Efficacy and safety of arbidol (umifenovir) in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To provide the latest evidence for the efficacy and safety of arbidol (umifenovir) in COVID-19 treatment.Methods
A literature systematic search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and medRxiv up to May 2021. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.Results
Sixteen studies were met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was observed between arbidol and non-antiviral treatment groups neither for primary outcomes, including the negative rate of PCR (NR-PCR) on Day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.14) and Day 14 (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96-1.25), and PCR negative conversion time (PCR-NCT; mean difference [MD]: 0.74; 95% CI: -0.87 to 2.34), nor secondary outcomes (p > .05). However, arbidol was associated with higher adverse events (RR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.06-4.73). Compared with lopinavir/ritonavir, arbidol showed better efficacy for primary outcomes (p < .05). Adding arbidol to lopinavir/ritonavir also led to better efficacy in terms of NR-PCR on Day 7 and PCR-NCT (p < .05). There was no significant difference between arbidol and chloroquine in primary outcomes (p > .05). No remarkable therapeutic effect was observed between arbidol and other agents (p > .05).Conclusion
The present meta-analysis showed no significant benefit of using arbidol compared with non-antiviral treatment or other therapeutic agents against COVID-19 disease. High-quality studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of arbidol for COVID-19.
SUBMITTER: Amani B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8426686 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We conducted this systemic review and meta-analysis in an attempt to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umifenovir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and medRxiv database. We included both retrospective and prospective studies. The mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were applied to assess the effectiveness of umifenovir for COVID-19. A total of 12 studies with 1052 patients were included in our final studies. Compared with control group, umifenovir was associated with higher negative rate of PCR on day 14 (RR:1.27; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.55). However, umifenovir is not related to nucleus acid negative conversion time (MD: 0.09; 95% CI: -1.48 to 1.65), negative rate on day 7 (RR:1.09; 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.31), incidence of composite endpoint (RR:1.20; 95% CI: 0.61 to 2.37), rate of fever alleviation on day 7 (RR:1.00; 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.10), rate of cough alleviation on day 7 (RR:1.00; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.18), or hospital length of stay (MD: 1.34; 95% CI: -2.08 to 4.76). Additionally, umifenovir was safe in COVID-19 patients (RR for incidence of adverse events: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.57 to 2.92). The results of sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were similar to pooled results. There is no evidence to support the use of umifenovir for improving patient-important outcomes in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7361300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCytokine release syndrome with elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels is associated with multiorgan damage and death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to perform a living systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy and toxicity of the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.MethodsData sources were Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus up, preprint servers and Google up to October 8, 2020. Study eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies at low or moderate risk of bias. Participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Interventions included tocilizumab versus placebo or standard of care. We pooled crude risk ratios (RRs) of RCTs and adjusted RRs from cohorts, separately. We evaluated inconsistency between studies with I2. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsOf 1156 citations, 24 studies were eligible (five RCTs and 19 cohorts). Five RCTs at low risk of bias, with 1325 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on short-term mortality; pooled RR was 1.09 (95%CI 0.80-1.49, I2 = 0%). Four RCTs with 771 patients examined the effect of tocilizumab on risk of mechanical ventilation; pooled RR was 0.71 (95%CI 0.52-0.96, I2 = 0%), with a corresponding number needed to treat of 17 (95%CI 9-100). Among 18 cohorts at moderate risk of bias with 9850 patients, the pooled adjusted RR for mortality was 0.58 (95%CI 0.51-0.66, I2 = 2.5%). This association was observed over all degrees of COVID-19 severity. Data from the RCTs did not show a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab: pooled RR 0.63 (95%CI 0.38-1.06, five RCTs) and 0.83 (95%CI 0.55-1.24, five RCTs), respectively.ConclusionsCumulative moderate-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. While RCTs showed that tocilizumab did not reduce short-term mortality, low-certainty evidence from cohort studies suggests an association between tocilizumab and lower mortality. We did not observe a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab use. This review will continuously evaluate the role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC7644182 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients were searched until 2nd of December 2020. