-
Journal of Medical Virology May 2021This critical appraisal aims to clarify which systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatment are based on high-value evidence. Hereby, the most profitable medicines can be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This critical appraisal aims to clarify which systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatment are based on high-value evidence. Hereby, the most profitable medicines can be suggested.
METHODS
The mesh terms of "COVID-19 drug treatment" (Supplementary Concept) and "COVID-19 drug treatment" were sequentially utilized as search strategies in Medline and Science direct on October 18, 2020. Searches were confined to systematic reviews/meta-analyses. The Cochrane database was searched on November 1, 2020 with "COVID." With adding up four articles from other resources, 84 systematic reviews were considered for initial screening. Finally, 22 articles fulfilled the criteria and were assessed using PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Increasing number of clinical trials from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are not only profitable but also deleterious. Lopinavir/ritonavir failed to maintain their initial efficacy in improving clinical symptoms and mortality rate. Steroids and tocilizumab were suggested in patients with intensely severe symptoms. Steroids reduced mechanical ventilation and death in severely ill patients. Plasma or immunoglobulins effects are absolutely controversial. Favorable impressions of remdesivir have been relied on for the early onset of this drug. Hypotension and abnormal liver function tests were realized as its side effects. Favipiravir has resulted in a higher viral clearance than remdesivir. However, this claim needs to be proved with subsequent clinical trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Currently, remdesivir and favipiravir are advantageous drugs that should be administered in the early phases. Their side effects are not well known and need to be found in the following research projects. Steroids and tocilizumab have been considered beneficial in the cytokine storm phase.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Amides; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Chloroquine; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Databases, Factual; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Immunoglobulins; Lopinavir; Pandemics; Pyrazines; Respiration, Artificial; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33463727
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26811 -
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 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jan 2021Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the...
OBJECTIVES
Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the current understanding of JAKi use based on a systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety.
METHODS
Existing data were evaluated by a steering committee and subsequently reviewed by a 29 person expert committee leading to the formulation of a consensus statement that may assist the clinicians, patients and other stakeholders once the decision is made to commence a JAKi. The committee included patients, rheumatologists, a gastroenterologist, a haematologist, a dermatologist, an infectious disease specialist and a health professional. The SLR informed the Task Force on controlled and open clinical trials, registry data, phase 4 trials and meta-analyses. In addition, approval of new compounds by, and warnings from regulators that were issued after the end of the SLR search date were taken into consideration.
RESULTS
The Task Force agreed on and developed four general principles and a total of 26 points for consideration which were grouped into six areas addressing indications, treatment dose and comedication, contraindications, pretreatment screening and risks, laboratory and clinical follow-up examinations, and adverse events. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined based on the SLR and levels of agreement were voted on for every point, reaching a range between 8.8 and 9.9 on a 10-point scale.
CONCLUSION
The consensus provides an assessment of evidence for efficacy and safety of an important therapeutic class with guidance on issues of practical management.
Topics: Adamantane; Advisory Committees; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Azetidines; Cytokines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Europe; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Niacinamide; Piperidines; Psoriasis; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Rheumatology; Spondylarthropathies; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Sulfonamides; Triazoles
PubMed: 33158881
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218398 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Dec 2020According to international guidelines, induction therapy may be considered in selected patients with initially unresectable locally advanced cholangiocarcinoma. The...
BACKGROUND
According to international guidelines, induction therapy may be considered in selected patients with initially unresectable locally advanced cholangiocarcinoma. The criteria for (un)resectability in cholangiocarcinoma varies between studies and no consensus-based agreement is available about these criteria. By performing a systematic literature review, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of systemic induction therapy in initially unresectable locally advanced perihilar (pCCA) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) and summarize resectability criteria used across studies.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane library to identify studies on systemic induction therapy in locally advanced pCCA and/or iCCA. The primary outcome was resection rate (RR) after induction therapy and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR).
