Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kim MS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7794037 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Kim Min Seo MS An Min Ho MH Kim Won Jun WJ Hwang Tae-Ho TH
PLoS medicine 20201230 12
<h4>Background</h4>Numerous clinical trials and observational studies have investigated various pharmacological agents as potential treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results are heterogeneous and sometimes even contradictory to one another, making it difficult for clinicians to determine which treatments are truly effective.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We carried out a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically evaluate the comparative efficacy a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.
| S-EPMC8126885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo perform network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of various interventions used in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on mortality, clinical recovery, time to clinical improvement and the occurrence of serious adverse events.MethodsSystematic search was performed using online databases with suitable MeSH terms including coronavirus, COVID-19, randomized controlled trial, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, tocilizumab, remdesivir, favipiravir, dexamethasone and interferon-β. Data were independently extracted by 2 study investigators and analysed.ResultsOut of 1225 studies screened, 23 were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among the drugs studied, dexamethasone reduces mortality by 10%, with a relative risk of 0.90 (95% confidence interval [0.82-0.97]) and increases clinical recovery by 6% (relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval [1.02-1.10]) compared to standard of care. Similarly, remdesivir administered for 10 days increased clinical recovery by 10%, reduced time to clinical improvement by 4 days and lowered the occurrence of serious adverse events by 27% as compared to standard of care.ConclusionIn comparison to standard of care, dexamethasone was found to increase clinical recovery and lower mortality; remdesivir was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality as compared to tocilizumab and higher clinical recovery and shorter time to clinical improvement as compared to hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab; remdesivir followed by tocilizumab were found to have lesser occurrence of serious adverse events in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9111227 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo date, there has been little agreement on what drug is the "best" drug for treating severe COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of different medications available at present for severe COVID-19.MethodsWe searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 28, 2022, with no language restrictions, of medications recommended for patients (aged 16 years or older) with severe COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on trials and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (ACM), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).ResultsWe identified 4021 abstracts and of these included 48 RCTs comprising 9147 participants through database searches and other sources. For decrease in ACM, we found that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG (i.e., a hyperimmune anti-COVID-19 intravenous immunoglobulin), methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/standard-of-care (SOC), interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, high dosage sarilumab (HS), auxora, and imatinib were effective when compared with placebo or SOC group. We found that colchicine and interferon-beta/SOC were only associated with the TEAEs of severe COVID-19 patients.ConclusionThis study suggested that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG, methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/SOC, interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma (CP), remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, HS, auxora, and imatinib were efficacious for treating severe COVID-19 patients. We found that most medications were safe in treating severe COVID-19. More large-scale RCTs are still needed to confirm the results of this study.
| S-EPMC9575403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBehavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are highly prevalent in patients with dementia. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies are commonly used to treat these symptoms, but their comparative safety and efficacy is unknown.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of the published and unpublished literature to retrieve all articles pertaining to outcomes of safety and efficacy associated with pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments of BPSD for patients living in the community and institutionalized care settings. Our primary outcome of efficacy is a change in aggression. Our primary outcome of safety will be risk of fracture. These primary outcomes were chosen by stakeholders involved in the care of patients experiencing BPSD. Possible secondary outcomes of efficacy will include a change in agitation, depressive symptoms, and night-time behaviors. Possible secondary outcomes of safety will include the risk of stroke, falls, and mortality. All article screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias appraisal will be completed independently by two reviewers. If the assumption of transitivity is valid and the evidence forms a connected network, Bayesian random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMAs) will be conducted. Relative treatment rankings will be reported with mean ranks and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.DiscussionWe will identify the safest and most efficacious treatment strategies for patients with BPSD from among our most highly ranked treatments. The results of this study will be used to guide decision-making and improve patient care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registry number CRD42017050130.
| S-EPMC5590133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -21.89, 95%CrI [-28.97, -14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -22.48 [-34.13, -10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: -20.63 [-33.97, -7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -12.13, 95%CrI [-18.41, -5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -13.21 [-.39, -3.04]; LED: -11.30 [-18.34, -4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.
| S-EPMC7729523 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Although several non-pharmacological interventions have been tested in the management of Fibromyalgia (FM), there is little consensus regarding the best options for the treatment of this health condition. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions for FM, in order to assist clinical decision making through a ranking of interventions in relation to the most important clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions endorsed in guidelines and systematic reviews. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases without language or date restrictions (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro). Our primary outcomes will be pain intensity, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and acceptability of treatment will be our secondary outcome. Risk of bias of the included trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). For each pairwise comparison between the different interventions, we will present mean differences (MDs) for pain intensity and QoL outcomes and Relative Risks (RRs) for acceptability, both with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Initially, standard pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model for all comparisons with at least two trials and then we will perform a frequentist NMA using the methodology of multivariate meta-analysis assuming a common heterogeneity parameter, using the mvmeta command and network suite in STATA. In the NMA, two different types of control group, such as placebo/sham and no intervention/waiting list will be combined as one node called “Control”. The competing interventions will be ranked using the P-score, which is the frequentist analogue of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes of interest at immediate- (intervention duration of up to 2 weeks), short- (over 2 weeks up to 12 weeks) and long-terms (over 12 weeks). The confidence in the results from NMA will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta‐analysis (CINeMA) framework. Ethics and dissemination This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Registration OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7MS25) and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020216374).
| S-EPMC9529083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.Prospero registration numberCRD42017073375.
