-
BMC Infectious Diseases Oct 2023Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, SCIE, Cochrane Library, and American Clinical trial Center databases were searched up to 1 April 2022 to identify. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy of remdesivir monotherapy and combination therapy with that of control drugs.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs and 32 observational studies were included in the analysis. Regarding the primary outcome, remdesivir use reduced mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 (RR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.48,0.68)) and shortened the time to clinical improvement (MD = -2.51, 95% CI (-2.75, -2.28)). Regarding other clinical outcomes, remdesivir use was associated with improved clinical status (RR = 1.08, 95%CI (1.01, 1.17)). Regarding safety outcomes, remdesivir use did not cause liver or kidney damage (RR = 0.87, 95%CI (0.68, 1.11)) (RR = 0.88, 95%CI (0.70,1.10)). Compared with remdesivir alone, remdesivir combined with other drugs (e.g., steroids, favipiravir, and convalescent plasma) had no effect on mortality.
CONCLUSION
The use of remdesivir can help to reduce the mortality of patients with severe COVID-19 and shorten the time to clinical improvement. There was no benefit of remdesivir combination therapy for other clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022322859.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37814214
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08525-0 -
Systematic Reviews Sep 2023Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) is a rapidly evolving field. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow patients to report the impact of treatment on their quality of life...
INTRODUCTION
Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) is a rapidly evolving field. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow patients to report the impact of treatment on their quality of life during and after treatment. The systematic review aims to characterise the breadth of PROs utilised in ACT cancer care and provide guidance for the use of PROs in this patient population in the future.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL) in August 2021 by two reviewers. Search terms covered the following: "adoptive cell therapy", "patient-reported outcomes" and "cancer". Studies were included if they used a PRO measure to report the impact of ACT. The methodological quality of PROs was assessed. Forward and backward reference searching was conducted of any relevant papers. A quality grading scale was applied based on Cochrane and Revenson criteria for classification of high-quality studies. Key data from the studies and the included PROs was extracted by two researchers and tabulated.
RESULTS
One-hundred nine papers were identified; 11 papers were included. The majority of studies were single-arm trials or observational studies. Twenty-two different PROs were identified; none was ACT specific. The PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D were most commonly used. Few studies collected PRO data in the first 1-2 weeks. Four studies followed patients up for over a year, and a further four studies followed patients for approximately 3 months.
DISCUSSION
None of the PROs identified have been designed specifically for ACT. Appropriateness of existing instruments should be considered. It should be considered whether it is appropriate to collect data more frequently in the acute stage and then less frequently during follow-up. It should be considered if one tool is suitable at all time points or if the tool should be adapted depending on time since treatment. More research is needed to identify the exact timings of PRO assessments, and qualitative work with patients is needed to determine the most important issues for them throughout the treatment and follow-up.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Neoplasms; Patient Reported Outcome Measures
PubMed: 37777816
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02337-8 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Dec 2023A registered (PROSPERO - CRD42022346462) systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of all-grade infections amongst adult patients receiving CAR-T therapy for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A registered (PROSPERO - CRD42022346462) systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of all-grade infections amongst adult patients receiving CAR-T therapy for haematological malignancy. Meta-analysis of pooled incidence, using random effects model, was conducted. Cochran's Q test examined heterogeneity. 2678 patients across 33 studies were included in the primary outcome. Forty-percent of patients (95% CI: 0.33 - 0.48) experienced an infection of any grade. Twenty-five percent of infection events (95% CI: 0.16 - 0.34) were severe. Late infections were as common as early infections (IRR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.38 - 1.98). All-grade infections, bacterial and viral infections were highest in myeloma patients at 57%, 37% and 28% respectively. Patients with NHL more commonly experienced late infections. Pooled rate of invasive candidiasis/yeast infections was 2% in studies utilizing anti-yeast prophylaxis. This review identified a high rate of all-grade infections, moderate rate of severe infections, and myeloma as a high-risk haematological group.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Hematologic Neoplasms; Hematology
PubMed: 37739146
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104134 -
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 -
BMC Health Services Research Jul 2023Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs), which involve harmonising and analysing participant-level data from related studies, provide several advantages over...
BACKGROUND
Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs), which involve harmonising and analysing participant-level data from related studies, provide several advantages over aggregate data meta-analyses, which pool study-level findings. IPD-MAs are especially important for building and evaluating diagnostic and prognostic models, making them an important tool for informing the research and public health responses to COVID-19.
METHODS
We conducted a rapid systematic review of protocols and publications from planned, ongoing, or completed COVID-19-related IPD-MAs to identify areas of overlap and maximise data request and harmonisation efforts. We searched four databases using a combination of text and MeSH terms. Two independent reviewers determined eligibility at the title-abstract and full-text stages. Data were extracted by one reviewer into a pretested data extraction form and subsequently reviewed by a second reviewer. Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach. A formal risk of bias assessment was not conducted.
RESULTS
We identified 31 COVID-19-related IPD-MAs, including five living IPD-MAs and ten IPD-MAs that limited their inference to published data (e.g., case reports). We found overlap in study designs, populations, exposures, and outcomes of interest. For example, 26 IPD-MAs included RCTs; 17 IPD-MAs were limited to hospitalised patients. Sixteen IPD-MAs focused on evaluating medical treatments, including six IPD-MAs for antivirals, four on antibodies, and two that evaluated convalescent plasma.
CONCLUSIONS
Collaboration across related IPD-MAs can leverage limited resources and expertise by expediting the creation of cross-study participant-level data datasets, which can, in turn, fast-track evidence synthesis for the improved diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
10.17605/OSF.IO/93GF2.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Pandemics; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Prognosis; Publications
PubMed: 37415216
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09726-8