-
The Journal of Antimicrobial... Jul 2021We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide updated information regarding the clinical efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide updated information regarding the clinical efficacy of remdesivir in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant articles published up to 18 November 2020.
RESULTS
Five RCTs, including 13 544 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 3839 and 391 patients were assigned to the 10 day and 5 day remdesivir regimens, respectively. Patients receiving 5 day remdesivir therapy presented greater clinical improvement than those in the control group [OR = 1.68 (95% CI 1.18-2.40)], with no significant difference observed between the 10 day and placebo groups [OR = 1.23 (95% CI 0.90-1.68)]. Patients receiving remdesivir revealed a greater likelihood of discharge [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.32 (95% CI 1.09-1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.73 (95% CI 1.28-2.35)] and recovery [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.29 (95% CI 1.03-1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.80 (95% CI 1.31-2.48)] than those in the control group. In contrast, no mortality benefit was observed following remdesivir therapy. Furthermore, no significant association was observed between remdesivir treatment and an increased risk of adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Remdesivir can help improve the clinical outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a 5 day regimen, instead of a 10 day regimen, may be sufficient for treatment. Moreover, remdesivir appears as tolerable as other comparators or placebo.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33758946
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkab093 -
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 -
Andrology Jan 2021A pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 has been sweeping the world since December. It begins as a respiratory infection that, mainly in men with diabetes or renal impairment,...
BACKGROUND
A pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 has been sweeping the world since December. It begins as a respiratory infection that, mainly in men with diabetes or renal impairment, evolves into a systemic disease, with SARDS, progressive endothelial cell damage, abnormal clotting and impaired cardiovascular and liver function. Some clinical trials are testing biological drugs to limit the immune system dysregulation, "cytokines storm," that causes the systemic complications of COVID-19. The contraindications of these drugs and their cost raise concerns over the implications of their widespread availability.
OBJECTIVES
Numerous clinical and experimental studies have revealed a role for the nitric oxide (NO)-cyclic GMP-phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) pathway in modulating low-grade inflammation in patients with metabolic diseases, offering cardiovascular protection. PDE5 inhibition favors an anti-inflammatory response by modulating activated T cells, reducing cytokine release, lowering fibrosis, increasing oxygen diffusion, stimulating vascular repair. PDE5 is highly expressed in the lungs, where its inhibition improves pulmonary fibrosis, a complication of severe COVID-19 disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review of all evidence documenting any involvement of the NO-cGMP-PDE5 axis in the pathophysiology of COVID-19, presenting the ongoing clinical trials aimed at modulating this axis, including our own "silDEnafil administration in DiAbetic and dysmetaboLic patients with COVID-19 (DEDALO trial)."
RESULTS
The reviewed evidence suggests that PDE5 inhibitors could offer a new strategy in managing COVID-19 by (i) counteracting the Ang-II-mediated downregulation of AT-1 receptor; (ii) acting on monocyte switching, thus reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines, interstitial infiltration and the vessel damage responsible for alveolar hemorrhage-necrosis; (iii) inhibiting the transition of endothelial and smooth muscle cells to mesenchymal cells in the pulmonary artery, preventing clotting and thrombotic complications.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
If the ongoing trials presented herein should provide positive findings, the low cost, wide availability and temperature stability of PDE5 inhibitors could make them a major resource to combat COVID-19 in developing countries.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cyclic GMP; Cyclic Nucleotide Phosphodiesterases, Type 5; Host-Pathogen Interactions; Humans; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Nitric Oxide; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; SARS-CoV-2; Signal Transduction; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32526061
DOI: 10.1111/andr.12837 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aug 2021To investigate the efficacy and safety of poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (including their different types) as maintenance therapy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as maintenance therapy in women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
To investigate the efficacy and safety of poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (including their different types) as maintenance therapy in women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, and to explore whether this therapy produces a survival benefit in a subgroup population with specific clinical characteristics.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and relevant clinical research registry platforms on October 1, 2019, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PARP inhibitors with placebo in women (aged ≥ 18 years) with newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer.
