Dataset Information

Efficacy of various treatment modalities for nCOV-2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

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 I² < 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.

SUBMITTER: Misra S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7460924 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of treatment options to reduce osteoporotic fracture risk in men.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingRandomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of a treatment for osteoporosis or low bone mineral density for adult men and reported fracture outcomes.ParticipantsMen.MeasurementsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies. Information was extracted from included studies on participant sociodemographic characteristics, number of male participants, treatment evaluated, comparator for evaluated treatment, study duration, and fracture outcomes. Risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using measures recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.ResultsTwenty-four articles reporting results for 22 studies (including 4,868 male participants) met strict inclusion criteria. Fixed-effects meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method demonstrated significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures with alendronate (relative risk (RR) = 0.328, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.155-0.692) and risedronate (RR = 0.428, 95% CI = 0.245-0.746) but not with calcitonin (RR = 0.272, 95% CI = 0.046-1.608) or denosumab (RR = 0.256, 95% CI = 0.029-2.238) than in controls. For bisphosphonates as a treatment category, meta-analyses demonstrated significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures (RR = 0.368, 95% CI = 0.252-0.537) and nonvertebral fractures (RR = 0.604, 95% CI = 0.404-0.904) than in controls. The meta-analysis finding that bisphosphonates significantly reduce nonvertebral fracture risk was not robust to sensitivity analysis.ConclusionBisphosphonates reduce the risk of vertebral and possibly nonvertebral fractures for men with osteoporosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of bisphosphonates for reducing nonvertebral fracture risk and the efficacy of nonbisphosphonates for reducing vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk in men with osteoporosis.

Project description:BackgroundTo provide reliable evidence to exercise rehabilitation therapists and clinicians, we compared and analyzed the effects of different exercise modalities on cardiopulmonary function in hemodialysis patients using Bayesian network meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, OVID, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, SPORT Discus, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP were searched from inception to July 20, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials comparing 12 exercise modalities to improve cardiorespiratory fitness in hemodialysis patients. All statistical analysis was performed using STATA and R.ResultA total of 82 randomized controlled trials involving 4146 maintenance hemodialysis patients were included in this study. The pair-wise meta-analysis showed that all exercise modalities had a positive effect on all indicators of cardiorespiratory capacity. The network meta-analysis demonstrated that Blood flow restriction training (BFRT), Cycle exercise (CE), Inspiratory muscle training (IMT), Combined aerobic and resistance training (CT), and Aerobic training (AT) were significantly better than usual care for 6-min walkability; Medium intensity continuous training (MICT), CT, CE, and AT were considerably better than usual care for VO2Peak; body and mind training (MBT) and CT significantly improved SBP compared to usual care; and only MBT was significantly better than usual care for DBP. Both the two-dimensional plot and the radar plot demonstrated that CT had the best combined-effect on each index of cardiorespiratory fitness. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results. The evidence was mainly "low" to "very low" for this network meta-analysis.ConclusionThere is no one exercise that can achieve the best effect on all of the outcomes. The benefits of MBT in decreasing arterial blood pressure are unsurpassed by other exercise methods. The intervention effect of the CT is better and more stable. Electrical muscle stimulation training (MEST) can be employed in individuals who do not wish to exercise actively but may cause an increase in blood pressure. On the basis of the characteristics of different exercise types, guidelines developers, clinicians, and patients may employ them appropriately.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.

Project description:Crohn's disease (CD) is a transmural inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can affect any part of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. With the disease's progression, adhesions and transmural fissuring, intra-abdominal abscesses, and fistula tracts may develop. An anal fistula (or fistula-in-ano) is a chronic abnormal epithelial lined tract communicating the anorectal lumen (internal opening) to the perineal or buttock skin (external opening). The risk of fistula development varies from 14%-38%. It can cause significant morbidity, which adversely impacts the quality of life. It is mostly believed that an anal crypt gland infection causes anal abscesses, leading to fistula development. Crohn's disease's pathogenesis involves Th1 and Th17 hypersensitivity due to an unknown antigen within the intestinal mucosa. Evidence to support this review was gathered via the Pubmed database. Search terms used were combinations of "Perianal fistula," "seton," "immunotherapy." Studies were reviewed and cross-referenced for additional reports. Setons are surgical thread loops passed from the external to the internal opening of the fistula tract and exteriorized through the anorectal canal, facilitating abscess drainage and inciting a local inflammatory reaction, thus promoting the resolution of the fistula. Biologicals such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antibody (infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL-12/23 (ustekinumab), and anti-???? integrin antibody (vedolizumab) have been approved for Crohn's disease targeting the Th1/Th17-mediated inflammation. Other therapeutic modalities are fistulotomy, cyanoacrylate glue, bioprosthetic plugs, mucosal advancement flap, ligation of inter-sphincteric fistula tract (LIFT), diverting stoma, proctectomy, video-assisted anal fistula treatment (VAAFT), and fistula laser closure (FiLaC). Our review found that chronic seton therapy should be the primary approach, especially if the patient has a perianal abscess. It has a low incidence of re-intervention, recurrent abscess formation, and side-branching of the fistulous tract, with preservation of the fistulous tract's patency and cost-effectiveness. The major disadvantage of seton therapy is the discomfort and time to achieve stability. Among the biologicals, infliximab is the only therapy which has a statistically significant effect on the healing rate of perianal Crohn's fistula compared to placebo, but the major disadvantage associated with anti-TNF as sole therapy is high re-intervention rate, prolong maintenance therapy, high recurrence rate, and severe side effects. We hypothesize that the two aspects should be addressed concurrently to increase the fistula healing or closure rate. First, the seton should be used as initial therapy to maintain tract patency to allow abscess drainage and minimize the intestinal flora colonization within the tract mucosa, thereby leukocytic infiltration and propagation of inflammation within the tract. The second aspect that has to be considered is that we should target the initial stimulation of the Th1/Th17 mediated hypersensitivity instead of a factor/cytokine involved in the inflammation mediation. Although the unknown antigen triggering such hypersensitivity is not clear, we could target the RAR-related orphan receptor ? (ROR?)-T (transcription factor involved in activation of Th17 cells) and the T-bet (transcription factor involved in activation of Th17 cells) within the GI mucosa by a novel target immune therapy.

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.