-
International Journal of Infectious... Sep 2021To date, there is no effective treatment for the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We aimed to systematically review the literature on the association between the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To date, there is no effective treatment for the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We aimed to systematically review the literature on the association between the combination of tocilizumab (TCZ) and systemic corticosteroid therapy (SCT) on outcomes of COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and preprints, for studies in which health outcomes were compared between adults with severe COVID-19 who received TCZ and SCT and those who received standard of care without TCZ. Record screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate. Random effect models were used when pooling crude numbers and adjusted effect estimates of study outcomes.
RESULTS
Our search identified seventeen studies. The pooled crude mortality rate was lower in the combination arm (relative risk, RR=0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.42 - 0.91; I=60%). The adjusted mortality rates were also lower in the combination arm (RR=0.58, 95% CI=0.42 - 0.81; I=71%). The rate of superinfections did not differ between the two interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study show that combination of TCZ and SCT compared to SOC has lower mortality rates. There is an urgent need for well-designed randomized trials to assess the safety and efficacy of this combination in subjects with severe COVID-19.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34273515
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.07.021 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology Mar 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
The electronic search was made using PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Google scholar to identify the retrospective observational reports. The studies published from 01 January 2020 to 30th October 2020. Participants were hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Interventions included tocilizumab versus placebo/standard of care. The comparison will be between TCZ versus standard of care (SOC)/placebo. Inconsistency between the studies was evaluated with I2 and quality of the evidences were evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
RESULTS
Based on the inclusion criteria there were 24 retrospective studies involving 5686 subjects were included. The outcomes of the meta-analysis have revealed that the TCZ has reduced mortality (M-H, RE-OR -0.11(-0.18--0.04) 95% CI, p=0.001, I2 =88%) and increased the incidences of super-infections (M-H, RE-OR 1.49(1.13-1.96) 95% CI, p=0.004, I2=47%). However, there is no significant difference in ICU admissions rate (M-H, RE-OR -0.06(-0.23-0.12), I2=93%), need for mechanical ventilation (M-H, RE-OR of 0.00(-0.06-0.07), I=74%), LOS (IV -2.86(-0.91-3.38), I2=100%), LOS-ICU (IV: -3.93(-12.35-4.48), I2=100%), and incidences of pulmonary thrombosis (MH, RE-OR 1.01 (0.45-2.26), I2=0%) compared to SOC/control.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on cumulative low-to-moderate certainty evidence shows that TCZ could reduce the risk of mortality in hospitalised patients. However, there is no statistically significant difference observed between the TCZ and SOC/control groups in other parameters.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Retrospective Studies; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34251307
DOI: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/4dg0or -
Medicine May 2021Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection.
RESULTS
A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections.
CONCLUSION
Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; COVID-19; Humans; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34011029
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025719 -
QJM : Monthly Journal of the... Nov 2021Interleukin-6 inhibitors showed promising results in observational trials of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Interleukin-6 inhibitors showed promising results in observational trials of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
AIM
To evaluate whether interleukin-6 inhibitor tocilizumab (TCZ) reduces mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TCZ vs. placebo/control, for treatment of adults with COVID-19. Primary outcome was 28-30 days all-cause mortality. Search was conducted up to 1 April 2021. Two independent reviewers screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled. We performed subgroup analysis for patients with critical illness and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs were included, assessing 6481 patients with mostly severe non-critical COVID-19 infection. TCZ was associated with a reduction in all-cause 28-30-day mortality compared to placebo/control (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.96). Among the subgroup of critically ill patients no reduced mortality was demonstrated (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.74-1.19). No mortality benefit with TCZ was demonstrated in trials that used steroids for >80% of patients. TCZ was associated with significantly reduced risk for mechanical ventilation (MV); for combined endpoint of death or MV and for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. No significant difference in adverse events was demonstrated. Risk of serious superinfection was significantly lower with TCZ (RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.93).
CONCLUSION
The treatment with TCZ reduces 28-30 days all-cause mortality, ICU admission, superinfections, MV and the combined endpoint of death or MV. Among critically ill patients, and when steroids were used for most patients, no mortality benefit was demonstrated. Additional research should further define sub-groups that would benefit most and preferred timing of administration of TCZ in severe COVID-19.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34010403
DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcab142 -
PloS One 2021The recovery of other pathogens in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported, either at the time of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (co-infection) or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The recovery of other pathogens in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported, either at the time of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (co-infection) or subsequently (superinfection). However, data on the prevalence, microbiology, and outcomes of co-infection and superinfection are limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the occurrence of co-infections and superinfections and their outcomes among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We searched literature databases for studies published from October 1, 2019, through February 8, 2021. We included studies that reported clinical features and outcomes of co-infection or superinfection of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. We followed PRISMA guidelines, and we registered the protocol with PROSPERO as: CRD42020189763.
