Dataset Information

Remdesivir: A potential game-changer or just a myth? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

COVID-19 outbreak has created a public health catastrophe all over the world. Here, we have aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on remdesivir use for COVID-19.

Main methods

We searched Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and preprint sites and identified ten studies for qualitative and four studies for quantitative analysis using PRISMA guidelines. The quantitative synthesis was performed using fixed and random effect models in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared (I²) test.

Key findings

Comparing 10-day remdesivir group with placebo or standard of care (SOC) group, remdesivir reduced 14 days mortality (OR 0.61, CI 0.41-0.91), need for mechanical ventilation (OR 0.73, CI 0.54-0.97), and severe adverse effects (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88). Clinical improvement on day 28 (OR 1.59, CI 1.06-2.39), day 14 clinical recovery (OR 1.48, CI 1.19-1.84), and day 14 discharge rate (OR 1.41, CI 1.15-1.73) were better among remdesivir group. Earlier clinical improvement (MD -2.51, CI -4.16 to -0.85); and clinical recovery (MD -4.69, CI -5.11 to -4.28) were seen among the remdesivir group. Longer course (10 days) of remdesivir showed a higher discharge rate at day 14 (OR 2.11, CI 1.50-2.97), but there were significantly higher rates of serious adverse effects, and drug discontinuation than the 5-day course.

Significance

Remdesivir showed a better 14 days mortality profile, clinical recovery, and discharge rate. Overall clinical improvement and clinical recovery were earlier among the remdesivir group. 10-day remdesivir showed more adverse outcome than 5-day course with no significant benefits.

SUBMITTER: Shrestha DB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7586105 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Remdesivir: A potential game-changer or just a myth? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shrestha Dhan Bahadur DB Budhathoki Pravash P Syed Nawazish-I-Husain NI Rawal Era E Raut Sumit S Khadka Sitaram S

Life sciences 20201026

<h4>Aims</h4>COVID-19 outbreak has created a public health catastrophe all over the world. Here, we have aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on remdesivir use for COVID-19.<h4>Main methods</h4>We searched Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and preprint sites and identified ten studies for qualitative and four studies for quantitative analysis using PRISMA guidelines. The quantitative synthesis was performed using fixed and random effect models in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed us ...[more]

PMID: 33121991

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Preeclampsia remains a significant danger to both mother and child and current prevention and treatment management strategies are limited. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the current literature on evidence for the use of the regenerative capacity of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy, the anticoagulant activity of antithrombin (AT), or the free radical scavenging activity of alpha-1-microglobulin (A1M) as potential novel treatments for severe preeclampsia and Hemolysis, Elevated Liver enzymes, Low Platelet count (HELLP). METHOD:We conducted a systematic review of potential biological therapies for preeclampsia. We screened MEDLINE and Embase from inception through May 2017 for studies using AT, A1M or MSCs as potential treatments for preeclampsia and/or HELLP. A meta-analysis was performed to pool data from randomized control trials (RCTs) with homogenous outcomes using the inverse variance method. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs, and SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies were used to investigate potential bias of studies. RESULTS:The literature search retrieved a total of 1015 articles, however, only 17 studies met the selection criteria: AT (n = 9, 8 human and 1 animal); A1M (n = 4, 3 animal and 1 ex-vivo); and, MSCs (n = 4, 3 animal and 1 ex-vivo). A meta-analysis of AT therapy versus placebo and a meta-analysis for AT therapy with heparin versus heparin alone did not show significant differences between study groups. Animal and ex-vivo studies demonstrated significant benefits in relevant outcomes for A1M and MSCs versus control treatments. Most RCT studies were rated as having a low risk of bias across categories with some studies showing an unclear risk of bias in some categories. The two cohort studies both received a total of four out of nine stars (a rating of "poor" quality). Most animal studies had an unclear risk of bias across most categories, with some studies having a low risk of bias in some categories. CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this review are strengthened by rigorous systematic search and review of the literature. Results of our meta-analyses do not currently warrant further exploration of AT as a treatment of preeclampsia in human trials. Results of animal and ex-vivo studies of A1M and MSCs were encouraging and supportive of initiating human investigations.

Dataset Information

Remdesivir: A potential game-changer or just a myth? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims

Main methods

Key findings

Significance

Publications

Remdesivir: A potential game-changer or just a myth? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets