Efficacy and safety of umifenovir for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Huang D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7361300 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo provide the latest evidence for the efficacy and safety of arbidol (umifenovir) in COVID-19 treatment.MethodsA literature systematic search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and medRxiv up to May 2021. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.ResultsSixteen studies were met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was observed between arbidol and non-antiviral treatment groups neither for primary outcomes, including the negative rate of PCR (NR-PCR) on Day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.14) and Day 14 (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96-1.25), and PCR negative conversion time (PCR-NCT; mean difference [MD]: 0.74; 95% CI: -0.87 to 2.34), nor secondary outcomes (p > .05). However, arbidol was associated with higher adverse events (RR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.06-4.73). Compared with lopinavir/ritonavir, arbidol showed better efficacy for primary outcomes (p < .05). Adding arbidol to lopinavir/ritonavir also led to better efficacy in terms of NR-PCR on Day 7 and PCR-NCT (p < .05). There was no significant difference between arbidol and chloroquine in primary outcomes (p > .05). No remarkable therapeutic effect was observed between arbidol and other agents (p > .05).ConclusionThe present meta-analysis showed no significant benefit of using arbidol compared with non-antiviral treatment or other therapeutic agents against COVID-19 disease. High-quality studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of arbidol for COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8426686 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe conducted a comprehensive literature review to synthesize evidence for the relationship between corticosteroid use and mortality in patients with COVID-19.MethodsThe PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 13, 2021. We searched and analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs) that examined corticosteroid use in patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, while the secondary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) and serious adverse events.ResultsA total of 11 RCTs and 44 OSs involving 7893 and 41,164 patients with COVID-19 were included in the study. Corticosteroid use was associated with lower COVID-19 mortality in RCTs, but was not statistically significant (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77-1.07; I2 = 63.4%). The subgroup analysis of pulse dose corticosteroid showed survival benefit statistically (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.56). Moreover, the corticosteroid use may reduce the need for MV (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.90; I2 = 7.5%) with no significant increase in serious adverse reactions (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30-2.37; I2 = 33.3%). In addition, the included OSs showed that the pulse dose (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.95; I2 = 30.8%) might lower the mortality in patients with COVID-19. The pulse dose of methylprednisolone (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45-0.80; I2 = 0%) had a beneficial effect on survival. It was especially significant when the duration of pulse methylprednisolone use was less than 7 days (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.80; I2 = 0%).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis indicated that corticosteroid use might cause a slight reduction in COVID-19 mortality. However, it could significantly reduce the MV requirement in patients with COVID-19 and restrict serious adverse events. Additionally, the pulse dose of methylprednisolone for less than 7 days may be a good treatment choice for patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8363240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Until now, there is no clinically approved specific medicine to treat COVID-19. Prior systematic reviews (SRs) have shown that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) reduces the number of patients with severe disease and time to fever clearance, promotes clinical effectiveness, and improves chest images and the negativity rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid test. Few SRs arrived at a definitive conclusion, and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published. We conducted this study to summarize the latest evidence of TCM in COVID-19. Methods: Eight online databases were searched from December 2019 to July 2020, updated to March 2021. Only RCTs evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19 were included. Primary outcomes were clinical cure and the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test. Secondary outcomes included clinical deterioration, ARDS, mechanical ventilation, death, time to fever clearance, duration of hospitalization, and chest imaging improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events and serious adverse events during treatment. Two reviewers selected the included articles, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. Results: A total of 25 RCTs involving 2222 participants were selected in the systematic review, and seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that TCM plus routine treatment was significantly better than routine treatment alone in clinical cure (risk ratio [RR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.04, 1.38], P = 0.01) and chest image improvement (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.07, 1.39], P = 0.01) and could reduce clinical deterioration (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.18, 0.86], P = 0.02), ARDS (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.11, 0.69], P = 0.01), mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.30, 95% CI [0.12, 0.77], P = 0.01), or death rate (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.09, 0.84], P = 0.02). No significant difference between TCM and routine treatment in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test (RR = 1.08, 95% CI [0.94, 1.23], P = 0.29) was observed. Finally, there was no overall significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. The summary of evidence showed moderate confidence of a benefit of 11.8% in clinical cure and 14.0% in chest image improvement and a reduction of 5.9% in clinical deterioration, 25.4% in ARDS, 18.3% in mechanical ventilation, and 4.5% in death with TCM plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone in patients with COVID-19. A low confidence of a benefit of 5.4% in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test was also observed. Conclusions: Synethized evidence of 21 outcomes in 8 RCTs showed moderate certainty that TCM treatment plus routine treatment may promote a clinical cure and chest image improvement compared to routine treatment alone while reducing clinical deterioration, development of ARDS, use of mechanical ventilation, and death in patients with COVID-19. TCM treatment plus routine treatment may not promote the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test compared to routine treatment alone. TCM treatment was found to be safe for patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8379002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate, using meta-analysis, the efficacy and safety profile of Jinhua Qinggan granules (JHQG) in the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia.MethodsWe screened multiple publication databases (PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP), using parameters designed to identify articles detailing randomized controlled trials relating to the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia with JHQG. The inclusion period for each search was the point of database inception to November 2022. Each piece of literature identified in our initial screening was independently reviewed by 2 researchers, who extracted the relevant data and evaluated the bias risk associated with the study. The data was split in 2: the control group (containing patients who had received routine treatment or placebo) and the experimental group (containing patients treated with JHQG). The meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.ResultsFour articles were selected for this study and combined included a total of 582 patients, which were subdivided into experimental (n = 347) and control (n = 235) groups. The results showed that treatment with JHQG could significantly: enhance the improvement rate of primary symptoms [relative ratio (RR) = 1.26,95% confidence interval (CI) (1.07, 1.49), P = .007] and fever [RR = 1.48, 95% CI (1.07, 2.04), P = .02]; decrease the viral nucleic acid in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) [RR = 2.04, 95% CI (1.15, 3.62), P = .02] and reduce the progression of pneumonia [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.17, 0.67), P = .002]. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups with regards to: the improvement rate of cough, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, computed tomography, or frequency of adverse reactions.ConclusionsCurrent evidence indicates that JHQG is effective in treating COVID-19, increasing the rate of improvement for fever, increasing the negative rate of viral nucleic acid in patients with COVID-19 and reducing the aggravation rate of pneumonia. These conclusions need to be verified by further rigorous studies, as the existing results were limited by the number and quality of the included studies.
| S-EPMC10100637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Efforts are ongoing by researchers globally to develop new drugs or repurpose existing ones for treating COVID-19. Thus, this led to the use of oseltamivir, an antiviral drug used for treating influenza A and B viruses, as a trial drug for COVID-19. However, available evidence from clinical studies has shown conflicting results on the effectiveness of oseltamivir in COVID-19 treatment. