Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Siemieniuk RA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7390912 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021.Study selectionRandomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsRandom effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain.ConclusionsHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.Readers' noteThis 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.
| S-EPMC8073806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized trial evidence suggests that some antiviral drugs are effective in patients with COVID-19. However, the comparative effectiveness of antiviral drugs in nonsevere COVID-19 is unclear.MethodsWe searched the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE (Living Overview of Evidence) database for randomized trials comparing antiviral treatments, standard care or placebo in adult patients with nonsevere COVID-19 up to Apr. 25, 2022. Reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsWe identified 41 trials, which included 18 568 patients. Compared with standard care or placebo, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir each reduced risk of death with moderate certainty (10.9 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.6 to 4.5 fewer for molnupiravir; 11.7 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 13.1 fewer to 2.6 more). Compared with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced risk of hospital admission (27.8 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 32.8 to 18.3 fewer; moderate certainty). Remdesivir probably has no effect on risk of death, but may reduce hospital admissions (39.1 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 48.7 to 13.7 fewer; low certainty).InterpretationMolnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduce risk of hospital admissions and death among patients with nonsevere COVID-19. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is probably more effective than molnupiravir for reducing risk of hospital admissions. Most trials were conducted with unvaccinated patients, before the emergence of the Omicron variant; the effectiveness of these drugs must thus be tested among vaccinated patients and against newer variants.
| S-EPMC9328465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).Study selectionTrials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.ResultsAs of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.ConclusionIn patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.FundingThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).
| S-EPMC8459162 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSystemic treatments for atopic dermatitis are being evaluated primarily in placebo-controlled trials; network meta-analysis can provide relative efficacy and safety estimates for treatments that have not been compared head to head.ObjectiveTo compare reported measures of efficacy and assessments of safety in clinical trials of systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, Global Resource of EczemA Trials database, and trial registries were searched through June 15, 2021.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials examining 8 or more weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis were included after screening titles, abstracts, and papers in duplicate.Data extraction and synthesisData were abstracted in duplicate. Bayesian network meta-analyses and assessed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence were performed. The updated analysis was completed from June to December 2021.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes include change in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scales (PP-NRS).ResultsSince October 2019, 21 new studies were added, for a total of 60 trials with 16 579 patients. Up to 16 weeks of treatment in adults, abrocitinib, 200 mg daily (mean difference [MD], 2.2; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.2-4.0; high certainty) and upadacitinib, 30 mg daily (MD, 2.7; 95% CrI, 0.6-4.7; high certainty) were associated with reduced EASI slightly more than dupilumab, 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks. Abrocitinib, 100 mg daily (MD, -2.1; 95% CrI, -4.1 to -0.3; high certainty), baricitinib, 4 mg daily (MD, -3.2; 95% CrI, -5.7 to -0.8; high certainty), baricitinib, 2 mg daily (MD, -5.2; 95% CrI, -7.5 to -2.9; high certainty) and tralokinumab, 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks (MD, -3.5; 95% CrI, -5.8 to -1.3; high certainty) were associated with reduced EASI slightly less than dupilumab. There was little or no difference between upadacitinib, 15 mg daily, and dupilumab (MD, 0.2; 95% CrI, -1.9 to 2.2; high certainty). The pattern of results was similar for POEM, DLQI, and PP-NRS.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, abrocitinib, 200 mg; and upadacitinib, 30 mg daily, were associated with slightly better scores than dupilumab, and upadacitinib, 15 mg daily, was associated with similar scores to dupilumab. Abrocitinib, 100 mg daily, baricitinib, 4 mg and 2 mg daily, and tralokinumab, 300 mg, every 2 weeks were associated with slightly worse scores.
| S-EPMC8928094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The goal of nonrestorative or non- and microinvasive caries treatment (fluoride- and nonfluoride-based interventions) is to manage the caries disease process at a lesion level and minimize the loss of sound tooth structure. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence on nonrestorative treatments for the outcomes of 1) arrest or reversal of noncavitated and cavitated carious lesions on primary and permanent teeth and 2) adverse events. We included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials where patients were followed for any length of time. Studies were identified with MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessments, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data were synthesized with a random effects model and a frequentist approach. Forty-four trials (48 reports) were eligible, which included 7,378 participants and assessed the effect of 22 interventions in arresting or reversing noncavitated or cavitated carious lesions. Four network meta-analyses suggested that sealants + 5% sodium fluoride (NaF) varnish, resin infiltration + 5% NaF varnish, and 5,000-ppm F (1.1% NaF) toothpaste or gel were the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated occlusal, approximal, and noncavitated and cavitated root carious lesions on primary and/or permanent teeth, respectively (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Study-level data indicated that 5% NaF varnish was the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated facial/lingual carious lesions (low certainty) and that 38% silver diamine fluoride solution applied biannually was the most effective for arresting advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (moderate to high certainty). Preventing the onset of caries is the ultimate goal of a caries management plan. However, if the disease is present, there is a variety of effective interventions to treat carious lesions nonrestoratively.