RESULTS
Of 6639 articles screened, 118 were included in the random effects meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of co-infection was 19% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-25%, I2 = 98%) and that of superinfection was 24% (95% CI: 19%-30%). Pooled prevalence of pathogen type stratified by co- or superinfection were: viral co-infections, 10% (95% CI: 6%-14%); viral superinfections, 4% (95% CI: 0%-10%); bacterial co-infections, 8% (95% CI: 5%-11%); bacterial superinfections, 20% (95% CI: 13%-28%); fungal co-infections, 4% (95% CI: 2%-7%); and fungal superinfections, 8% (95% CI: 4%-13%). Patients with a co-infection or superinfection had higher odds of dying than those who only had SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.82-5.99). Compared to those with co-infections, patients with superinfections had a higher prevalence of mechanical ventilation (45% [95% CI: 33%-58%] vs. 10% [95% CI: 5%-16%]), but patients with co-infections had a greater average length of hospital stay than those with superinfections (mean = 29.0 days, standard deviation [SD] = 6.7 vs. mean = 16 days, SD = 6.2, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed that as many as 19% of patients with COVID-19 have co-infections and 24% have superinfections. The presence of either co-infection or superinfection was associated with poor outcomes, including increased mortality. Our findings support the need for diagnostic testing to identify and treat co-occurring respiratory infections among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Topics: Bacterial Infections; COVID-19; Coinfection; Hospitalization; Humans; Mycoses; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Superinfection; Treatment Outcome; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 33956882
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251170 -
Infected hepatic echinococcosis. Clinical, therapeutic, and prognostic aspects. A systematic review.Annals of Hepatology 2021Infected hepatic echinococcosis (IHE), defined as a cystic infection, and the development of a liver abscess may be a complication in the natural history of hepatic...
Infected hepatic echinococcosis (IHE), defined as a cystic infection, and the development of a liver abscess may be a complication in the natural history of hepatic echinococcosis. The aim of this study was to review the evidence available related to clinical, therapeutic, and prognostic aspects of IHE. We conducted a systematic review. Trip Database, BIREME-BVS, SciELO, LILACS, IBECS, PAHO-WHO; WoS, EMBASE, SCOPUS and PubMed were consulted. Studies related to IHE in humans, without language restriction, published between 1966 and 2020 were considered. Variables studied were publication year, geographical origin of the samples, number of patients, therapeutic and prognosis aspects, and methodological quality (MQ) for each article. Descriptive statistics was applied. Subsequently, weighted averages (WA) of the MQ of each article were calculated for each variable of interest. 960 related articles were identified; 47 fulfilled selection criteria, including 486 patients with a median age of 48 years, 51.6% being male. The largest proportion of articles were from Spain, India, and Greece (36.1%). Mean cyst diameter was 14.1 cm, and main location was right liver lobe (74.0%). WA for morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and follow-up were 28.5%, 7.4%, 8.5 days and 14.8 months, respectively. The most common causative microorganisms of superinfection isolated were Enterobacteriaceae. An association with cholangitis was reported in 13.4% of cases. Mean MQ of the 47 articles included was 7.6 points. We can conclude that the information related to IHE is scarce and scattered throughout articles of small casuistry and poor quality, and consequently does not provide strong evidence.
Topics: Echinococcosis, Hepatic; Humans; Prognosis
PubMed: 32835861
DOI: 10.1016/j.aohep.2020.07.009 -
HIV Medicine Oct 2020The aim of the study was to systematically review current studies reporting on clinical outcomes in people living with HIV (PLHIV) infected with severe acute respiratory...
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the study was to systematically review current studies reporting on clinical outcomes in people living with HIV (PLHIV) infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Global Health, SCOPUS, Medline and EMBASE using pertinent key words and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and HIV. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Articles are summarized in relevant sections.
