Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients.Methods
Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing IVM effects on COVID-19 adult patients were searched until March 22, 2021 in five engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, length of stay (LOS), and adverse events (AE). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2·0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methodology.Results
Ten RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI -0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (all outcomes: low QoE). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM.Conclusions
In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.
SUBMITTER: Roman YM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8394824 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a worldwide outbreak of respiratory illness. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse events of herbal medicines for the treatment of COVID-19.MethodsTwelve databases were searched through 12 May 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of herbal medicines for the treatment of COVID-19 were eligible. The study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for the assessment of the risk of bias in all included RCTs. Mean differences (MDs), risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and the effect sizes of the studies were pooled.ResultsSeven RCTs with a total of 855 patients were included. All included trials compared the combined therapy of herbal medicine with Western medicine to Western medicine alone. The combined therapy significantly improved the total effective rate (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.34, p < 0.001), cough symptom disappearance rate (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.89, p = 0.005), and sputum production symptom disappearance rate (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.50, p = 0.004). Beneficial effects of the combined therapy were also seen in TCM syndrome score of cough (MD -1.18, 95% CI -1.34 to -1.03, p < 0.001), fever (MD -0.62, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.45, p < 0.001), dry and sore throat (MD -0.83, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.20, p = 0.009), and fatigue (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.17, p = 0.007). The overall risk of bias of the included studies was unclear. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionSignificant effects of the combined therapy of herbal medicine with Western medicine were found, and revealed the potential role of herbal medicine in treating COVID-19. More high-quality RCTs are needed to further validate the effectiveness and adverse events of herbal medicine in the treatment of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7290825 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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 relevanceThere 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.
| S-EPMC8127173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.
| S-EPMC1208896 | biostudies-other
Project description:Results of randomized controlled trials evaluating zinc for the treatment of the common cold are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zinc for such use.We searched electronic databases and other sources for studies published through to Sept. 30, 2011. We included all randomized controlled trials comparing orally administered zinc with placebo or no treatment. Assessment for study inclusion, data extraction and risk-of-bias analyses were performed in duplicate. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model.We included 17 trials involving a total of 2121 participants. Compared with patients given placebo, those receiving zinc had a shorter duration of cold symptoms (mean difference -1.65 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.50 to -0.81); however, heterogeneity was high (I(2) = 95%). Zinc shortened the duration of cold symptoms in adults (mean difference -2.63, 95% CI -3.69 to -1.58), but no significant effect was seen among children (mean difference -0.26, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.25). Heterogeneity remained high in all subgroup analyses, including by age, dose of ionized zinc and zinc formulation. The occurrence of any adverse event (risk ratio [RR] 1.24, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.46), bad taste (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.16) and nausea (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.27) were more common in the zinc group than in the placebo group.The results of our meta-analysis showed that oral zinc formulations may shorten the duration of symptoms of the common cold. However, large high-quality trials are needed before definitive recommendations for clinical practice can be made. Adverse effects were common and should be the point of future study, because a good safety and tolerance profile is essential when treating this generally mild illness.
| S-EPMC3394849 | biostudies-other
Project description:In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding potential adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on cognition, based on the Adverse Events Reporting System and a review of the medical literature. We aimed to synthesize randomized clinical trial (RCTs) evidence on the association between statin therapy and cognitive outcomes.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL through December 2012, and reviewed published systematic reviews of statin treatment. We sought RCTs that compared statin treatment versus placebo or standard care, and reported at least one cognitive outcome (frequency of adverse cognitive events or measurements using standard neuropsychological cognitive test scores). Studies reporting sufficient information to calculate effect sizes were included in meta-analyses. Standardized and unstandardized mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes for global cognition and for pre-specified cognitive domains. The main outcome was change in cognition measured by neuropsychological tests; an outcome of secondary interest was the frequency of adverse cognitive events observed during follow-up.We identified 25 RCTs (all placebo-controlled) reporting cognitive outcomes in 46,836 subjects, of which 23 RCTs reported cognitive test results in 29,012 participants. Adverse cognitive outcomes attributable to statins were rarely reported in trials involving cognitively normal or impaired subjects. Furthermore, meta-analysis of cognitive test data (14 studies; 27,643 participants) failed to show significant adverse effects of statins on all tests of cognition in either cognitively normal subjects (standardized mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.01 to 0.03, p?=?0.42) or Alzheimer's disease subjects (standardized mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10, p?=?0.38).Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.
| S-EPMC4351273 | biostudies-other
Project description:The aim of this systematic review is to assess whether metformin could change the concentration of serum homocysteine (Hcy) with and without simultaneous supplementation of B-group vitamins or folic acid. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the concentration of serum Hcy in metformin-treated adults. Meta-analysis was applied to assess the association between metformin and the changes of Hcy concentration. Twelve publications were included in this study. In the overall analysis, metformin administration was not statistically associated with the change of Hcy when compared with the control treatment (mean difference (MD), 0.40 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.07~0.87 μmol/L, p = 0.10). In the subgroup analysis, metformin was significantly associated with an increased concentration of Hcy in the absence of exogenous supplementation of folic acid or B-group vitamins (MD, 2.02 μmol/L; 95% CI, 1.37~2.67 μmol/L, p < 0.00001), but with a decreased concentration of serum Hcy in the presence of these exogenous supplementations (MD, -0.74 μmol/L; 95% CI, -1.19~-0.30 μmol/L, p = 0.001). Therefore, although the overall effect of metformin on the concentration of serum Hcy was neutral, our results suggested that metformin could increase the concentration of Hcy when exogenous B-group vitamins or folic acid supplementation was not given.