RESULTS
We identified four RCTs with 3,070 participants. Compared with placebo, PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy showed a clinically significant benefit on progression free survival (PFS) in homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) positive population (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.53). In contrast, no clear differences were identified between the groups in the HRD negative population (HR, 0.83; 95% CI 0.67-1.03). Further, there was no clear difference between the groups in terms of other outcomes (overall survival, health-related quality of life, and adverse events).
CONCLUSIONS
PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy significantly prolongs the PFS of patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, especially in HRD positive patients. The diagnostic test used to determine HRD status plays an important role in guiding PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy. Compared with placebo, the effect of PARP inhibitors on ovarian cancer was probably not affected by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage status, response to first-line chemotherapy, and residual macroscopic disease after debulking surgery.
Topics: Adenosine Diphosphate; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Ribose; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34021367
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06070-2 -
Cardiovascular Diabetology Jul 2022The influence of diabetes on the mortality and risk of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies is still controversial, and a comprehensive assessment is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The influence of diabetes on the mortality and risk of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies is still controversial, and a comprehensive assessment is lacking. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to address this controversy.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases to collect relevant literature. Fixed and random effects models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Thirty-six articles reporting on 162,780 ICD recipients were included in this analysis. Compared with nondiabetic ICD recipients, diabetic ICD recipients had higher all-cause mortality (HR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.36-1.55). The subgroup analysis showed that secondary prevention patients with diabetes may suffer a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.56-2.28) (for subgroup analysis, P = 0.03). Cardiac mortality was also higher in ICD recipients with diabetes (HR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.35-2.08). However, diabetes had no significant effect on the risks of ICD therapies, including appropriate or inappropriate therapy, appropriate or inappropriate shock and appropriate anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP). Diabetes was associated with a decreased risk of inappropriate ATP (HR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.39-0.79).
CONCLUSION
Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of mortality in ICD recipients, especially in the secondary prevention patients, but does not significantly influence the risks of ICD therapies, indicating that the increased mortality of ICD recipients with diabetes may not be caused by arrhythmias. The survival benefits of ICD treatment in diabetes patients are limited.
Topics: Adenosine Triphosphate; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Defibrillators, Implantable; Diabetes Mellitus; Humans; Proportional Hazards Models; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35906611
DOI: 10.1186/s12933-022-01580-y -
Drugs Dec 2020Based on current evidence, recent guidelines of the National Institute of Health, USA indicated the use of remdesivir and dexamethasone for the treatment of COVID-19...
BACKGROUND
Based on current evidence, recent guidelines of the National Institute of Health, USA indicated the use of remdesivir and dexamethasone for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with mild-moderate disease, not requiring high-flow oxygen. No therapeutic agent directed against the immunologic pathogenic mechanisms related to the cytokine release syndrome complicating the disease was indicated.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this review was to assess the clinical impact of different therapies for COVID-19; thus, helping to identify the optimal management of the disease. To explain the rationale for the different therapeutic approaches, the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, the pathogenesis of COVID-19, and the immune response triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported.
METHODS
The efficacy assessment of the different treatments was performed by a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Available English language published articles including randomised controlled trials, open-label trials of antivirals and immune therapies extracted from Medline, Google Scholar, and MedRxiv databases were analysed. For inclusion, the primary end point of the trials had to be the efficacy as measured by the improvement of clinical features, or mortality, or the Intensive Care Unit Admission rate, or the discharge number. Case reports, paediatric studies, and studies without control group were excluded. The literature search was extended up to August 15, 2020.