RESULTS
Ten studies with a total of 1167 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Among these patients, 334 (28.6%) were treated with systemic induction therapy. Across the studies, different types of chemotherapy regimens were administered (e.g., gemcitabine (based) chemotherapy and 5-FU (based) chemotherapy). Only six studies provided sufficient data and were used to analyze pooled (radical) resection rates. After induction therapy, 94 patients (39.2%) underwent a resection, of which R0 resections (22.9%). Pooled data on OS showed, better OS for chemotherapy plus resection versus chemotherapy only (pooled HR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.19-0.50; P value < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
Adequately selected patients with locally advanced pCCA or iCCA may benefit from induction therapy followed by surgical resection. Prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted.
Topics: Aged; Bile Duct Neoplasms; Cholangiocarcinoma; Deoxycytidine; Female; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Klatskin Tumor; Male; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 33075684
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2020.102110 -
Annals of Hepatology 2021Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 (GT3) infection are resistant to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatments. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 (GT3) infection are resistant to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatments. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of sofosbuvir (SOF)+daclatasvir (DCV) ± ribavirin (RBV); SOF+velpatasvir (VEL)±RBV; SOF+VEL+voxilaprevir (VOX); and glecaprevir (GLE)+pibrentasvir (PIB) in the treatment of HCV GT3-infected patients in real-world studies. Articles were identified by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from January 1, 2016 to September 10, 2019. The meta-analysis was conducted to determine the sustained virologic response (SVR) rate, using R 3.6.2 software. Thirty-four studies, conducted on a total of 7328 patients from 22 countries, met the inclusion criteria. The pooled SVR rate after 12/24 weeks of treatment was 92.07% (95% CI: 90.39-93.61%) for the evaluated regimens. Also, the SVR rate was 91.17% (95% CI: 89.23-92.94%) in patients treated with SOF+DCV±RBV; 95.08% (95% CI: 90.88-98.13%) in patients treated with SOF+VEL±RBV; 84.97% (95% CI: 73.32-93.91%) in patients treated with SOF+VEL+VOX; and 98.54% (95% CI: 96.40-99.82%) in patients treated with GLE+PIB. The pooled SVR rate of the four regimens was 95.24% (95% CI: 93.50-96.75%) in non-cirrhotic patients and 89.39% (95% CI: 86.07-92.33%) in cirrhotic patients. The pooled SVR rate was 94.41% (95% CI: 92.02-96.42%) in treatment-naive patients and 87.98% (95% CI: 84.31-91.25%) in treatment-experienced patients. The SVR rate of GLE+PIB was higher than other regimens. SOF+VEL+VOX can be used as a treatment regimen following DAA treatment failure.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Benzimidazoles; Carbamates; Drug Combinations; Hepatitis C; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Imidazoles; Macrocyclic Compounds; Pyrrolidines; Quinoxalines; Ribavirin; Sofosbuvir; Sulfonamides; Valine
PubMed: 33059055
DOI: 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.09.012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants. 3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants. 4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Axitinib; Bevacizumab; Bias; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Everolimus; Humans; Indazoles; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Phenylurea Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib
PubMed: 33058158
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012796.pub2 -
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and... Dec 2020To assess the efficacy and safety of Aβ-targeting agents for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of Aβ-targeting agents for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.
METHODS
The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal were searched from their inception to April 2020. We generated pooled estimates using random effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Nineteen randomised controlled trials, of which 17 had a low risk of bias, included 12 903 participants. The meta-analysis showed no difference in the cognitive subscale of Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) between anti-Aβ drugs and placebo (mean difference (MD): 0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.81; =99.8%; minimal important difference 3.1-3.8 points, moderate-certainty evidence). For ADAS-Cog, results suggested that one drug that increases Aβ clearance may differ in effect (MD: -0.96, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.92) from drugs that reduce Aβ production (MD: 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.32) (interaction p<0.000001); this difference also existed in the outcome of MMSE and CDR-SOB. Compared with placebo, anti-Aβ drug-related adverse events were as follows: anxiety, depression, diarrhoea, fatigue, rash, syncope and vomit.