| S-EPMC5188453 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Some studies have indicated the efficacy of quetiapine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).The purpose of this study was to systematically review the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of quetiapine in adult patients with GAD.The SCOPUS, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched in April 2015. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of GAD were considered to be included in this meta-analysis. All RCTs of quetiapine in GAD patients providing endpoint outcomes relevant to severity of anxiety, response rate, remission rate, overall discontinuation rate, or discontinuation rate due to adverse events were included. The version reports from suitable clinical studies were explored, and the important data were extracted. Measurement for efficacy outcomes consisted of the mean-changed scores of the rating scales for anxiety, and response rate.A total of 2,248 randomized participants in three RCTs were included. The pooled mean-changed score of the quetiapine-treated group was greater than that of the placebo-treated group and comparable to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Unfortunately, the response and the remission rates in only 50 and 150 mg/day of quetiapine-XR (extended-release) were better than those of the placebo. Their response and remission rates were comparable to SSRIs. The rates of pooled overall discontinuation and discontinuation due to adverse events of quetiapine-XR were greater than placebo. Only the overall discontinuation rate of quetiapine-XR at 50 and 150 mg/day and the discontinuation rate due to adverse events of quetiapine-XR at 50 mg/day were comparable to SSRIs.Based on this meta-analysis, quetiapine-XR is efficacious in the treatment of GAD in adult patients. Despite its low acceptability and tolerability, the use of 50-150 mg/day quetiapine-XR for adult GAD patients may be considered as an alternative treatment. Further well-defined studies should be conducted to warrant these outcomes.
| S-EPMC4716733 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAlthough the US government approved hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) for hospitalized coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients, some studies denied efficacy of HCQ and CQ. We aimed to evaluate HCQ/CQ treatment for COVID-19.MethodsFive databases were searched on April 15, 2020, without publication date restriction. We followed both Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement reporting recommendations. A random-model meta-analysis was conducted to pool odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR). The quality of evidence for each outcome and the final recommendation was assessed using the GRADE guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians.ResultsWe identified four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and four observational studies with 2,063 COVID-19 cases. All-cause mortality was not affected by the administration of HCQ/CQ [OR: 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-2.09, P=0.89]. No improvement of viral clearance was found neither by time-to-event analysis (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.74-1.94, P=0.47) nor frequency on day 7 (OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 0.33-6.63, P=0.62). HCQ/CQ treatment increased the risk of the any adverse event with OR of 3.56 (95% CI: 1.62-7.83, P=0.002).ConclusionsHCQ/CQ failed to decrease the all-cause mortality (very low quality evidence) and did not improve viral clearance (low or very low quality evidence) but increased the risk of any adverse event (moderate quality evidence). Routine administration of HCQ/CQ for COVID-19 patients is not recommended (weak recommendation, Grade 2C).
| S-EPMC7867802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:No systematic review has been published in English of Dengzhanxixin (DZXX) injection for cerebral infarction. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects and safety of DZXX injection for cerebral infarction.Eight databases were searched from their inception. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to DZXX for cerebral infarction in English or Chinese without restrictions on the publication status were included. Neurological deficit, quality of life, and response rates were analyzed. Adverse events were also investigated.Twenty-three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2291 participants were included. Meta-analysis showed that DZXX injection plus routine western therapy was better than routine western therapy alone for reducing neurologic deficit (MD -2.86, 95% CI -3.87 to -1.86), for improving quality of life (MD 9.48, 95% CI 8.34-10.63), and for improving response rates (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.15-1.25). No serious adverse drug events (ADE) were reported.DZXX injection may have a potential therapeutic effect for cerebral infarction in reducing neurologic deficit, improving life quality and response rates. However, we could not draw any definitive conclusions due to the insufficient evidences. More high-quality trials are needed to provide more strong evidence and to assess the safety of DZXX injection.
| S-EPMC5556216 | biostudies-other
Project description:Bariatric surgery has proved to be an effective strategy in treating obesity. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 3 most common bariatric surgery procedures, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB), reported inconsistent results. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to synthesize evidence of effectiveness of the 3 common bariatric procedures from relevant RCTs.The present study was a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs. All RCTs must meet the following criteria to be included in the analysis: patients with body mass index (BMI) ?30?kg/m, reported at least 1 outcome of interest, compared at least 2 of the 3 bariatric procedures, and had follow-ups of at least 1 year. Primary outcome was weight loss, expressed as differences in mean BMI reduction and percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) following 1 year after the surgery. Network meta-analysis was based on Bayesian framework with Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation approach.Eleven RCTs that met the criteria were included in the review. Of 9 trials (n?=?765), the differences in mean BMI reduction were -0.76 (95% CI: -3.1 to 1.6) for RYGB versus SG, -5.8 (95% CI: -9.2 to -2.4) for RYGB versus LAGB, and -5.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to -1.0) for SG versus LAGB. Eight RCTs (n?=?656) reported percentage excess weight-loss (%EWL), the mean differences between RYGB and SG, RYGB and LAGB, and SG and LAGB were 3.8% (95% CI: -8.5% to 13.8%), -22.2% (95% CI: -34.7% to -6.5%), and -26.0% (95% CI: -40.6% to -6.4%), respectively. The meta-analysis indicated low heterogeneity between studies, and the node splitting analysis showed that the studies were consistent between direct and indirect comparisons (P?>?.05).The RYGB and SG yielded similar in weight-loss effect and both were superior to LAGB. Other factors such as complications and patient preference should be considered during surgical consultations.
| S-EPMC5704829 | biostudies-other