-
AIDS Research and Therapy Jun 2022Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) represents a proven biomedical strategy to prevent HIV transmissions among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States (US).... (Review)
Review
Evidence and implication of interventions across various socioecological levels to address pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake and adherence among men who have sex with men in the United States: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) represents a proven biomedical strategy to prevent HIV transmissions among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States (US). Despite the design and implementation of various PrEP-focus interventions in the US, aggregated evidence for enhancing PrEP uptake and adherence is lacking. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize and evaluate interventions aimed to improve PrEP uptake and adherence among MSM in the US, and identify gaps with opportunities to inform the design and implementation of future PrEP interventions for these priority populations.
METHODS
We followed the PRISMA guidelines and conducted a systematic review of articles (published by November 28, 2021) with a focus on PrEP-related interventions by searching multiple databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science and PsycINFO). Details of PrEP interventions were characterized based on their socioecological level(s), implementation modalities, and stage(s) of PrEP cascade continuum.
RESULTS
Among the 1363 articles retrieved from multiple databases, 42 interventions identified from 47 publications met the inclusion criteria for this review. Most individual-level interventions were delivered via text messages and/or apps and incorporated personalized elements to tailor the intervention content on participants' demographic characteristics or HIV risk behaviors. Interpersonal-level interventions often employed peer mentors or social network strategies to enhance PrEP adoption among MSM of minority race. However, few interventions were implemented at the community-, healthcare/institution- or multiple levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Interventions that incorporate multiple socioecological levels hold promise to facilitate PrEP adoption and adherence among MSM in the US given their acceptability, feasibility, efficacy and effectiveness. Future PrEP interventions that simultaneously address PrEP-related barriers/facilitators across multiple socioecological levels should be enhanced with a focus to tackle contextual and structural barriers (e.g., social determinants of health, stigma or medical mistrust) at the community- and healthcare/institution-level to effectively promote PrEP use for MSM of color.
Topics: Anti-HIV Agents; HIV Infections; Homosexuality, Male; Humans; Male; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; Sexual and Gender Minorities; Trust; United States
PubMed: 35754038
DOI: 10.1186/s12981-022-00456-1 -
Reviews in Medical Virology Nov 2021Infectious diseases occur worldwide with great frequency in both adults and children, causing 350,000 deaths in 2017, according to the latest World Health Organization... (Review)
Review
Infectious diseases occur worldwide with great frequency in both adults and children, causing 350,000 deaths in 2017, according to the latest World Health Organization reports. Both infections and their treatments trigger mitochondrial interactions at multiple levels: (i) incorporation of damaged or mutated proteins into the complexes of the electron transport chain; (ii) impact on mitochondrial genome (depletion, deletions and point mutations) and mitochondrial dynamics (fusion and fission); (iii) membrane potential impairment; (iv) apoptotic regulation; and (v) generation of reactive oxygen species, among others. Such alterations may result in serious adverse clinical events with considerable impact on the quality of life of the children and could even cause death. Herein, we use a systematic review to explore the association between mitochondrial alterations in paediatric infections including human immunodeficiency virus, cytomegalovirus, herpes viruses, various forms of hepatitis, adenovirus, T-cell lymphotropic virus and influenza. We analyse how these paediatric viral infectious processes may cause mitochondrial deterioration in this especially vulnerable population, with consideration for the principal aspects of research and diagnosis leading to improved disease understanding, management and surveillance.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Child; Communicable Diseases; DNA, Mitochondrial; Humans; Mitochondria; Pediatrics; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 33792105
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2232 -
AIDS (London, England) May 2023HIV remains a significant burden, despite expanding HIV prevention tools. Long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) is a new preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) product.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
HIV remains a significant burden, despite expanding HIV prevention tools. Long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) is a new preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) product. We reviewed existing evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of CAB-LA as PrEP to inform global guidelines.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed electronic databases and conference abstracts for citations on CAB-LA from January 2010 to September 2021. Outcomes included HIV infection, adverse events, drug resistance, pregnancy-related adverse events, and sexual behavior. We calculated pooled effect estimates using random-effects meta-analysis and summarized other results narratively.
RESULTS
We identified 12 articles/abstracts representing four multisite randomized controlled trials. Study populations included cisgender men, cisgender women, and transgender women. The pooled relative risk of HIV acquisition comparing CAB-LA to oral PrEP within efficacy studies was 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.07-0.61), resulting in a 79% reduction in HIV risk. Rates of adverse events were similar across study groups. Of 19 HIV infections among those randomized to CAB-LA with results available, seven had integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance. Data on pregnancy-related adverse events were sparse. No studies reported on sexual behavior.
