Corticosteroid therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19.Methods
We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection.Results
A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections.Conclusion
Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.
SUBMITTER: Pulakurthi YS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8137023 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10054551 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined remdesivir treatment for COVID-19.Materials and methodsA 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsRemdesivir 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.
| S-EPMC7806502 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9490267 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9475194 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsVitamin C has been used as an anti-oxidant in various diseases including viral illnesses like coronavirus disease (COVID-19).MethodsMeta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating the role of vitamin C supplementation in COVID-19 was carried out.ResultsTotal 6 RCTs including n = 572 patients were included. Vitamin C treatment didn't reduce mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.27; I2 = 0%; P = 0.27), ICU length of stay [SMD 0.29, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.63; I2 = 0%; P = 0.09), hospital length of stay (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.58; I2 = 92%; P = 0.57) and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.44; I2 = 0%; P = 0.76). Further sub-group analysis based on severity of illness (severe vs. non-severe), route of administration (IV vs. oral) and dose (high vs. low) failed to show any observable benefits.ConclusionNo significant benefit noted with vitamin C administration in COVID-19. Well-designed RCTs with standardized control group needed on this aspect.
| S-EPMC8552785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Beneficial off-target effects of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination might offer general protection from respiratory tract infections. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to ascertain BCG vaccination effectiveness against COVID-19. We looked up English RCTs from 1 January 2019 to 15 November 2022 in Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine RCTs, including 7963 participants, were included. The infection rate of COVID-19 was not decreased in people who were vaccinated with BCG (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.82–1.13; I2 = 4%), and the BCG vaccination group did not have decreased COVID-19 related-hospitalization (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.37–1.18; I2 = 42%), admission to the ICU (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.05–1.18; I2 = 0%), and mortality (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.17–2.44; I2 = 0%) compared with the control group. There is not sufficient evidence to support the use of BCG vaccination in the prevention of COVID-19 infection and severe COVID-19 and avoid overstating the role of BCG vaccination leading to its misuse.
| S-EPMC9917948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe nucleotide analogue prodrug remdesivir was among the first antiviral therapies to be tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for COVID-19. We performed a meta-analysis to understand efficacy and safety.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (from January 1, 2020 to November 5, 2020). We included RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of remdesivir to control/placebo in COVID-19. Two independent investigators abstracted data, assessed the quality of evidence, and rated the certainty of evidence.ResultsA total of 4 RCTs with 7334 patients with COVID-19 were included. At a follow-up of 28-29 days from randomization, very low certainty evidence showed that use of remdesivir compared with control group (placebo and/or standard of care) was not associated with a significant decrease in time to clinical improvement (standardized mean difference -0.80 day; [CI, -2.12, 0.53]). However, moderate certainty of evidence showed that remdesivir was associated with higher rates of recovered patients (risk difference [RD] 0.07 [0.05, 0.08]) and discharged patients (RD 0.07 [0.03, 0.11]) and lower rates of developing serious adverse events (RD -0.05 [-0.10, -0.01]) compared with control. Moderate and very low certainty of evidence showed there was no significant difference in deaths at 28-29 days follow-up (RD -0.01 [-0.03, 0.01]) and developing any adverse events (RD 0.01 [-0.17, 0.19]) between both groups, respectively.ConclusionPatients given remdesivir are more likely to demonstrate recovery and were associated with higher rates of hospital discharge, but not with significant reduction in mean time to clinical improvement or mortality.
