Dataset Information

Remdesivir therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined remdesivir treatment for COVID-19.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature search was performed using Pubmed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies published up to October 25, 2020 that examined COVID-19 treatment with remdesivir. A total of 3 randomized controlled trials that consisted of 1691 patients were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

The odds for mechanical ventilation (MV) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) following treatment was significantly lower in the remdesivir group compared to the control group (OR = 0.48 [95% CI: 0.34; 0.69], p < 0.001). The odds of early (at day 14/15; OR = 1.42 [95% CI: 1.16; 1.74], p < 0.001) and late (at day 28/29; OR = 1.44 [95% CI: 1.16; 1.79], p = 0.001) hospital discharge were significantly higher in the remdesivir group compared to the control group. There was no difference in the odds for mortality in patients treated with remdesivir (OR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.56; 1.06], p = 0.108).

Conclusions

Remdesivir attenuates disease progression, leading to lower odds of MV/ECMO and greater odds of hospital discharge for COVID-19 patients. However, remdesivir does not affect odds of mortality.

SUBMITTER: Reddy Vegivinti CT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7806502 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Remdesivir therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Reddy Vegivinti Charan Thej CT Pederson John M JM Saravu Kavitha K Gupta Nitin N Barrett Averi A Davis Amber R AR Kallmes Kevin M KM Evanson Kirk W KW

Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) 20210106

<h4>Purpose</h4>To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined remdesivir treatment for COVID-19.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A systematic literature search was performed using Pubmed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies published up to October 25, 2020 that examined COVID-19 treatment with remdesivir. A total of 3 randomized controlled trials that consisted of 1691 patients were included in the meta-analysis.<h4>Results</h4>The odd ...[more]

PMID: 33489115

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: While passive immunotherapy has been considered beneficial for patients with severe respiratory viral infections, the treatment of COVID-19 cases with convalescent plasma produced mixed results. Thus, there is a lack of certainty and consensus regarding its effectiveness. This meta-analysis aims to assess the role of convalescent plasma treatment on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database (end-of-search: 29 December 2022) for RCTs on convalescent plasma therapy compared to supportive care\standard of care. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated with random-effects models. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also performed, in order to address heterogeneity and examine any potential association between the factors that varied, and the outcomes reported. The present meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Per overall analysis, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with lower 28-day mortality [RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.91, 1.06)] or improved 28-day secondary outcomes, such as hospital discharge [RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.97, 1.03)], ICU-related or score-related outcomes, with effect estimates of RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.98, 1.05) and RR = 1.06, 95% CI (0.95, 1.17), respectively. However, COVID-19 outpatients treated with convalescent plasma had a 26% less risk of requiring hospital care, when compared to those treated with the standard of care [RR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.56, 0.99)]. Regarding subgroup analyses, COVID-19 patients treated with convalescent plasma had an 8% lower risk of ICU-related disease progression when compared to those treated with the standard of care (with or without placebo or standard plasma infusions) [RR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.85, 0.99)] based on reported outcomes from RCTs carried out in Europe. Finally, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with improved survival or clinical outcomes in the 14-day subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Outpatients with COVID-19 treated with convalescent plasma had a statistically significantly lower risk of requiring hospital care when compared to those treated with placebo or the standard of care. However, convalescent plasma treatment was not statistically associated with prolonged survival or improved clinical outcomes when compared to placebo or the standard of care, per overall analysis in hospitalized populations. This hints at potential benefits, when used early, to prevent progression to severe disease. Finally, convalescent plasma was significantly associated with better ICU-related outcomes in trials carried out in Europe. Well-designed prospective studies could clarify its potential benefit for specific subpopulations in the post-pandemic era.