CONCLUSIONS
CAB-LA is highly efficacious for HIV prevention with few safety concerns. CAB-LA may lead to an increased risk of INSTI resistance among those who have acute HIV infection at initiation or become infected while taking CAB-LA. However, results are limited to controlled studies; more research is needed on real-world implementation. Additional data are needed on the safety of CAB-LA during pregnancy (for mothers and infants) and among populations not included in the trials.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; HIV Infections; Anti-HIV Agents; Pyridones; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36723489
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000003494 -
Dermatology Online Journal Mar 2020New treatment options for warts include intralesional wart injection with agents such as vitamin D, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine antigen, Bacillus...
BACKGROUND
New treatment options for warts include intralesional wart injection with agents such as vitamin D, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine antigen, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) antigen, and candida antigen but there have been limited studies to compare their efficacies.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of injectable agents used for the treatment of warts.
METHODS
A PubMed search included terms "intralesional wart therapy," "wart injection" and "verruca injection." Articles reviewed were published over 10 years.
RESULTS
A total of 43 articles were reviewed; 30 covered studies with more than 10 participants and 13 were case reports, case series, and reviews. In comparison studies intralesional agents have equal or superior efficacy (66%-94.9%) compared to first-line salicylic acid or cryotherapy (65.5-76.5%). One advantage of intralesional injections is the rate of complete resolution of distant warts.
LIMITATIONS
Each study varied in their agents, treatment interval, and treatment dose, making comparisons difficult.
CONCLUSIONS
Intralesional wart injections are safe, affordable, and efficacious treatments for warts. Physicians should consider intralesional injections for patients with refractory warts, multiple warts, or warts in sensitive areas.
Topics: Aminolevulinic Acid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antiviral Agents; BCG Vaccine; Bacterial Vaccines; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Interferon-alpha; Mycobacterium; Tuberculin; Vitamin D; Warts
PubMed: 32609439
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, 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 MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Coinfection; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Oxygen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; United States; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35695334
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015209 -
AIDS and Behavior Feb 2023South Africa currently has the highest number of cases of HIV in the world. HIV antiretrovirals (ARVs) are publicly available across the country to address this crisis.... (Review)
Review
South Africa currently has the highest number of cases of HIV in the world. HIV antiretrovirals (ARVs) are publicly available across the country to address this crisis. However, a consequence of widely available ARVs has been the diversion of these drugs for recreational usage in a drug cocktail commonly known as "nyaope" or "whoonga," which poses a significant public health concern. To better understand nyaope, we conducted a systematic review investigating the risks and consequences associated with its usage. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, searches were conducted in eight different databases and screened thereafter. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they included analysis of least one nyaope user and considered either demographics, risk factors, or consequences of usage. Data extracted included study characteristics and limitations, as well as demographic factors, risk factors for usage in the general population, and consequences. Quality assessments were performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's tools. Searches produced a total of 228 articles and, after screening, a total of 19 articles were eligible for inclusion. There was a pooled total of 807 nyaope users, all in South Africa. Major risk factors for usage were being male, unemployed, not completing secondary education, pressure from peer groups, having HIV, prior use of cannabis, and to a lesser extent, usage of other substances such as alcohol and tobacco. While young adults tend to be at high-risk, evidence indicates that adolescents are also at-risk. Consequences of usage include high rates of infection, cortical atrophy, depression, and addiction. Addiction was shown to lead to individuals stealing from friends and family to pay for the drugs. HIV-positive nyaope users were more likely to partake in risk behaviours and tended to have high viral loads. Nyaope's rise has been linked to many health and social issues. Considering that this may also disrupt HIV control efforts in South Africa, there is an urgent need to address the rise of nyaope.
Topics: Adolescent; Young Adult; Humans; Male; Female; Illicit Drugs; HIV Infections; Anti-Retroviral Agents; Risk Factors; Behavior, Addictive
PubMed: 35895149
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-022-03791-6 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of interferon and endocrine side effects, including their incidence, evaluation, and management. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of interferon and endocrine side effects, including their incidence, evaluation, and management.
METHODS
PubMed was searched through March 7th, 2021, by 2 authors independently (LH Wang and H Zhao). Early phase I/II, phase III experimental trials, prospective and retrospective observational studies were included. Stata 16.0 (StataCorp LLC, 16.0) was the main statistical software for meta-analysis. The weighted incidence and risk ratio were estimated for primary thyroid disease and diabetes mellitus.
