Repurposing Colchicine in Treating Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lien CH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8398430 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionColchicine may inhibit inflammasome signaling and reduce proinflammatory cytokines, a purported mechanism of COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to report on the state of the current literature on the use of colchicine in COVID-19 and to investigate the reported clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients by colchicine usage.MethodsThe literature was searched from January 2019 through January 28, 2021. References were screened to identify studies that reported the effect of colchicine usage on COVID-19 outcomes including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, or mechanical ventilation. Studies were meta-analyzed for mortality by the subgroup of trial design (RCT vs observational) and ICU status. Studies reporting an risk ratio (RR), odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed separately.ResultsEight studies, reporting on 16,248 patients, were included in this review. The Recovery trial reported equivalent mortality between colchicine and non-colchicine users. Across the other studies, patients who received colchicine had a lower risk of mortality-HR of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.66) and OR of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.57). There was no statistical difference in risk of ICU admissions between patients with COVID-19 who received colchicine and those who did not-OR of 0.26 (95% CI: 0.06, 1.09).ConclusionColchicine may reduce the risk of mortality in individuals with COVID-19. Further prospective investigation may further determine the efficacy of colchicine as treatment in COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease, including post-hospitalization and long-term care.
| S-EPMC8714120 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe assessed the efficacy of colchicine in COVID-19 patients through a systematic review.MethodsSix databases were searched until March 2022 for studies assessing colchicine versus control in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcome was length of hospitalization. Inverse variance and random effect meta-analyses were performed. The strength of evidence was assessed using GRADE.ResultsNine studies (five randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and four non-randomized studies of intervention (NRSI); n = 13,478). Colchicine did not reduce mortality in comparison with the standard of care in RCTs (RR 0.99; 95%CI 0.90 to 1.10; p = 0.90); however, it did reduce mortality in NRSI studies (RR 0.45; 95%CI 0.26 to 0.77; p = 0.02). In the analysis of RCTs, colchicine did not reduce the length of hospitalization in comparison with the standard of care (MD: -2.25 days; 95%CI: -9.34 to 4.84; p = 0.15). Most studies were scored as having a high risk of bias. Quality of evidence was very low for primary and secondary outcomes.ConclusionColchicine did not reduce the mortality and length of hospitalization in comparison with the standard of care in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The published evidence is insufficient and of very low quality to recommend treatment in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9105993 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis systematic review, with meta-analysis and meta-regression aims to evaluate the effect of colchicine administration on mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and factors affecting the association.MethodsA systematic literature search using the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases were performed from inception of databases up until 3 March 2021. We included studies that fulfill all of the following criteria: 1) observational studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report COVID-19 patients, 2) reporting colchicine use, and 3) mortality within 30 days. There was no restriction on the age, inpatients or outpatients setting, and severity of diseases. The intervention was colchicine administration during treatment for COVID-19. The control was receiving placebo or standard of care. The outcome was mortality and the pooled effect estimate was reported as odds ratio (OR). Random-effects restricted maximum likelihood meta-regression was performed to evaluate factors affecting the pooled effect estimate.ResultsEight studies comprising of 5530 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. There were three RCTs and five observational studies. Pooled analysis showed that colchicine was associated with lower mortality in patients with COVID-19 (OR 0.47 [0.31, 0.72], p = 0.001; I2: 30.9, p = 0.181). Meta-regression analysis showed that the association between colchicine and mortality was reduced by increasing age (OR 0.92 [0.85, 1.00], p = 0.05), but not gender (reference: male, p = 0.999), diabetes (p = 0.376), hypertension (p = 0.133), and CAD (p = 0.354).ConclusionThis meta-analysis indicates that colchicine may reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19. Meta-regression analysis showed that the benefit was reduced as age increases.ProsperoCRD42021240609.