RESULTS
Two hundred and eighty-five articles were identified after duplicates had been removed. After screening, eight studies were analysed, totalling 70 HIV-infected patients (57 without AIDS and 13 with AIDS). Three themes were identified: (1) controlled HIV infection does not appear to result in poorer COVID-19 outcomes, (2) more data are needed to determine COVID-19 outcomes in patients with AIDS and (3) HIV-infected patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms should be investigated for superinfections.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that PLHIV with well-controlled disease are not at risk of poorer COVID-19 disease outcomes than the general population. It is not clear whether those with poorly controlled HIV disease and AIDS have poorer outcomes. Superimposed bacterial pneumonia may be a risk factor for more severe COVID-19 but further research is urgently needed to elucidate whether PLHIV are more at risk than the general population.
Topics: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome; COVID-19; Coinfection; Disease Progression; Female; Humans; MEDLINE; Male; Medical Informatics Applications; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32671970
DOI: 10.1111/hiv.12911 -
Le Infezioni in Medicina Mar 2020Evaluation of serum procalcitonin (PCT) levels has been suggested for diagnosis of infection, precise medical decision making and guidance for prescribing antibiotics in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effectiveness of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy to shorten treatment duration in critically-ill patients with bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Evaluation of serum procalcitonin (PCT) levels has been suggested for diagnosis of infection, precise medical decision making and guidance for prescribing antibiotics in critically-ill patients. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of PCT to shorten antibiotic treatment in critically-ill patients with bloodstream infections. Furthermore, the mortality and ICU length of stay (LOS) in such patients were secondary outcomes. Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Databases were searched from January 1, 2007 to September 1, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on using PCT to guide antibiotic therapy compared with routine treatments for administration of antibiotics in critically-ill adult patients published in English were included. Two reviewers assessed the methodology of the studies included and extracted their data using the CONSORT checklist. Inverse-variance weighting and fixed and random effects meta-analyses were performed using the length of antibiotic treatment, LOS in an intensive care unit (ICU) and all-cause mortality. No significant reduction was found in the length of antibiotic treatment: although the cut-off point of 0.25
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antimicrobial Stewardship; Bacteremia; Biomarkers; Cause of Death; Critical Illness; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Procalcitonin; Time Factors
PubMed: 32172259
DOI: No ID Found -
Medicine Feb 2020This meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-sulbactam for empiric therapy febrile neutropenia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-sulbactam for empiric therapy febrile neutropenia.
METHODS
The PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrial.gov database were searched through May 10, 2019. Only clinical trials comparing cefoperazone-sulbactam with other antibiotics for empiric treatment of febrile neutropenia were included. The primary outcome was treatment success without modification, and the secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 retrospective cohort study were included. Overall, cefoperazone-sulbactam exhibited a treatment success rate similar to those of comparator drugs for the treatment of febrile neutropenia (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.24, I = 0%). A similar finding was noted in pooled analysis of 10 RCTs (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.30, I = 0%). Subgroup analysis showed that cefoperazone-sulbactam had a treatment success rate similar to the rates of comparators for adults (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.38, I = 0%) and children (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.46, I = 0%). Cefoperazone-sulbactam did not differ significantly from comparators in the risks of all-cause mortality (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.58, I = 0%) or common AEs, namely rash, nausea/vomiting, and superinfection.
CONCLUSION
The clinical efficacy and tolerability of cefoperazone-sulbactam are comparable to those of comparator drugs in the treatment of febrile neutropenia.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cefoperazone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Febrile Neutropenia; Humans; Sulbactam
PubMed: 32080150
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019321 -
Avicenna Journal of Medicine 2019The role of the combination of glucocorticosteroids and mineralocorticosteroids in treating septic shock is not well-defined. The aim of this study was to perform a...
Combination of low-dose glucocorticosteroids and mineralocorticoids as adjunct therapy for adult patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies.
BACKGROUND
The role of the combination of glucocorticosteroids and mineralocorticosteroids in treating septic shock is not well-defined. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials and observational studies assessing the effect of low-dose hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone on patients with septic shock.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were reviewed. A random effect model meta-analysis was used and -square was used to assess the heterogeneity. Short-term mortality was chosen as our primary end point. A subgroup analysis was performed including only the randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS
A total of 10,550 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Administration of the steroid combination was associated with improved short-term mortality (odds ratio, 0.78, confidence interval, 0.64-0.96), intensive care unit mortality, and shock reversal, without increase in steroid-related side effects, such as secondary infection or gastrointestinal hemorrhage.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that use of the combination of glucocorticosteroids and mineralocorticosteroids has a beneficial impact on short-term mortality, intensive care unit mortality, and shock reversal, without increasing the incidence of gastrointestinal hemorrhage or superinfection in patients with septic shock, when used as an adjunct treatment to the established standard of care.
PubMed: 31903388
DOI: 10.4103/ajm.AJM_97_19