| S-EPMC7789823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing on newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsMore than 500 databases were searched between 1 November 2020 and 2 October 2021 to identify RCTs that were published after our baseline review. One reviewer extracted data with other reviewers verifying the extracted data for accuracy and completeness.ResultsAfter screening 22 414 records, we included 24 and 21 RCTs in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most investigated drug classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs) and anticoagulants, investigated by 10 and 11 studies respectively. In meta-analyses, ACEI/ARBs did not affect hospitalization length (mean difference -0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.83; 0.98 d, n = 1183), COVID-19 severity (risk ratio/RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71; 1.15, n = 1661) or mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.58; 1.47, n = 1646). Therapeutic anticoagulation also had no effect (hospitalization length mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.56 d, n = 1449; severity RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70; 1.04, n = 2696; and, mortality RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77; 1.13, n = 5689). Other investigated drug classes were antiplatelets (aspirin, 2 trials), antithrombotics (sulodexide, 1 trial), calcium channel blockers (amlodipine, 1 trial) and lipid-modifying drugs (atorvastatin, 1 trial).ConclusionModerate- to high-certainty RCT evidence suggests that cardiovascular drugs such as ACEIs/ARBs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, and should therefore not be discontinued. These cardiovascular drugs should also not be initiated to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless they are needed for an underlying currently approved therapeutic indication.
| S-EPMC9111446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effect of corticosteroid therapy is still controversial on prevention of mortality in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of corticosteroids on mortality. This systematic review was performed as per preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. A systematic search was performed at different databases namely Medline/PubMed, Cochrane and Google scholar on 10 February 2022. A pooled estimate for effect of corticosteroid therapy on mortality was calculated as outcome of study. Risk bias analysis and Newcastle Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of randomized control trial (RCT) and cohort studies, respectively. Cochran's Q test and the I2 statistic were conducted for heterogeneity and accordingly study model was applied. A total 43 studies were included, having sample size of 96,852 patients. Amongst them, 19,426 and 77,426 patients received corticosteroid therapy (intervention group) or standard treatment without corticosteroid (control group), respectively. Mortality observed in the intervention and control group was 14.2% (2749) and 7.1% (5459), respectively. The pooled estimate 2.173 (95% CI: 2.0690-2.2820) showed significantly increased mortality in intervention as compared to control. The pooled estimate of methyprednisolone 1.206 (95% CI: 1.0770-1.3500) showed significantly increased mortality while the pooled estimate of dexamethasone 1.040 (95% CI: 0.9459-1.1440) showed insignificantly increased mortality as compared to control. In conclusion, corticosteroid therapy produced a negative prognosis as depicted by increased mortality among COVID-19 patients. The possible reasons might be delay in virus clearance and secondary infections due to corticosteroids initiated at high dose in the early stage of infection.
| S-EPMC9538928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several vaccines have been approved for the prevention of COVID-19. However, no head-to-head trials comparing their clinical efficacy have been performed. This network meta-analysis aims to identify those, among the competing existing vaccines, conferring the maximum protection against COVID-19. A literature search was done in Medline (via PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library databases for phase 3 randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of different COVID-19 vaccines. Search results were screened and eligible studies were included to perform a network meta-analysis in software 'R' version 4.1.2 using a random effect model. Cochrane's 'Risk of Bias tool (RoB2)' was used for quality assessment. Raw data from the included studies was used for network meta-analysis. Assessment of inconsistency was not possible as no study compared two or more vaccines directly. A forest plot for indirect comparison of various COVID-19 vaccines was obtained. Rankogram and 'P' scores were obtained to rank the vaccines based on the indirect evidence of their comparative efficacy. A total of 17 randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of 16 COVID-19 vaccines, were included in the network meta-analysis. A total of 361,386 participants was included in this network meta-analysis. Overall risk of bias among included studies was of 'some concern'. All the COVID-19 vaccines had a statistically significant reduction of risk for contracting symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to the placebo, however, the maximum protection (RR 0.05) was with BNT126b2. The indirect comparison also revealed BNT126b2 vaccine confers the highest protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to all others included, with a 'P' score of 0.9771 followed by mRNA-1273, rAD26 & rAD5 and NVX-CoV2373. The evidence generated from this network meta-analysis indicates the good efficacy of all the included vaccines in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 as compared to placebo. The BNT126b2 vaccine was found to provide the highest protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 among all included followed by mRNA-1273, rAD26 & rAD5, NVX-CoV2373 and others.
| S-EPMC9640819 | biostudies-literature