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the clinical safety and efficacy of oseltamivir for treating COVID-19. The study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines, and the priori protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021270821). Five databases were searched, the identified records were screened, and followed by the extraction of relevant data. Eight observational studies from four Asian countries were included. A random-effects model was used to pool odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MD), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the study analysis. Survival was not significantly different between all categories of oseltamivir and the comparison groups analysed. The duration of hospitalisation was significantly shorter in the oseltamivir group following sensitivity analysis (MD -5.95, 95% CI -9.91--1.99 p = 0.003, heterogeneity I2 0%, p = 0.37). The virological, laboratory and radiological response rates were all not in favour of oseltamivir. However, the electrocardiographic safety parameters were found to be better in the oseltamivir group. However, more studies are needed to establish robust evidence on the effectiveness or otherwise of oseltamivir usage for treating COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9714710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:Clinical and laboratory biomarkers to predict the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are essential in this pandemic situation of which resource allocation must be urgently prepared especially in the context of respiratory support readiness. Lymphocyte count has been a marker of interest since the first COVID-19 publication. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to investigate the association of lymphocyte count on admission and the severity of COVID-19. We would also like to analyze whether patient characteristics such as age and comorbidities affect the relationship between lymphocyte count and COVID-19. Methods:Comprehensive and systematic literature search was performed from PubMed, SCOPUS, EuropePMC, ProQuest, Cochrane Central Databases, and Google Scholar. Research articles in adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with information on lymphocyte count and several outcomes of interest, including mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), intensive care unit (ICU) care, and severe COVID-19, were included in the analysis. Inverse variance method was used to obtain mean differences and its standard deviations. Maentel-Haenszel formula was used to calculate dichotomous variables to obtain odds ratios (ORs) along with its 95% confidence intervals. Random-effect models were used for meta-analysis regardless of heterogeneity. Restricted-maximum likelihood random-effects meta-regression was performed for age, gender, cardiac comorbidity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, COPD, and smoking. Results:There were a total of 3099 patients from 24 studies. Meta-analysis showed that patients with poor outcome have a lower lymphocyte count (mean difference - 361.06 μL [- 439.18, - 282.95], p < 0.001; I 2 84%) compared to those with good outcome. Subgroup analysis showed lower lymphocyte count in patients who died (mean difference - 395.35 μL [- 165.64, - 625.07], p < 0.001; I 2 87%), experienced ARDS (mean difference - 377.56 μL [- 271.89, - 483.22], p < 0.001; I 2 0%), received ICU care (mean difference - 376.53 μL [- 682.84, - 70.22], p = 0.02; I 2 89%), and have severe COVID-19 (mean difference - 353.34 μL [- 250.94, - 455.73], p < 0.001; I 2 85%). Lymphopenia was associated with severe COVID-19 (OR 3.70 [2.44, 5.63], p < 0.001; I 2 40%). Meta-regression showed that the association between lymphocyte count and composite poor outcome was affected by age (p = 0.034). Conclusion:This meta-analysis showed that lymphopenia on admission was associated with poor outcome in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7245646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerging infectious disease that has caused a global pandemic. The presenting symptoms are mainly respiratory symptom, yet studies have reported nervous system involvement in the disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis of these studies are required to understanding the neurologic characteristic of the disease and help physicians with early diagnosis and management. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the neurologic characteristics in patients with COVID-19. Evidence Review: Authors conducted a literature search through PubMed from January 1st, 2020 to April 8th, 2020. Furthermore, the authors added additional sources by reviewing related references. Studies presenting the neurologic features of COVID-19 patients in their data were included. Case reports and case series were also included in this review. The quality of the studies was assessed based on the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Selected studies were included in the meta-analysis of proportion and the heterogeneity test. Finding: From 280 identified studies, 33 were eligible, with 7,559 participants included. Most of the included studies were from China (29 [88%]). Muscle injury or myalgia was the most common (19.2%, 95%CI 15.4-23.2%) neurologic symptom of COVID-19, followed by headache (10.9%, 95%CI 8.62-13.51%); dizziness (8.7%, 95%CI 5.02-13.43%); nausea with or without vomiting (4.6%, 95%CI 3.17-6.27%); concurrent cerebrovascular disease (4.4%, 95%CI 1.92-7.91%); and impaired consciousness (3.8%, 95%CI 0.16-12.04%). Underlying cerebrovascular disease was found in 8.5% (95%CI 4.5-13.5%) of the studies. Conclusion: Neurologic findings vary from non-specific to specific symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Some severe symptoms or diseases can present in the later stage of the disease. Physicians should be aware of the presence of neurologic signs and symptoms as a chief complaint of COVID-19, in order to improve management and prevent a worsening outcome of the patients.
| S-EPMC7273516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly developed into a pandemic. Increased levels of ferritin due to cytokine storm and secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis were found in severe COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the role of ferritin in COVID-19.MethodsStudies investigating ferritin in COVID-19 were collected from PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, SinoMed, and WANFANG. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the ferritin level between different patient groups: non-survivors versus survivors; more severe versus less severe; with comorbidity versus without comorbidity; ICU versus non-ICU; with mechanical ventilation versus without mechanical ventilation.ResultsA total of 52 records involving 10 614 COVID-19-confirmed patients between December 25, 2019, and June 1, 2020, were included in this meta-analysis, and 18 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The ferritin level was significantly increased in severe patients compared with the level in non-severe patients [WMD 397.77 (95% CI 306.51-489.02), P < .001]. Non-survivors had a significantly higher ferritin level compared with the one in survivors [WMD 677.17 (95% CI 391.01-963.33), P < .001]. Patients with one or more comorbidities including diabetes, thrombotic complication, and cancer had significantly higher levels of ferritin than those without (P < .01). Severe acute liver injury was significantly associated with high levels of ferritin, and its level was associated with intensive supportive care, including ICU transfer and mechanical ventilation.ConclusionsFerritin was associated with poor prognosis and could predict the worsening of COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7595919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To provide a comprehensive and systematic analysis of demographic characteristics, clinical symptoms, laboratory findings, and imaging features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in pediatric patients. A meta-analysis was carried out to identify studies on COVID-19 from 25 December 2019 to 30 April 2020. A total of 48 studies with 5829 pediatric patients were included. Children of all ages were at risk for COVID-19. The main illness classification ranged as: 20% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-26%; I2 = 91.4%) asymptomatic, 33% (95% CI: 23%-43%; I2 = 95.6%) mild and 51% (95% CI: 42%-61%; I2 = 93.4%) moderate. The typical clinical manifestations were fever 51% (95% CI: 45%-57%; I2 = 78.9%) and cough 41% (95% CI: 35%-47%, I2 = 81.0%). The common laboratory findings were normal white blood cell 69% (95% CI: 64%-75%; I2 = 58.5%), lymphopenia 16% (95% CI: 11%-21%; I2 = 76.9%) and elevated creatine-kinase MB 37% (95% CI: 25%-48%; I2 = 59.0%). The frequent imaging features were normal images 41% (95% CI: 30%-52%; I2 = 93.4%) and ground-glass opacity 36% (95% CI: 25%-47%; I2 = 92.9%). Among children under 1 year old, critical cases account for 14% (95% CI: 13%-34%; I2 = 37.3%) that should be of concern. In addition, vomiting occurred in 33% (95% CI: 18%-67%; I2 = 0.0%) cases that may also need attention. Pediatric patients with COVID-19 may experience milder illness with atypical clinical manifestations and rare lymphopenia. High incidence of critical illness and vomiting symptoms reward attention in children under 1 year old.
| S-EPMC7436402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo better inform clinical practice, we summarized the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antivirals for COVID-19.MethodsWe systematically searched for literature up to September 2020, and included English-language publications of RCTs among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We conducted network meta-analysis combining results of both the direct and indirect comparisons of interventions. The efficacy outcomes were clinical progression, all-cause mortality, and viral clearance, and safety outcomes were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. We generated treatment rankings (best to worst) and summarized rank probabilities using rankogram.ResultsWe included 15 RCTs (14,418 patients) from 7,237 retrieved citations. There was no evidence for efficacy of the assessed antivirals compared with placebo/no treatment or with another antiviral for all efficacy outcomes. Lopinavir (400 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg) significantly increased diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting compared with placebo/no treatment and other antivirals, and was ranked worst for these outcomes, while triazavirin (250 mg), baloxavir marboxil (80 mg), and remdesivir (100 mg - 10 days) ranked best, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe available evidence does not support the use of any antiviral drugs for COVID-19. Cautious interpretations of the findings are, however, advised considering the paucity of the evidence. More RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence base.
| S-EPMC8477589 | biostudies-literature