DISCUSSION
From current evidence, anti-Aβ interventions are unlikely to have an important impact on slowing cognitive or functional decline. Although the subgroup analysis suggested possible benefits from Aβ clearance drugs, the analysis has limited credibility, and a benefit from drugs that increase clearance, if real, is very small.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO registration number CRD42019126272.
Topics: Acitretin; Alanine; Alzheimer Disease; Amyloid beta-Peptides; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Anxiety; Azepines; Clioquinol; Copper; Cyclic S-Oxides; Depression; Diarrhea; Exanthema; Fatigue; Flurbiprofen; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Inositol; Mental Status and Dementia Tests; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Orotic Acid; Oxadiazoles; Severity of Illness Index; Sulfonamides; Syncope; Thiadiazines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting
PubMed: 33046560
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2020-323497 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Mar 2021Because of the lack of vaccination, it is urgent to find effective antiviral agents for COVID-19 treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Because of the lack of vaccination, it is urgent to find effective antiviral agents for COVID-19 treatment.
METHOD
Online databases were searched for articles published before or on 22 June 2020. Studies reporting the effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for COVID-19 were analysed.
RESULTS
A total of 42 studies were included in this analysis. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was not associated with the incidence of death (risk ratio (RR)=1.08; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.44) and severe cases (RR=1.05; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.81). Patients treated with HCQ obtained few benefits with respect to the clearance of viral RNA and were more likely to have adverse reactions. HCQ treatment could shorten the body temperature recovery time (weighted mean difference = -1.04; 95% CI -1.64 to -0.45). Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07) and Arbidol (RR=1.09; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.29) were not associated with the negative conversion rate. Integrative Chinese-Western medicine alleviated clinical symptoms and decreased the incidence of severe cases (RR=0.38; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.59). Remdesivir treatment reduced the 14-day mortality rate of patients with severe COVID-19 (RR=0.64; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.94). Convalescent plasma (CP) tended to increase the negative conversion rate (RR=2.47; 95% CI 1.70 to 3.57).
CONCLUSION
HCQ, LPV/r and Arbidol bring little benefit in COVID-19 treatment. Integrative Chinese-Western medicine improved the clinical symptoms of patients with COVID-19. Remdesivir and CP might be the potential treatments for patients with severe COVID-19. However, large-scale clinical randomised trials are needed to validate our conclusions.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Antirheumatic Agents; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Drug Combinations; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Immunization, Passive; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Immunologic Factors; Indoles; Lopinavir; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 32958501
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002554 -
European Journal of Clinical... Nov 2020Several therapeutic agents have been investigated for treatment of novel coronavirus 2019 (nCOV-2019). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several therapeutic agents have been investigated for treatment of novel coronavirus 2019 (nCOV-2019). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of various treatment modalities in nCOV-2019 patients.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted before 29 June 2020 in PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane library databases. A fixed-effect model was applied if I < 50%, else results were combined using random-effect model. Risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) along with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to pool the results. Between-study heterogeneity was explored using influence and sensitivity analyses, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Entire statistical analysis was conducted in R version 3.6.2.
RESULTS
Fifty studies involving 15 in vitro and 35 clinical studies including 9170 nCOV-2019 patients were included. Lopinavir-ritonavir was significantly associated with shorter mean time to clinical recovery (SMD -0.32; 95% CI -0.57 to -0.06), remdesivir was significantly associated with better overall clinical recovery (RR 1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29), and tocilizumab was associated with less all-cause mortality (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.93). Hydroxychloroquine was associated with longer time to clinical recovery and less overall clinical recovery. It additionally had higher all-cause mortality and more total adverse events.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis suggests that except in vitro studies, no treatment has shown overall favourable outcomes in nCOV-2019 patients. Lopinavir-ritonavir, remdesivir and tocilizumab may have some benefits, while hydroxychloroquine administration may cause harm in nCOV-2019 patients. Results from upcoming large clinical trials may further clarify role of these drugs.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Europe; Female; Humans; Lopinavir; Male; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Prognosis; Ritonavir; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32810285
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13383 -
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