RESULTS
After the removal of duplicate articles, and the exclusion of studies not meeting the eligibility criteria, 2 trials of lopinavir/ritonavir, 1 of favipiravir, 3 of remdesivir, 1 of dexamethasone, 3 of hydroxychloroquine, 2 of colchicine, 6 of tocilizumab, 1 of sarilumab, 1 of siltuximab, 2 of anakinra, 3 of baricitinib, 1 of ruxolitinib, 1 of mavrilimumab, and 1 of itolizumab were suitable for the review. Among antivirals, only remdesivir significantly reduced the time to recovery, and mortality. Data for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were largely inconclusive. In a large trial, dexamethasone 6 mg/day reduced mortality by one-third. Trials of tocilizumab and sarilumab did not definitively demonstrate efficacy. Anakinra significantly reduced the mortality in 2 trials. Three retrospective trials on a cumulative number of 145 patients, reported the efficacy of baricitinib, with significant reduction of intensive care unit admission, and deaths. These results were recently confirmed by the ACTT-2 trial. Due to paucity of studies and to the small size clinical series, the results of other immune therapies were not conclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
Beyond the supportive therapy, up to now the best therapeutic approach for COVID-19 may be a three-step combination therapy, including remdesivir 100 mg/day (200 mg loading dose on first day) in the first stage of the disease, and combined dexamethasone 6 mg/day plus baricitinib 4 mg/day to target the immune dysregulation triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The promising results of anakinra should be confirmed by the ongoing RCTs.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antiviral Agents; Biological Products; COVID-19; Cytokines; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Inflammation Mediators; Intensive Care Units; Pandemics; Retrospective Studies; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33068263
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-020-01421-w -
Clinical Cardiology Apr 2013There is considerable debate about whether concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) should be recommended for patients who are prescribed clopidogrel after acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is considerable debate about whether concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) should be recommended for patients who are prescribed clopidogrel after acute coronary syndrome. Most pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies in vivo were conducted using small sample sizes and were single centered, resulting in conflicting data.
HYPOTHESIS
PPIs may attenuate the antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel in vivo and lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular events.
METHODS
PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and China Biology Medicine Disc were searched. Randomized controlled trials that compared pharmacodynamic impacts of a PPI on the efficacy of clopidogrel in vivo were included. Two independent reviewers evaluated study quality and extracted data for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We identified 8 eligible studies. Compared to clopidogrel treatment alone, patients who received both a PPI and clopidogrel had less of a decrease in the platelet reactivity index (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 8.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.81-9.56; P<0.00001), less adenosine 5'-diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation inhibition (WMD: 7.28; 95% CI: 2.44-12.11; P=0.003), higher P2Y12 reaction units (WMD: 40.58; 95% CI: 19.31-61.86; P=0.0002), and higher risks of clopidogrel resistance (odds ratio [OR]: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.49-4.14; P=0.0005). There were no significant differences, however, for the incidences of major adverse cardiovascular events between the 2 groups (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.44-2.59; P=0.88), and treatment with a PPI and clopidogrel significantly reduced the risk of adverse gastrointestinal events (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.62; P=0.008).
CONCLUSIONS
Concomitant use of a PPI with clopidogrel attenuated the antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel, but may be clinically unimportant because there were no clinical differences in the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events.
Topics: Adenosine Diphosphate; Blood Platelets; Cardiovascular Diseases; Clopidogrel; Drug Interactions; Drug Resistance; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Platelet Aggregation; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Receptors, Purinergic P2Y12; Ticlopidine
PubMed: 23450832
DOI: 10.1002/clc.22094 -
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine Jan 2024The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIMS
The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other data resources to find RCTs published prior to April 10, 2023. The selection of studies, assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need to initiate MV.