| S-EPMC8075849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionColchicine has the potential in reducing patient morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 infection owing to its anti-inflammatory properties. This study aims to determine the efficacy of colchicine in optimizing inflammatory hematological biomarker levels among COVID-19 patients.MethodsIn accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement guidelines, a systematic search was conducted using the following keywords: Colchicine, covid*, SARS-CoV-2, anti-inflammatory, trials, clinical, hematological, laboratory. Databases were searched from December 2019 until August 26, 2021: MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, and EMBASE. Other sources were located through ClinicalTrials.Gov, manually searching SAGE, Science Direct, Elsevier, and Google Scholar. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4.ResultsIn total, six studies were included, of which four reported c-reactive protein (CRP) standardized mean reductions in the colchicine group (N = 165) as opposed to the control (N = 252; SMD = -0.49, p < 0.001). On noting lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) values post treatment, the colchicine group (N = 204) showed significant reductions at the end of treatment compared to control (N = 290; SMD = -0.85, p < 0.001). Finally, the D-dimer values in colchicine groups (N = 129) compared to control (N = 216) also documented a negative effect size (SMD = -0.9, p < 0.001).ConclusionColchicine has efficacy in reducing inflammatory biomarkers observed in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients. It may be worthwhile to consider monitoring the clinical and laboratory parameters of patients in further trials to consider colchicine as a strong candidate for an adjunct to COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC8646297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To analyze the survival rates of patients with COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and compare the survival rates of patients with COVID-19 supported with ECMO to patients with influenza supported with ECMO. DESIGN:A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of ECMO as supportive therapy of COVID-19. SETTING:The authors performed a search through the Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE/PubMed databases from inception to February 19, 2021, for studies reporting hospitalized patients with COVID-19 managed with ECMO. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 134 studies were selected, including 6 eligible for the comparative meta-analysis of COVID-19 versus influenza. INTERVENTIONS:The authors pooled the risk ratio and random effects model. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:The primary endpoint was the overall mortality of patients with COVID-19 receiving ECMO. Of the total number of 58,472 patients with COVID-19 reported, ECMO was used in 4,044 patients. The analysis suggested an overall in-hospital mortality of 39% (95% CI 0.34-0.43). In the comparative analysis, patients with COVID-19 on ECMO had a higher risk ratio (RR) for mortality when compared to influenza patients on ECMO: 72/164 (44%) v 71/186 (38%) RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.05-1.71; p = 0.03. CONCLUSIONS:ECMO could be beneficial in patients with COVID-19, according to the authors' meta-analysis. The reported mortality rate was 39%. This systematic analysis can provide clinical advice in the current era and ongoing pandemic.
| S-EPMC8585556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLianhuaqingwen (LH) has been proven effective for influenza. However, the promotion of LH for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 remains controversial. Therefore, our study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Lianhuaqingwen (LH) in treating patients with COVID-19 by a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe conducted the literature search using six electronic databases from December 1, 2019, to June 2, 2020. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of case control studies. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality checklist was used to assess the quality of case series. All analyses were conducted by RevMan 5.3. For outcomes that could not be meta-analyzed were performed a descriptive analysis.ResultsEight studies with 924 patients were included. Three studies were RCTs, three were case control studies, and two were case series. The quality of the included studies was poor. Compared with patients treated by conventional treatment, patients treated by LH combined with conventional treatment have a higher overall effective rate (RR = 1.16, 95%CIs: 1.04∼1.30, P = 0.01) and CT recovery rate (RR=1.21, 95%CIs: 1.02∼1.43, P = 0.03). Patients of LH groups have a lower incidence of diarrhea (5.6% vs.13.4%), and have statistically significant (P = 0.026). But the rate of abnormal liver function in the combined medication group is higher than that in the single LH group.ConclusionLH combined with conventional treatment seems to be more effective for patients with mild or ordinary COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7441862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Qingfei Paidu decoction (QFPD) has been widely used in treating COVID-19 in China. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive and systematic evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of QFPD. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of QFPD in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched seven databases up to 5 March 2021. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias of cohort and non-randomized trials. The "Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies With No Control Group" was adopted for controlled pre-post studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We carried out a random effect meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. For outcomes that could not be meta-analyzed, we performed a descriptive analysis. Results: We identified 16 studies with 11,237 patients, including one RCT, six non-randomized trials, two cohort studies, and seven pre-post studies. The certainty of evidence was low to very low because of the observational study design. QFPD combined with conventional treatment might decrease the time for nucleic acid conversion (MD = -4.78 days, 95% CI: -5.79 to -3.77), shorten the length of hospital stay (MD = -7.95 days, 95% CI: -14.66 to -1.24), shorten the duration of symptoms recovery of fever (MD = -1.51 days, 95% CI: -1.92 to -1.09), cough (MD = -1.64 days, 95% CI: -1.91 to -1.36) and chest CT (MD = -2.23 days, 95% CI: -2.46 to -2.00), improve the overall traditional Chinese medicine symptom scores (MD = 41.58 scores, 95% CI: 32.67 to 50.49), and change the laboratory indexes, such as WBC, AST, and CRP. Conclusion: QFPD combined with conventional treatment might be effective for patients with COVID-19. No serious adverse reactions related to QFPD were observed. Further high-quality studies are still needed in the future.
| S-EPMC8387832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAn outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported in Wuhan, China, in mid-December 2019, and declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020. Due to the unknown nature of the disease and the lack of specific drugs, several potential treatments were used for patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate studies of the effects of favipiravir in COVID-19 pneumonia.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases including LitCovid hub, PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Sciences, Cochrane and Embase using keywords related to COVID-19 and favipiravir. We will search the reference lists of all included studies and reviews. We will also search for clinical trial registries, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, for the ongoing clinical trials. All randomised clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of favipiravir compared with other control groups for the treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 will be included. Patients' survival at the end of the treatment as well as the follow-up will be the primary outcome of the treatment, followed by the time and rate of the patient with a negative COVID-19 test. The desired secondary outcome will consist of a decreased rate of symptoms, proportion of intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, length of the hospital stay, ICU treatments, the quality of life and additional adverse events. Data synthesis will be conducted using CMA V.2. Two independent investigators will be screening titles, abstracts and full texts of included studies, based on eligibility criteria. These investigators will then independently extract the data and appraise the quality of said studies. All potential discrepancies will be resolved through consultation with the third reviewer. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using a standard I2 test. A funnel plot, Egger's test and Begg's test will be used for detecting asymmetry to explore possible publication bias.Ethics and disseminationAll findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis will help identify the safety and efficacy of favipiravir for patients with COVID-19. Given that the design of the study is a systematic review, there is no need to follow the code of ethics protocol. The results of this study will be published in a reputable journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42020180032.
| S-EPMC7397976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A systematic review and meta-analysis of the entire COVID-19 Tracheostomy cohort was conducted to determine the cumulative incidence of complications, mortality, time to decannulation and ventilatory weaning. Outcomes of surgical versus percutaneous and outcomes relative to tracheostomy timing were also analysed. Studies reporting outcome data on patients with COVID-19 undergoing tracheostomy were identified and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Outcome data were analysed using a random-effects model. From 1016 unique studies, 39 articles reporting outcomes for a total of 3929 patients were included for meta-analysis. Weighted mean follow-up time was 42.03±26 days post-tracheostomy. Meta-analysis showed that 61.2% of patients were weaned from mechanical ventilation [95%CI 52.6%-69.5%], 44.2% of patients were decannulated [95%CI 33.96%-54.67%], and cumulative mortality was found to be 19.23% [95%CI 15.2%-23.6%] across the entire tracheostomy cohort. The cumulative incidence of complications was 14.24% [95%CI 9.6%-19.6%], with bleeding accounting for 52% of all complications. No difference was found in incidence of mortality (RR1.96; p=0.34), decannulation (RR1.35, p=0.27), complications (RR0.75, p=0.09) and time to decannulation (SMD 0.46, p=0.68) between percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy. Moreover, no difference was found in mortality (RR1.57, p=0.43) between early and late tracheostomy, and timing of tracheostomy did not predict time to decannulation. Ten confirmed nosocomial staff infections were reported from 1398 tracheostomies. This study provides an overview of outcomes of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients, and contributes to our understanding of tracheostomy decisions in this patient cohort.
| S-EPMC8130586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAzithromycin has been widely used in the management of COVID-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence to date on the beneficial and adverse effects of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19.MethodsThe PRISMA 2020 statement criteria were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated with and without azithromycin, indexed until 5 July 2021, were searched in PubMed, Embase, The Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MedRXivs. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled effect size from aggregate data.ResultsThe initial search produced 4950 results. Finally, 16 studies, 5 RCTs and 11 with an observational design, with a total of 22 984 patients, were included. The meta-analysis showed no difference in mortality for those treated with or without azithromycin, in observational studies [OR: 0.90 (0.66-1.24)], RCTs [OR: 0.97 (0.87-1.08)] and also when both types of studies were pooled together [with an overall OR: 0.95 (0.79-1.13)]. Different individual studies also reported no significant difference for those treated with or without azithromycin in need for hospital admission or time to admission from ambulatory settings, clinical severity, need for intensive care, or adverse effects.ConclusionsThe results presented in this systematic review do not support the use of azithromycin in the management of COVID-19. Future research on treatment for patients with COVID-19 may need to focus on other drugs.
| S-EPMC8690025 | biostudies-literature