RESULTS
A total of 108 studies involving 46265 patients were included. Hypothyroidism was the most common thyroid disorder, followed by hyperthyroidism. IFN α+RBV treated patients experienced hypothyroidism in 7.8% (95%CI, 5.9-9.9), which was higher than IFN α (5.2%; 95%CI, 3.7-6.8) and IFN β (7.0%; 95%CI, 0.06-23.92). IFN α+RBV treated patients experienced hyperthyroidism in 5.0% (95%CI, 3.6-6.5), which was higher than IFN α (3.5%; 95%CI, 2.5-4.8) and IFN β (3.4%; 95%CI, 0.9-7.5). The summary estimated incidence of painless thyroiditis was 5.8% (95%CI, 2.8-9.8) for IFN α, and 3.5% (95%CI,1.9-5.5) for IFN α+RBV. The summary estimated incidence of diabetes was 1.4% (95%CI, 0.3-3.1) for IFN, 0.55% (95%CI, 0.05-1.57) for IFN α, 3.3% (95%CI,1.1-6.6) for IFN α+RBV.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis shows a high incidence of endocrine adverse events provoked by IFN, further reinforced by combined RBV treatment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022334131.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Humans; Hyperthyroidism; Hypothyroidism; Interferon-alpha; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Thyroid Diseases
PubMed: 35992107
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.949003 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2021To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN
Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.
DATA SOURCES
WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).
STUDY SELECTION
Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.
METHODS
After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.
RESULTS
As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.
CONCLUSION
In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.
FUNDING
This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).
READERS' NOTE
This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Viral; Antiviral Agents; Bayes Theorem; COVID-19; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Network Meta-Analysis; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 34556486
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2231 -
BMC Gastroenterology Nov 2023Oral nucleoside (acid) analogues (NAs) are recommended for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) associated with hepatitis B virus (HBV-ACLF). The efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure with hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Oral nucleoside (acid) analogues (NAs) are recommended for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) associated with hepatitis B virus (HBV-ACLF). The efficacy and safety of tenofovir (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) in these patients remain unclear.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and Embase database was conducted to select studies published before December 2022 on TDF or ETV for HBV-ACLF. The primary outcomes were survival rates at 4, 12, and 48 weeks. Secondary outcomes were virologic and biochemical responses, serum antigen conversion, liver function score, and safety.
RESULTS
Four prospective and one retrospective cohort studies were selected. The overall analysis showed comparable survival rates at 4, 12, and 48 weeks for all patients receiving TDF or ETV (4-week: RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.90-1.51, p = 0.24; 12-week: RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.88-1.13, p = 0.94; 48-week: RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.58-1.57, p = 0.86). Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score at 12 weeks were comparable in both groups but lower than baseline (CTP: SMD = -0.75, 95% CI:-2.81-1.30, p = 0.47; MELD: SMD = -1.10, 95% CI:-2.29-0.08, p = 0.07). At 48 weeks, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) levels were found to decrease to different degrees from baseline in both the TDF and ETV groups, and the decrease was greater in the TDF group than in the ETV group. No significant differences were found in biochemical, virologic response, and serum antigen conversion between the two groups during the observation period.
CONCLUSION
TDF treatment of HBV-ACLF is similar to ETV in improving survival, liver function, and virologic response but the effects on renal function in two groups in the long term remain unclear. More and larger long-term clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Tenofovir; Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure; Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; End Stage Liver Disease; Treatment Outcome; Severity of Illness Index; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B virus
PubMed: 37957546
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-03024-7 -
Scientific Reports May 2021The novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and marketed drugs are being tested for repurposing, including Favipiravir. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We registered the protocol in the PROSPERO (CRD42020180032). All clinical trials which addressed the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in comparison to other control groups for treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV2 were included. We searched electronic databases including LitCovid/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scientific Information Database up to 31 December 2020. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane Collaboration criteria. All analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2, and the risk ratio index was calculated. Egger and Begg test was used for assessing publication bias. Nine studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a significant clinical improvement in the Favipiravir group versus the control group during seven days after hospitalization (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.41; P = 0.001). Viral clearance was more in 14 days after hospitalization in Favipiravir group than control group, but this finding marginally not significant (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.98-1.25; P = 0.094). Requiring supplemental oxygen therapy in the Favipiravir group was 7% less than the control group, (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.67-1.28; P = 0.664). Transferred to ICU and adverse events were not statistically different between two groups. The mortality rate in the Favipiravir group was approximately 30% less than the control group, but this finding not statistically significant. Favipiravir possibly exerted no significant beneficial effect in the term of mortality in the general group of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. We should consider that perhaps the use of antiviral once the patient has symptoms is too late and this would explain their low efficacy in the clinical setting.
Topics: Amides; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Clinical Trials as Topic; Disease Progression; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Pyrazines; SARS-CoV-2; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Viral Load; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34040117
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-90551-6