Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness and safety of 32 pharmacological interventions recommended by guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and network meta-analysis combining 66 trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The global pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major public health problem and presents an unprecedented challenge. However, no specific drugs were currently proven. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/SARS-CoV. Random-effects network meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework was performed, followed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system assessing the quality of evidence. The primary outcome of interest includes mortality, cure, viral negative conversion, and overall adverse events (OAEs). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated as the measure of effect size.

Results

Sixty-six RCTs with 19,095 patients were included, involving standard of care (SOC), eight different antiviral agents, six different antibiotics, high and low dose chloroquine (CQ_HD, CQ_LD), traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), corticosteroids (COR), and other treatments. Compared with SOC, a significant reduction of mortality was observed for TCM (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20-0.56, moderate quality) and COR (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.96, low quality) with improved cure rate (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.60-2.91, low quality for TCM; OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.05-1.30, low quality for COR). However, an increased risk of mortality was found for CQ_HD vs. SOC (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 1.18-8.73, low quality). TCM was associated with decreased risk of OAE (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.70, very low quality) but CQ_HD (OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.20-5.24) and interferons (IFN) (OR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.02-7.08) vs. SOC with very low quality were associated with an increased risk.

Conclusions

COR and TCM may reduce mortality and increase cure rate with no increased risk of OAEs compared with standard care. CQ_HD might increase the risk of mortality. CQ, IFN, and other antiviral agents could increase the risk of OAEs. The current evidence is generally uncertain with low-quality and further high-quality trials are needed.

SUBMITTER: Wu SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8382475 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To establish the feasibility of empirically testing crisis standards of care guidelines.DesignRetrospective single-center study.SettingICUs at a large academic medical center in the United States.SubjectsAdult, critically ill patients admitted to ICU, with 27 patients admitted for acute respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 and 37 patients admitted for diagnoses other than coronavirus disease 2019.InterventionsReview of electronic health record.Measurements and main resultsMany U.S. states released crisis standards of care guidelines with algorithms to allocate scarce healthcare resources during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We compared state guidelines that represent different approaches to incorporating disease severity and comorbidities: New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. Following each algorithm, we calculated priority scores at the time of ICU admission for a cohort of patients with primary diagnoses of coronavirus disease 2019 and diseases other than coronavirus disease 2019 (n = 64). We assessed discrimination of 28-day mortality by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We simulated real-time decision-making by applying the triage algorithms to groups of two, five, or 10 patients. For prediction of 28-day mortality by priority scores, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.56, 0.49, 0.53, 0.66, and 0.69 for New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and raw Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score algorithms, respectively. For groups of five patients, the percentage of decisions made without deferring to a lottery were 1%, 57%, 80%, 88%, and 95% for New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and raw Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score algorithms, respectively. The percentage of decisions made without lottery was higher in the subcohort without coronavirus disease 2019, compared with the subcohort with coronavirus disease 2019.ConclusionsInclusion of comorbidities does not consistently improve an algorithm's performance in predicting 28-day mortality. Crisis standards of care algorithms result in a substantial percentage of tied priority scores. Crisis standards of care algorithms operate differently in cohorts with and without coronavirus disease 2019. This proof-of-principle study demonstrates the feasibility and importance of empirical testing of crisis standards of care guidelines to understand whether they meet their goals.

Project description:Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a severe acute respiratory disease that poses a continuous threat to global public health. Many non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) have been implemented to control the COVID-19 pandemic since the beginning. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of various NPIs on COVID-19 mortality during pre-vaccination and vaccination periods. Methods The COVID-19 data used in this study comes from Our World in Data, we used the Oxford Strict Index (OSI) and its five combination interventions as independent variables. The COVID-19 mortality date (MRT) was defined as a date when daily rate of 0.02 COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 population in a country was reached, and the COVID-19 vaccination date (VRT) was defined as people vaccinated reaching 70%. Linear regression and random forest models were used to estimate the impact of various NPI implementation interventions during pre-vaccination and vaccination periods. The performance of models was assessed among others with Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) explaining the prediction capability of the model. Results During the pre-vaccination period, the various NPIs had strong protective effect. When the COVID-19 MRT was reached, for every unit increase in OSI, the cumulative mortality as of June 30, 2020 decreased by 0.71 deaths per 100,000 people. Restrictions in travel (SHAP 1.68) and cancelation of public events and gatherings (1.37) had major reducing effect on COVID-19 mortality, while staying at home (0.26) and school and workplace closure (0.26) had less effect. Post vaccination period, the effects of NPI reduced significantly: cancelation of public events and gatherings (0.25), staying at home (0.22), restrictions in travel (0.14), and school and workplace closure (0.06). Conclusion Continued efforts are still needed to promote vaccination to build sufficient immunity to COVID-19 in the population. Until herd immunity is achieved, NPI is still important for COVID-19 prevention and control. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the stringency of NPI implementation had a significant negative association with COVID-19 mortality; however, this association was no longer significant after the vaccination rate reached 70%. As vaccination progresses, “cancelation of public events and gatherings” become more important for COVID-19 mortality.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Frailty is common in clinical practice, but trials rarely report on participant frailty. Consequently, clinicians and guideline-developers assume frailty is largely absent from trials and have questioned the relevance of trial findings to frail people. Therefore, we examined frailty in phase 3/4 industry-sponsored clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for three exemplar conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS:We constructed a 40-item frailty index (FI) in 19 clinical trials (7 T2DM, 8 RA, 4 COPD, mean age 42-65?years) using individual-level participant data. Participants with a FI >?0.24 were considered 'frail'. Baseline disease severity was assessed using HbA1c for T2DM, Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) for RA, and % predicted FEV1 for COPD. Using generalised gamma regression, we modelled FI on age, sex, and disease severity. In negative binomial regression, we modelled serious adverse event rates on FI and combined results for each index condition in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS:All trials included frail participants: prevalence 7-21% in T2DM trials, 33-73% in RA trials, and 15-22% in COPD trials. The 99th centile of the FI ranged between 0.35 and 0.45. Female sex was associated with higher FI in all trials. Increased disease severity was associated with higher FI in RA and COPD, but not T2DM. Frailty was associated with age in T2DM and RA trials, but not in COPD. Across all trials, and after adjusting for age, sex, and disease severity, higher FI predicted increased risk of serious adverse events; the pooled incidence rate ratios (per 0.1-point increase in FI scale) were 1.46 (95% CI 1.21-1.75), 1.45 (1.13-1.87), and 1.99 (1.43-2.76) for T2DM, RA, and COPD, respectively. CONCLUSION:The upper limit of frailty in trials is lower than has been described in the general population. However, mild to moderate frailty was common, suggesting trial data may be harnessed to inform disease management in people living with frailty. Participants with higher FI experienced more serious adverse events, suggesting screening for frailty in trial participants would enable identification of those that merit closer monitoring. Frailty is identifiable and prevalent among middle-aged and older participants in phase 3/4 drug trials and has clinically important safety implications.