusions.An adequately powered RCT in people with Bell's palsy that compares different antiviral agents may be indicated.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antiviral Agents; Bell Palsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31486071
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001869.pub9 -
American Journal of Therapeutics Jun 2021Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.
AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY
We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.
DATA SOURCES
We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.
THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES
Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian-Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff-Tweedie method. Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%-91%). Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for "need for mechanical ventilation," whereas effect estimates for "improvement" and "deterioration" clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Humans; Ivermectin; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34145166
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402