RESULTS
A total of 5,068 articles were screened, from eight RCTs comprising 11,945 patients. The meta-analysis found that, compared to standard care or placebo, remdesivir treatment provided no significant all-cause mortality benefit (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.02; 8 studies; high certainty evidence), while subgroup analyses revealed a trend towards reduced mortality among patients requiring oxygen but not MV (pooled RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; 6 studies; I2 = 4%). The need to initiate MV (pooled RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94; 7 studies; moderate certainty evidence) in remdesivir-treated patients was also reduced compared to controls. Remdesivir significantly increased clinical improvement and discharge and significantly reduced serious adverse events.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, it was found that remdesivir treatment did not show a substantial decrease in the risk of mortality. However, it was linked to a reduction in the necessity for additional ventilatory support, suggesting remdesivir could be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, particularly those who are not on MV.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Respiration, Artificial; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Patient Acuity; Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine
PubMed: 38151918
DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2023.357 -
Journal of Microbiology, Immunology,... Oct 2021Despite aggressive efforts on containment measures for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic around the world, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2... (Review)
Review
Despite aggressive efforts on containment measures for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic around the world, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is continuously spreading. Therefore, there is an urgent need for an effective antiviral agent. To date, considerable research has been conducted to develop different approaches to COVID-19 therapy. In addition to early observational studies, which could be limited by study design, small sample size, non-randomized design, or different timings of treatment, an increasing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of antiviral agents are being carried out. This study reviews the updated findings of RCTs regarding the clinical efficacy of eight antiviral agents against COVID-19, including remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, favipiravir, sofosbuvir/daclatasvir, sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, baloxavir, umifenovir, darunavir/cobicistat, and their combinations. Treatment with remdesivir could accelerate clinical improvement; however, it lacked additional survival benefits. Moreover, 5-day regimen of remdesivir might show adequate effectiveness in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Favipiravir was only marginally effective regarding clinical improvement and virological assessment based on the results of small RCTs. The present evidence suggests that sofosbuvir/daclatasvir may improve survival and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, the sample sizes for analysis were relatively small, and all studies were exclusively conducted in Iran. Further larger RCTs in other countries are warranted to support these findings. In contrast, the present findings of limited RCTs did not indicate the use of lopinavir/ritonavir, sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, baloxavir, umifenovir, and darunavir/cobicistat in the treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Amides; Antiviral Agents; Carbamates; Cobicistat; Darunavir; Dibenzothiepins; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Imidazoles; Indoles; Iran; Lopinavir; Morpholines; Pyrazines; Pyridones; Pyrrolidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; Sofosbuvir; Treatment Outcome; Triazines; Valine; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34253490
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmii.2021.05.011 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Feb 2021Few treatments exist for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
BACKGROUND
Few treatments exist for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of remdesivir for COVID-19.
DATA SOURCES
Several databases, tables of contents of journals, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration and company websites were searched from 1 January through 31 August 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
English-language, randomized trials of remdesivir treatments for adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. New evidence will be incorporated using living review methods.
DATA EXTRACTION
Single-reviewer abstraction and risk-of-bias assessment verified by a second reviewer; GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods used for certainty-of-evidence assessments.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Four randomized trials were included. In adults with severe COVID-19, remdesivir compared with placebo probably improves recovery by a large amount (absolute risk difference [ARD] range, 7% to 10%) and may result in a small reduction in mortality (ARD range, -4% to 1%) and a shorter time to recovery or clinical improvement. Remdesivir may have little to no effect on hospital length of stay. Remdesivir probably reduces serious adverse events by a moderate amount (ARD range, -6% to -8%). Compared with a 10-day remdesivir course, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, increase recovery or clinical improvement by small to moderate amounts, reduce time to recovery, and reduce serious adverse events among hospitalized patients not requiring mechanical ventilation. Recovery due to remdesivir may not vary by age, sex, symptom duration, or disease severity.
LIMITATIONS
Low-certainty evidence with few published trials, including 1 preliminary report and 2 open-label trials. Trials excluded pregnant women and adults with severe kidney or liver disease.
CONCLUSION
In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably improves recovery and reduces serious adverse events and may reduce mortality and time to clinical improvement. For adults not receiving mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, a 5-day course of remdesivir may provide similar benefits to and fewer harms than a 10-day course.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service, and Evidence Synthesis Program.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Alanine; Antiviral Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Length of Stay; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33017170
DOI: 10.7326/M20-5752