Project description:BackgroundHyperinflammation and coagulopathy are hallmarks of COVID-19 and synergistically contribute to illness progression. Antiplatelet agents have been proposed as candidate drugs for COVID-19 treatment on the basis of their antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory properties. A systematic review and meta-analysis that included early observational studies and recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to summarize and compare evidence on this issue.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify studies published up to Nov 7, 2021, and the results of registered clinical trials were followed up to Mar 30, 2022. We included RCTs and observational studies assessing the effect of antiplatelet therapy in adult patients with COVID-19. Data on baseline patient characteristics, interventions, controls, and outcomes were extracted by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was mortality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were included, of which 23 observational studies were pooled in a meta-analysis, and the remaining four RCTs (ACTIV-4B, RECOVERY, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP) were narratively synthesized. Based on 23 observational studies of 87,824 COVID-19 patients, antiplatelet treatment favors a lower risk of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.85; I 2 = 87.0%, P < 0.01]. The narrative synthesis of RCTs showed conflicting evidence, which did not support adding antiplatelet therapy to the standard care, regardless of the baseline illness severity and concomitant anticoagulation intensity.ConclusionWhile the rationale for using antiplatelet treatment in COVID-19 patients is compelling and was supported by the combined result of early observational studies, evidence from RCTs did not confirm this approach. Several factors that could explain this inconsistency were highlighted alongside perspectives on future research directions.

Project description:BackgroundDespite global containment measures to fight the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the pandemic continued to rise, rapidly spread across the world, and resulting in 2.6 million confirmed cases and 185 061 deaths worldwide as of 23 April 2020. Yet, there are no approved vaccines or drugs to make the disease less deadly, while efforts are underway. Remdesivir, a nucleotide-analogue antiviral drug developed for Ebola, is determined to prevent and stop infections with COVID-19, while results are yet controversial. Here, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19.Method and analysisWe will search MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google scholar databases for articles published as of 30 June 2020 and we will complete the study on 30 August 2020. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines for the design and reporting of the results. We will include RCTs that assessed the efficacy of remdesivir versus placebo or standard of care. The primary endpoint will be time to clinical recovery. The secondary endpoints will be proportion of participants relieved from clinical symptoms defined at the time (in hours) from initiation of the study treatment, all-cause mortality, discharged date, frequency of respiratory progression and treatment-emergent adverse events. RevMan V.5.3 software will be used for statistical analysis. Random effects model will be carried out to calculate mean differences for continuous outcome data and risk ratio for dichotomous outcome data between remdesivir and placebo or standard of care.Ethics and disseminationThere are no ethical considerations associated with this study as we will use publicly available data from previously published studies. We plan to publish results in open-access peer-reviewed journals and present at international and national conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020177953.

Project description:Background/Aim: Since 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a devastating disease affecting global health to a great extent. Some countries have added on herbal medicines as a complementary treatment for combating COVID-19 due to the urgency of stopping the spread of this viral disease. However, whether these herbal medicines are effective is uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of herbal medicine combined therapy in the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: A literature search was performed following the PRISMA Statement and without language restrictions. Seven databases were searched from inception through December 2021. All selected studies were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Comparing the effects of herbal medicine combined therapy with conventional western medicine, including improvement of clinical symptoms, chest CT images, viral conversion rate, C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin 6. Cochrane criteria were applied to examine the methodological quality of the enrolled trials; and meta-analysis software (RevMan 5.4.1) was used for data analysis. Results: In total, the data of 5,417 participants from 40 trials were included in this systematic review; and 28 trials were qualified for meta-analysis. The trials had medium-to-high quality based on GRADE system. Meta-analysis showed that combining herbal medicine vs conventional treatment in 1) coughing (1.43 95% CI:1.21, 1.71, p = 0.0001), 2) fever (1.09 95% CI:1.00, 1.19, p = 0.06), 3) fatigue (1.21 95% CI:1.10, 1.33, p = 0.0001); 4) CT images (1.26 95% CI:1.19, 1.34, P ≤ 0.00001), 5) viral conversion rates (1.22 95% CI:1.06, 1.40, p = 0.005) and 6) viral conversion times (-3.72 95% CI: -6.05, -1.40, p = 0.002), 7) IL6 change (1.97 95% CI: -0.72, 4.66, p = 0.15) and 8) CRP change (-7.92 95% CI: -11.30, -4.53, P ≤ 0.00001). Conclusion: Herbal medicine combined therapy significantly reduces COVID-19 clinical symptoms, improving CT images and viral conversion rates. Reported adverse events are mild. However, for certain biases in the included studies, and the need for further study on effective components of herbal medicine. Further large trials with better randomized design are warranted to definite a more definite role of herbal medicine.

Dataset Information

Remdesivir therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Remdesivir therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets