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: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: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:BackgroundCorticosteroid 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionCorticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8137023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ivermectin has received particular attention as a potential treatment for COVID-19. However, the evidence to support its clinical efficacy is controversial. We undertook a new systematic review of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19, including new primary studies, outcomes other than mortality, and grading the quality of the available evidence following the Cochrane guidance for methodology. We searched electronic databases, repository databases, and clinical trial registries (up to June 2021). The measure of treatment effect was risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. The review includes 11 RCTs (2436 participants). The certainty of the available evidence was quite low or very low due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. When the analysis was limited to patients with baseline mild or moderate disease (8 reports, 1283 patients), there were no differences in mortality between ivermectin and control groups (low level of certainty); in patients with baseline severe diseases (3 reports, 304 patients), the use of ivermectin significantly decreased mortality compared to the controls (RD -0.17; 95% CIs, -0.24/-0.10; p = 0.00001; low level of certainty). In terms of disease progression (to severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit, and/or mechanical ventilation), the results were much the same. At day 14, the rate of patients with a negative RT-PCR test was 21% higher (from 5 to 36% higher) for ivermectin recipients than it was for the controls (low quality of evidence). Three studies (736 subjects) indicated that prophylaxis with ivermectin increased the likelihood of preventing COVID-19 compared to controls (low quality of evidence). Serious adverse events were rarely reported. There is limited evidence for the benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment and prophylaxis, and most of this evidence is of low quality. Further evidence is needed to fine-tune potential indications and optimal treatment protocols for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8470309 | 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:BACKGROUND:The 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. METHODS:Twelve 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. RESULTS:Seven 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. CONCLUSION:Significant 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: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:BackgroundThe role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is still under debate, yet the drug has been widely used in some parts of the world, as shown by impressive market data. The available body of evidence may have changed over the last months, as studies have been retracted and "standards of care" (SOC) used in control groups have changed with rapidly evolving knowledge on COVID-19. This review aims to summarize and critically appraise the evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivermectin, assessing clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.MethodsRCTs evaluating the effects of ivermectin in adult patients with COVID-19 were searched through June 22, 2022, in four databases, L.OVE platform, clinical trial registries and pre-prints platforms. Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and invasive ventilation requirement. Secondary endpoint was the occurrence of adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analysis included only studies which compared ivermectin to placebo or SOC. Random-effects were used to pool the risk ratios (RRs) of individual trials. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The protocol was register in PROSPERO (CRD42021257471).ResultsTwenty-five RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria (n = 6310). Of those, 14 compared ivermectin with placebo, in night ivermectin associated with SOC was compared to SOC and two studies compared ivermectin to an active comparator. Most RCTs had some concerns or high risk of bias, mostly due to lack of concealment of the randomization sequence and allocation, lack of blinding and high number of missing cases. Ivermectin did not show an effect in reducing mortality (RR = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.52-1.11) or mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.48-1.16). This effect was consistent when comparing ivermectin vs. placebo, and ivermectin associated with SOC vs. SOC, as well as in sensitivity analysis. Additionally, there was very low quality of evidence regarding adverse effects (RR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.84-1.35).ConclusionsThe evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.
| S-EPMC9308124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has mobilized global research at an unprecedented scale. While challenges associated with the COVID-19 trial landscape have been discussed previously, no comprehensive reviews have been conducted to assess the reporting, design, and data sharing practices of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).PurposeThe purpose of this review was to gain insight into the current landscape of reporting, methodological design, and data sharing practices for COVID-19 RCTs.Data sourcesWe conducted three searches to identify registered clinical trials, peer-reviewed publications, and pre-print publications.Study selectionAfter screening eight major trial registries and 7844 records, we identified 178 registered trials and 38 publications describing 35 trials, including 25 peer-reviewed publications and 13 pre-prints.Data extractionTrial ID, registry, location, population, intervention, control, study design, recruitment target, actual recruitment, outcomes, data sharing statement, and time of data sharing were extracted.Data synthesisOf 178 registered trials, 112 (62.92%) were in hospital settings, median planned recruitment was 100 participants (IQR: 60, 168), and the majority (n = 166, 93.26%) did not report results in their respective registries. Of 35 published trials, 31 (88.57%) were in hospital settings, median actual recruitment was 86 participants (IQR: 55.5, 218), 10 (28.57%) did not reach recruitment targets, and 27 trials (77.14%) reported plans to share data.ConclusionsThe findings of our study highlight limitations in the design and reporting practices of COVID-19 RCTs and provide guidance towards more efficient reporting of trial results, greater diversity in patient settings, and more robust data sharing.
| S-EPMC7834682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIvermectin became a popular choice for COVID-19 treatment among clinicians and the public following encouraging results from pre-print trials and in vitro studies. Early reviews recommended the use of ivermectin based largely on non-peer-reviewed evidence, which may not be robust. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 based on peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs).MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were searched from 1 January 2020 to 1 September 2021 for relevant studies. Outcomes included time to viral clearance, duration of hospitalization, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation and incidence of adverse events. RoB2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. GRADE was used to evaluate quality of evidence.ResultsThree OSs and 14 RCTs were included in the review. Most RCTs were rated as having some concerns in regards to risk of bias, while OSs were mainly rated as having a moderate risk of bias. Based on meta-analysis of RCTs, the use of ivermectin was not associated with reduction in time to viral clearance, duration of hospitalization, incidence of mortality and incidence of mechanical ventilation. Ivermectin did not significantly increase incidence of adverse events. Meta-analysis of OSs agrees with findings from RCT studies.ConclusionsBased on very low to moderate quality of evidence, ivermectin was not efficacious at managing COVID-19. Its safety profile permits its use in trial settings to further clarify its role in COVID-19 treatment.Protocol registrationThe review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021275302).
| S-EPMC8500108 | biostudies-literature