-
International Journal of Molecular... May 2024Multiple myeloma (MM), the second most common hematologic malignancy, remains incurable, and its incidence is rising. Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T cell)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
An Assessment of the Effectiveness and Safety of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Multiple Myeloma Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Multiple myeloma (MM), the second most common hematologic malignancy, remains incurable, and its incidence is rising. Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T cell) therapy has emerged as a novel treatment, with the potential to improve the survival and quality of life of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we aim to provide a concise overview of the latest developments in CAR-T therapy, assess their potential implications for clinical practice, and evaluate their efficacy and safety outcomes based on the most up-to-date evidence. A literature search conducted from 1 January 2019 to 12 July 2023 on Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science identified 2273 articles, of which 29 fulfilled the specified criteria for inclusion. Our results offer robust evidence supporting CAR-T cell therapy's efficacy in rrMM patients, with an encouraging 83.21% overall response rate (ORR). A generally safe profile was observed, with grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) at 7.12% and grade ≥ 3 neurotoxicity at 1.37%. A subgroup analysis revealed a significantly increased ORR in patients with fewer antimyeloma regimens, while grade ≥ 3 CRS was more common in those with a higher proportion of high-risk cytogenetics and prior exposure to BCMA therapy.
Topics: Multiple Myeloma; Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Treatment Outcome; Quality of Life; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Cytokine Release Syndrome
PubMed: 38732213
DOI: 10.3390/ijms25094996 -
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Mar 2020A range of immunomodulatory therapies have been proposed as adjuncts to conventional antivirals to suppress harmful inflammation during severe influenza infection. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A range of immunomodulatory therapies have been proposed as adjuncts to conventional antivirals to suppress harmful inflammation during severe influenza infection. We conducted a systematic review to assess available data of the effect of adjunctive non-corticosteroid immunomodulatory therapy and potential adverse effects.
METHOD
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and clinical trial databases for published and unpublished studies, and screened the references of included articles. We included RCTs, quasi-RCTs and observational studies of virologically confirmed influenza infections in hospitalised patients. We did not restrict studies by language of publication, influenza type/subtype or age of participants. Where possible, we pooled estimates of effect using random-effects meta-analysis models.
RESULTS
We identified 11 eligible studies for inclusion: five studies (4 RCTs and 1 observational; 693 individuals) of passive immune therapy; four studies (3 RCTs and 1 observational; 1120 individuals) of macrolides and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), one RCT of mTOR inhibitors (38 individuals), and one RCT of statin therapy (116 individuals). Meta-analysis of RCTs of passive immune therapy indicated no significant reduction in mortality (OR 0.84, 0.37-1.90), but better clinical outcomes at Day 7 (OR 1.42, 1.05-1.92). There was a significant reduction in mortality associated with macrolides and/or NSAIDs (OR 0.28; 0.10-0.77).
CONCLUSIONS
Passive immune therapy is unlikely to offer substantial mortality benefit in treatment of severe seasonal influenza, but may improve clinical outcomes. The effect of other immunomodulatory agents is uncertain, but promising. There is a need for high-quality RCTs with sufficient statistical power to address this evidence gap.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Hospitalization; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Immunization, Passive; Immunologic Factors; Inflammation; Influenza, Human; Mortality; TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31733048
DOI: 10.1111/irv.12699 -
Scientific Reports Aug 2023Insight into the clinical potential of convalescent plasma in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is important given the severe clinical courses in unvaccinated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Insight into the clinical potential of convalescent plasma in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is important given the severe clinical courses in unvaccinated and seronegative individuals. The aim of the study was to investigate whether there is a survival benefit of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. The authors independently assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified by the search strategy for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The binary primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk ratio (RR) of the convalescent plasma treatment (vs. best standard care) and its associated standard error (effect size) were calculated. A random-effects model was employed to statistically pool the effect sizes of the selected studies. We included 19 RCTs with 17,021 patients. The random-effects model resulted in an estimated pooled RR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.81-1.08, p = 0.33), showing no statistical evidence of the benefit of convalescent plasma therapy on all-cause mortality. Convalescent plasma therapy was not found to be effective in reducing all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Further studies are needed to determine in which patients convalescent plasma therapy may lead to a reduction in mortality.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Serotherapy; SARS-CoV-2; Immunization, Passive; Bias
PubMed: 37558729
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-40009-8 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Convalescent plasma is a suggested treatment for Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but its efficacy is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate whether the use of convalescent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
Convalescent plasma is a suggested treatment for Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but its efficacy is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate whether the use of convalescent plasma is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with Covid-19.In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched randomized controlled trials investigating the use of convalescent plasma in patients with Covid-19 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and medRxiv from inception to October 17, 2021. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021284861. Of the 8874 studies identified in the initial search, sixteen trials comprising 16 317 patients with Covid-19 were included. In the overall population, the all-cause mortality was 23.8% (2025 of 8524) with convalescent plasma and 24.4% (1903 of 7769) with standard of care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.04) (high-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality did not differ in the subgroups of noncritically ill (21.7% [1288 of 5929] vs. 22.4% [1320 of 5882]) and critically ill (36.9% [518 of 1404] vs. 36.4% [455 of 1247]) patients with Covid-19. The use of convalescent plasma in patients who tested negative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline was not associated with significantly improved survival (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-1.02). In the overall study population, initiation of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07), time to clinical improvement (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.30), and time to discharge (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.02) were similar between the two groups. In patients with Covid-19, treatment with convalescent plasma, as compared with control, was not associated with lower all-cause mortality or improved disease progression, irrespective of disease severity and baseline antibody status.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021284861).