| S-EPMC8112437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to assess comparative efficacy and safety of interventions to treat symptomatic, biopsy-proven oral lichen planus (OLP).MethodsSearch was conducted for trials published in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Network meta-analysis was performed on data from randomized controlled trials that assessed efficacy and safety of interventions used in the treatment of OLP. Agents were ranked according to their effectiveness in treatment of OLP based on outcomes using surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA].ResultsIn total, 37 articles were included in the quantitative analysis. Purslane was clinically significant and ranked first in improving clinical symptoms [RR = 4.53; 95% CI: 1.45, 14.11], followed by aloe vera [RR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.24], topical calcineurin [RR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.81] and topical corticosteroid [RR = 1.35 95% CI: 1.05, 1.73]. Topical calcineurin demonstrated the highest incidence of adverse effects [RR, 3.25 [95% CI: 1.19, 8.86. Topical corticosteroids were significant in achieving clinical improvement of OLP with RR1.37 [95% CI: 1.03, 1.81]. PDT [MD = -5.91 [95% CI: -8.15, -3.68] and showed statistically significant improvement in the clinical score for OLP.ConclusionsPurslane, aloe vera and photodynamic therapy appear promising in treatment of OLP. More high-quality trials are recommended for strengthening the evidence. Although topical calcineurin is significantly efficacious in the treatment of OLP, significant adverse effects are a concern for clinical use. Based on the current evidence, topical corticosteroids are recommended for treatment of OLP owing to their predictable safety and efficacy.
| S-EPMC10144824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Outpatient treatment studies of anorexia nervosa (AN) are notoriously hard to conduct given the ambivalence of the patient group and high drop-out rates. It is therefore not surprising that previous meta-analyses of pharmacological and psychological treatments for outpatient treatment of adult AN have proved to be inconclusive. Network meta-analysis (NMA) has the potential to overcome the limitations of pairwise meta-analysis, as this approach can compare multiple treatments using both direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and indirect comparisons across trials based on a common comparator. To date there is no published example of this approach with eating disorders and the current study provides a protocol which will use NMA to advance knowledge about what outpatient therapy works best for which patients with AN by conducting both direct and indirect comparisons of different treatments and the moderating variables.Searches of electronic data bases will be supplemented with manual searches for published, unpublished and ongoing RCTs in international registries, and clinical trials registries of regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies. Two reviewers will independently extract the data and where possible we will access individual data in order to examine moderators of treatment. Two primary outcomes will be selected: changes to body mass index and changes to global eating disorder psychopathology. The secondary outcome is the total number of patients who, at 12-month post-randomization, attained over the previous 28 day period: (i) BMI > 18.5, and (ii) global eating disorder psychopathology to within 1 SD of community norms. We will also provide a statistical evaluation of consistency, the agreement between direct and indirect evidence.Descriptive statistics across all eligible trials will be provided along with a network diagram, where the size of the nodes will reflect the amount of evidence accumulated for each treatment. We will use a contribution matrix that describes the percentage contribution of each direct meta-analysis to the entire body of evidence.Findings will make a major contribution to the literature by summarising individual data across rapidly accumulating outpatient trials of AN using state of the art NMA methodology.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017064429.
| S-EPMC5539755 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundTopical pharmacological agents typically used to treat postoperative sore throat (POST) after tracheal intubation include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, lidocaine, Glycyrrhiza (licorice), and N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists (including ketamine and magnesium). However, the optimal prophylactic drug remains elusive.MethodsThe literature published before September 8, 2019 was searched on the PubMed, the Embase, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) covering topical prophylactic medications for patients with POST were included. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the quality of evidence. The primary outcome is the risk of POST. Combining both direct and indirect evidence, a network meta-analysis was performed to assess odds ratios (ORs) between the topical pharmacological agents and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve for the treatment-based outcomes. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42020158985.ResultsSixty-two RCTs (at least 73% of which were double blinded) that included a total of 6708 subjects and compared 6 categories of drugs and/or placebos were ultimately enrolled. All preventive interventions except lidocaine were more effective than placebo at the 4 time intervals. Lidocaine (OR: 0.35, 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.16-0.79) has a greater POST preventative intervention effect than the placebo at a time interval of only 2 to 3 hours after surgery. Relative to lidocaine, the risk of POST except 2 to 3 hours was lower for the following treatments: corticosteroids, ketamine, magnesium, NSAIDs, and Glycyrrhiza. The NMDA receptor antagonists studied here included ketamine and magnesium. Magnesium generally demonstrated greater benefit than ketamine at 24 hours postsurgery/extubation (OR: 0.41, 95% CrI, 0.18-0.92). Compared with ketamine, corticosteroids were associated with a reduced risk of POST during the 4 to 6 hours (OR: 0.40, 95% CrI, 0.19-0.83) and 24 hours (OR: 0.34, 95% CrI, 0.16-0.72) time intervals. During the 2 to 3 hours time interval, Glycyrrhiza (OR: 0.38, 95% CrI, 0.15-0.97) was more efficacious than magnesium.ConclusionsOur analysis shows that, among the 6 topical medications studied, lidocaine is not optimal for topical use to prevent POST. Glycyrrhizin, corticosteroids, NSAIDs, and NMDA receptor antagonists (ketamine and magnesium) are associated with a reduced postoperative pharyngeal pain across the 4 postsurgical time intervals studied, all of which can be chosen according to the clinical experience of the anesthesiologists and the patient preferences and are recommended for the reduction of postoperative throat pain.
| S-EPMC8183478 | biostudies-literature