| S-EPMC6304695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 is a global health emergency. People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) have concerns about whether they have a higher risk of getting the infection and suffer worse COVID-19 outcomes. Findings from studies on these questions have largely been inconsistent. We aimed to determine the epidemiological characteristics, clinical signs and symptoms, blood parameters, and clinical outcomes among PLHIV who contracted COVID-19. Relevant studies were identified through Medline, Cinahl, and PubMed databases. A random-effects model was used in meta-analyses with a 95% confidence interval. Eighty-two studies were included in the systematic review and sixty-seven studies for the meta-analysis. The pooled incidence proportion of COVID-19 among PLHIV was 0.9% (95% CI 0.6%, 1.1%) based on the data from seven cohort studies. Overall, 28.4% were hospitalised, of whom, 2.5% was severe-critical cases and 3.5% needed intensive care. The overall mortality rate was 5.3%. Hypertension was the most commonly reported comorbidity (24.0%). Fever (71.1%) was the most common symptom. Chest imaging demonstrated a wide range of abnormal findings encompassing common changes such as ground glass opacities and consolidation as well as a spectrum of less common abnormalities. Laboratory testing of inflammation markers showed that C-reactive protein, ferritin, and interleukin-6 were frequently elevated, albeit to different extents. Clinical features as well as the results of chest imaging and laboratory testing were similar in highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)-treated and non-treated patients. PLHIV were not found to be at higher risk for adverse outcomes of COVID-19. Hence, in COVID-19 management, it appears that they can be treated the same way as HIV negative individuals. Nevertheless, as the pandemic situation is rapidly evolving, more evidence may be needed to arrive at definitive recommendations.
| S-EPMC8037457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAs healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a "living" systematic review approach.MethodsKey databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer.ResultsOverall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price.ConclusionsPresently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this "living" review.
| S-EPMC8847103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several psychotropic drugs, including antidepressants (AD), mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics (AP) have been suggested to have favorable effects in the treatment of COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to collect evidence from studies concerning the scientific evidence for the repurposing of psychotropic drugs in COVID-19 treatment. Two independent authors searched PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases, and reviewed the reference lists of articles for eligible articles published up to 13th December 2021. All computational, preclinical and clinical (observational and/or RCTs) studies on the effect of any psychotropic drug on Sars-CoV-2 or patients with COVID-19 were considered for inclusion. We conducted random effect meta-analyses on clinical studies reporting the effect of AD or AP on COVID-19 outcomes. 29 studies were included in the synthesis: 15 clinical, 9 preclinical, and 5 computational studies. 9 clinical studies could be included in the quantitative analyses. AD did not increase the risk of severe COVID-19 (RR= 1.71; CI 0.65-4.51) or mortality (RR=0.94; CI 0.81-1.09). Fluvoxamine was associated with a reduced risk of mortality for COVID-19 (OR=0.15; CI 0.02-0.95). AP increased the risk of severe COVID-19 (RR=3.66; CI 2.76-4.85) and mortality (OR=1.53; CI 1.15-2.03). Fluvoxamine might be a possible candidate for psychotropic drug repurposing in COVID-19 due to its anti-inflammatory and antiviral potential, while evidence on other AD is still controversial. Although AP are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, their use should be evaluated case to case and ongoing treatment with antipsychotics should be not discontinued in psychiatric patients.
| S-EPMC9581805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed.Methods and findingsOur objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events.ConclusionsThe evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.
| S-EPMC8782520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInfantile hemangioma (IH) is common in children, which may bring about cosmetically disfiguring, functional impairment, and exhibiting complications. There had been various therapies and we aimed to assess the efficacy and adverse effects of different therapies through network meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science (from database inception to April 11, 2020) for studies assessing the efficacy, success rate and adverse effects. Direct pairwise comparison and a network meta-analysis under random effects were performed. We also assessed the ranking probability.FindingsA total of 30 randomized clinical trials with more than 20 different therapeutic regimens were identified. Treatment combined propranolol orally with laser could improve the curative effect than monotherapy. Laser with topical β blockers showed more efficiency than others whether in children under 6 months or not. The long-pulsed dye laser might be the best laser therapy. A higher dose and a longer treatment duration of propranolol orally achieved a higher success rate and increased side effects. Plus pulse dye laser with propranolol had the lowest incidence of adverse reactions, such as ulcer, color sink and color reduction.InterpretationA combination of β blockers and laser might be the first-line treatment of IHs and a longer pulsed dye laser is preferred.FundingNo funding was received.
| S-EPMC7565185 | biostudies-literature