Dataset Information

Remdesivir for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In view of many unanswered clinical questions regarding treatment of COVID-19 with remdesivir, we systematically identified, critically appraised and summarized the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19.

Methods

We searched relevant databases/websites (up to September 2020) and selected English-language RCT publications of remdesivir for COVID-19. We conducted meta-analysis using an inverse variance, random-effects model in addition to trial sequential analysis (TSA) for the efficacy outcomes: all-cause mortality, viral burden and clinical progression. Safety outcomes were diarrhoea, nausea, and vomiting. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for all outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity was calculated using the I² statistic.

Results

We included five RCTs (7540 participants) from 7237 citations. Most (80%) were of an unclear to high risk of bias. There was no evidence of a significant improvement with remdesivir (100 mg, 10 days) regarding all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, CI 0.82-1.07; I² = 0%; 4 RCTs; 7143 patients), clinical progression (RR 1.08, CI 0.99-1.18; I² = 70.4%; 3 RCTs; 1692 patients), or diarrhoea (RR 0.82, CI 0.40-1.66; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs; 630 patients). Nausea occurred more often with remdesivir (RR 2.77, CI 1.28-6.03; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs; 630 patients). TSA showed that the required information size was not reached for firm conclusions to be drawn.

Conclusions and relevance

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19. More high-quality RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence. Until then, remdesivir should remain an experimental drug for COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Okoli GN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8127173 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews on the utility of convalescent plasma (CP) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggests a lack of benefit. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of RCTs with trial sequential analysis to investigate whether convalescent plasma is futile in reducing mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We searched 6 databases from December 1, 2019 to August 1, 2021 for RCTs comparing the use of CP with standard of care or transfusion of non-CP standard plasma in patients with COVID-19. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool. Random effects (DerSimonian and Laird) meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was the aggregate risk for in-hospital mortality between both arms. We conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) based on the pooled relative risks (RRs) for in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the pooled RR for receipt of mechanical ventilation and mean difference in hospital length of stay. We included 18 RCTs (8702 CP, 7906 control). CP was not associated with a significant mortality benefit (RR: 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.86-1.04, P = .27, high certainty). Subgroup analysis did not find any significant differences (pinteraction = 0.30) between patients who received CP within 8 days of symptom onset (RR: 0.97, 95%-CI: 0.79-1.19, P = .80), or after 8 days (RR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.57-1.10, P = .16). TSA based on a RR reduction of 10% from a baseline mortality of 20% found that CP was not effective, with the pooled effect within the boundary for futility. CP did not significantly reduce the requirement for mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.00, 95%-CI: 0.91-1.10, P = .99, moderate certainty) or hospital length of stay (+1.32, 95%-CI: -1.86 to +4.52, P = .42, low certainty). CP does not improve relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, especially in severe disease. The pooled effect of mortality was within the boundary of futility, suggesting the lack of benefit of CP in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Project description:ObjectivesEfficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus 2019) infection still are debated. Because large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and a well-conducted meta-analysis on the use of corticosteroids, focused on patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in intensive care units, recently were published, a meta-analysis of RCTs on corticosteroids therapy in patients with different disease severity was performed to evaluate the effect on survival.DesignA meta-analyses of RCTs was performed.SettingPatients admitted to hospital.ParticipantsPatients with coronavirus disease.InterventionsAdministration of corticosteroids.Measurements and main resultsA search was performed for RCTs of adult patients with acute hypoxemic failure related to 2019-nCoV infection who received corticosteroids versus any comparator. The primary endpoint was mortality rate. Five RCTs involving 7,692 patients were included. Overall mortality of patients treated with corticosteroids was slightly but significantly lower than mortality of controls (26% v 28%, relative risk {RR} = 0.89 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.82-0.96], p = 0.003). The same beneficial effect was found in the subgroup of patients requiring mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.85 [95% CI 0.72-1.00], p = 0.05 number needed to treat {NNT} = 19). Remarkably, corticosteroids increased mortality in the subgroup of patients not requiring oxygen (17% v 13%, RR = 1.23 [95% CI 1.00-1.62], p = 0.05 number needed to harm {NNH} = 29). Tests for comparison between mechanically ventilated subgroups and those not requiring oxygen confirmed that treatment with corticosteroids had a statistically significant different effect on survival. Patients treated with corticosteroids had a significantly lower risk of need for mechanical ventilation.ConclusionsCorticosteroids may be considered in severe critically ill patients with COVID-19 but must be discouraged in patients not requiring oxygen therapy. Urgently, further trials are warranted before implementing this treatment worldwide.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:As the global epidemic continues to spread, countries have tapped effective drugs to treat new coronavirus pneumonia. The therapeutic effect of the traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen in this new coronary pneumonia epidemic has attracted attention from all walks of life, and relevant research reports continue to appear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the clinical efficacy and safety of the traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen in the treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) (referred to as "new coronary pneumonia"), and evaluated the overall level of research quality. METHODS:We searched seven databases and retrieved the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), Vip Database (VIP), China Biomedicine (SinoMed), Wanfang Database and PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE from October 2019 to May 2020 Literature references. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested the efficacy of the traditional Chinese medicine lotus clearing plague in the treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia. The authors extracted data and independently assessed quality. We used Stata15.1 software to analyze the data of randomized trials. RESULTS:A total of 2 articles were identified, including 154 patients. All the participating patients were diagnosed with new coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19). The meta-analysis results showed that the disappearance rate of the main clinical symptoms of Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen in the treatment of new coronavirus pneumonia was significantly higher than that of the control group [OR = 3.34, 95% CI (2.06, 5.44), P <0.001]; the disappearance rate of other clinical secondary symptoms is significantly higher than the control group [OR = 6.54, 95% CI (3.59, 11.90), P <0.001]. The duration of fever was significantly lower than that of the control group [OR = -1.04, 95% CI (-1.60, -0.49), P <0.001]. It is confirmed that the traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen treatment improves the clinical effectiveness, and also has certain advantages in relieving cough and fever. CONCLUSION:The treatment of new pneumonia with traditional Chinese medicine lotus clearing plague can be used as an effective therapy to improve the clinical symptoms of new coronary pneumonia. More rigorous design, multi-center, and prospective RCTs are necessary to further determine the effectiveness and safety of the traditional Chinese medicine lotus decoction in the treatment of new pneumonia.