Topics: COVID-19; Critical Illness; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 35197981
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.817829 -
Journal of Experimental & Clinical... Jan 2023CAR-T cells are widely recognized for their potential to successfully treat hematologic cancers and provide durable response. However, severe adverse events such as... (Review)
Review
CAR-T cells are widely recognized for their potential to successfully treat hematologic cancers and provide durable response. However, severe adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity are concerning. Our goal is to assess CAR-T cell clinical trial publications to address the question of whether administration of CAR-T cells as dose fractions reduces toxicity without adversely affecting efficacy. Systematic literature review of studies published between January 2010 and May 2022 was performed on PubMed and Embase to search clinical studies that evaluated CAR-T cells for hematologic cancers. Studies published in English were considered. Studies in children (age < 18), solid tumors, bispecific CAR-T cells, and CAR-T cell cocktails were excluded. Data was extracted from the studies that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Review identified a total of 18 studies that used dose fractionation. Six studies used 2-day dosing schemes and 12 studies used 3-day schemes to administer CAR-T cells. Three studies had both single dose and fractionated dose cohorts. Lower incidence of Grade ≥ 3 CRS and neurotoxicity was seen in fractionated dose cohorts in 2 studies, whereas 1 study reported no difference between single and fractionated dose cohorts. Dose fractionation was mainly recommended for high tumor burden patients. Efficacy of CAR-T cells in fractionated dose was comparable to single dose regimen within the same or historical trial of the same agent in all the studies. The findings suggest that administering dose fractions of CAR-T cells over 2-3 days instead of single dose infusion may mitigate the toxicity of CAR-T cell therapy including CRS and neurotoxicity, especially in patients with high tumor burden. However, controlled studies are likely needed to confirm the benefits of dose fractionation.
Topics: Child; Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Hematologic Neoplasms; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Cytokine Release Syndrome; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 36627710
DOI: 10.1186/s13046-022-02540-w -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... May 2024Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy, a groundbreaking immunotherapy. However, it faces formidable challenges in treating solid tumors, grappling with issues... (Review)
Review
Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy, a groundbreaking immunotherapy. However, it faces formidable challenges in treating solid tumors, grappling with issues like poor trafficking, limited penetration, and insufficient persistence within the tumor microenvironment (TME). CAR-T cells are engineered to express receptors that target specific cancer antigens, enhancing their ability to recognize and eliminate cancer cells. This review paper explores the intricate interplay between CAR-T therapy and radiotherapy (RT), investigating their synergistic potential. Radiotherapy, a standard cancer treatment, involves using high doses of radiation to target and damage cancer cells, disrupting their ability to grow and divide. We highlight that RT modulates the TME, augments antigen presentation, and promotes immune cell infiltration, bolstering CAR-T cell-mediated tumor eradication. Molecular insights shed light on RT-induced alterations in tumor stroma, T cell recruitment promotion, and induction of immunogenic cell death. Noteworthy, strategies, such as combining hypofractionated radiotherapy with myeloid-derived suppressor cell blockade, underscore innovative approaches to enhance CAR-T cell therapy in solid tumors. Bridging indications for RT and CAR-T cells in hematological malignancies are discussed, emphasizing scenarios where RT strategically enhances CAR-T cell efficacy. The paper critically evaluates the RT as a bridge compared to traditional chemotherapy, highlighting timing and dosage considerations crucial for optimizing CAR-T therapy outcomes. In summary, the paper provides valuable insights into the intricate molecular mechanisms activated by RT and innovative strategies to improve CAR-T cell therapy, fostering a deeper understanding of their combined potential in cancer treatment.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Tumor Microenvironment; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Animals; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Combined Modality Therapy; Radiotherapy
PubMed: 38574625
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.116532 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Virus Diseases; Immunoglobulins
PubMed: 37162745
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013600.pub6 -
3 Biotech Mar 2022has emerged as one of major nosocomial pathogen and global emergence of multidrug-resistant strains has become a challenge for developing effective treatment options.... (Review)
Review
has emerged as one of major nosocomial pathogen and global emergence of multidrug-resistant strains has become a challenge for developing effective treatment options. has developed resistance to almost all the antibiotics viz beta-lactams, carbapenems, tigecycline and now colistin, a last resort of antibiotics. The world is on the cusp of post antibiotic era and the evolution of multi-, extreme- and pan-drug-resistant strains is its obvious harbinger. Various combinations of antibiotics have been investigated but no successful treatment option is available. All these failed efforts have led researchers to develop and implement prophylactic vaccination for the prevention of infections caused by this pathogen. In this review, the advantages and disadvantages of active and passive immunization, the types of sub-unit and multi-component vaccine candidates investigated against viz whole cell organism, outer membrane vesicles, outer membrane complexes, conjugate vaccines and sub-unit vaccines have been discussed. In addition, the benefits of Reverse vaccinology are emphasized here in which the potential vaccine candidates are predicted using bioinformatic online tools prior to in vivo validations.
PubMed: 35261870
DOI: 10.1007/s13205-022-03148-9 -
Theranostics 2021Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We...
Treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review of , , and clinical trials.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and poses a threat to humanity. However, no specific therapy has been established for this disease yet. We conducted a systematic review to highlight therapeutic agents that might be effective in treating COVID-19. We searched Medline, Medrxiv.org, and reference lists of relevant publications to identify articles of , , and clinical studies on treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19 published in English until the last update on October 11, 2020. We included 36 studies on SARS, 30 studies on MERS, and 10 meta-analyses on SARS and MERS in this study. Through 12,200 title and 830 full-text screenings for COVID-19, eight studies, 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on 6,886 patients, and 29 meta-analyses were obtained and investigated. There was no therapeutic agent that consistently resulted in positive outcomes across SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Remdesivir showed a therapeutic effect for COVID-19 in two RCTs involving the largest number of total participants (n = 1,461). Other therapies that showed an effect in at least two RCTs for COVID-19 were sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (n = 114), colchicine (n = 140), IFN-β1b (n = 193), and convalescent plasma therapy (n = 126). This review provides information to help establish treatment and research directions for COVID-19 based on currently available evidence. Further RCTs are required.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Animals; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Carbamates; Coronavirus Infections; Disease Models, Animal; Drug Combinations; Drug Evaluation, Preclinical; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Imidazoles; Immunization, Passive; Pyrrolidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome; Sofosbuvir; Treatment Outcome; Valine; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 33391531
DOI: 10.7150/thno.48342 -
Daru : Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy,... Dec 2020A recent survey has shown that the COVID-19 pandemic has culminated in dramatical and critical treatment particularly in acute infected patients. In fact, this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
A recent survey has shown that the COVID-19 pandemic has culminated in dramatical and critical treatment particularly in acute infected patients. In fact, this systematic review-meta-analysis was directly pertained to estimation at the efficient value of some clinical managements to confront the COVID-19 infection.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Scholar databases were searched from inception to July 1, 2020, to identify studies reporting the current treatment process and medications (e.g. hydroxychloroquine, antiviral therapy, convalescent plasma, and immunomodulatory agents) for COVID-19. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The outcomes of this study were the frequency of negative conversion cases, clinical improvements, mechanical ventilation demand, intensive care unit (ICU) entry, and mortality. The standard treatment refers to the published guidelines and specialist experience which varies in different articles, and the proposed treatment refers to the kind of interest suggested in the included studies.
RESULTS
A number of 45 articles met the eligibility criteria (out of 6793 articles). Among them, 26 articles involving 3263 patients were included in quantitative analysis. Anti-COVID-19 interventions could significantly increase clinical improvement (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.08-1.27; I = 49.8%) and reduce the mortality rate (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.95; I = 74.8%). Although in terms of negative conversion, ICU entry, and mechanical ventilation demand, clinical intervention had no beneficial effect. The clinical effect of immunomodulatory agents (especially tocilizumab and anakinra) was noticeable compared to other medications with RR of 0.22 (95% CI 0.09-0.53; I = 40.9%) for mortality and 1.25 (95% CI 1.07-1.46; I = 45.4%) for clinical improvement. Moreover, Antivirals (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26; I = 47.0%) and convalescent plasma therapy (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.98; I = 66.6%) had significant beneficial effects on clinical improvement.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings, all the included interventions significantly declined the mortality and enhanced clinical improvements with no effect on negative conversion and mechanical ventilation demand. Especially, immunomodulators and plasma therapy showed favorable outcomes. An evaluation on the efficacy of proposed treatment against COVID-19.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Immunologic Factors; Intensive Care Units; Respiration, Artificial; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 32812187
DOI: 10.1007/s40199-020-00367-4