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, need of mechanical ventilation, need of non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission and oxygen support at 14 and 30 days. Secondary outcomes were clinical recovery and worsening, discharge, radiological progression of pneumonia, virologic clearance, serious adverse events (SAE) and adverse events. Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. Thirteen RCTs (n=18,540) were included. Hydroxychloroquine total doses ranged between 2000 and 12,400 mg; treatment durations were from 5 to 16 days and follow up times between 5 and 30 days. Compared to controls, hydroxychloroquine non-significantly increased mortality at 14 days (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.92-1.25) or 30 days (RR 1.08, 95%CI 1.00-1.16). Hydroxychloroquine did not affect other primary or secondary outcomes, except SAEs that were significantly higher than the control (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.05-1.46). Eleven RCTs had high or some concerns of bias. Subgroup analyses were consistent with main analyses. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients and caused more severe adverse events. Hydroxychloroquine should not be recommended as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8201261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis review was aimed to synthesise the best available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir in the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19.MethodRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir were searched via databases and other sources from December 2019 to December 2020. Two independent reviewers performed literature screening, data extraction and assessment of risk bias. Seven studies involving 3686 patients were included.ResultsTreatment with remdesivir was associated with an increase in clinical recovery rate by 21% (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.08-1.35) on day 7 and 29% (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.22-1.37) on day 14. The likelihoods of requiring high-flow supplemental oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation in the remdesivir group were lower than in the placebo group by 27% (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.54-0.99) and 47% (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.39-0.72), respectively. Remdesivir-treated patients showed a 39% (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.79) reduction in the risk of mortality on day 14 compared to the control group; however, there was no significant difference on day 28. Serious adverse effects (SAEs) were significantly less common in patients treated with remdesivir, with an absolute risk difference of 6% (RD -0.06; 95% CI -0.09 to -0.03).ConclusionDespite conditional recommendation against its use, remdesivir could still be effective in early clinical improvement; reduction of early mortality and avoiding high-flow supplemental oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation among hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Remdesivir was also well tolerated without significant SAEs compared to placebo, yet available evidence from clinical studies support the need to conduct close monitoring.
| S-EPMC8325414 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8604568 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCorona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread around the world since its outbreak, and there is no ascertained effective drug up to now. Lianhua Qingwen (LHQW) has been widely used in China and overseas Chinese, which had some advantages in the treatment of COVID-19.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of LHQW for COVID-19 by conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in 12 electronic databases from their establishment to October 30, 2021. Note Express 3.2.0 was used for screening of trials, and the data was independently extracted in duplicate by 2 researchers. The risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies were assessed by using the Cochrane collaboration tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively, followed by data analysis using RevMan 5.3. The RCTs or retrospective studies to treat COVID-19 using LHQW were included. The intervention measures in the experimental group were LHQW alone or combined with chemical drugs (LCWC), and that in the control group were chemical drugs (CDs). Outcome measures included computed tomography (CT) recovery rate, disappearance rates of primary (fever, cough, fatigue), respiratory, gastrointestinal and other symptoms, exacerbation rate and adverse reaction. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to whether LHQW was combined with CDs and the different treatment methods in the control group.ResultsNine trials with 1,152 participants with COVID-19 were included. The CT recovery rates of LHQW and LCWC were 1.36 and 1.32 times of CDs, respectively (P<0.05). Compared with CDs, LCWC remarkably increased the disappearance rates of fever, cough, fatigue, expectoration, shortness of breath, and muscle soreness (P<0.05). LHQW also obviously decreased the exacerbation rate, which was 0.45 times of CDs alone (P<0.05). There was no obvious difference between LCWC and CDs in adverse reaction (P>0.05).ConclusionsLHQW was more suitable for treating COVID-19 patients with obvious expectoration, shortness of breath and muscle soreness. LHQW had advantages in treating COVID-19 with no obvious exacerbation. (PROSPERO No. CRD42021235937).
| S-EPMC9247911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is a type of pneumonia caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection that was identified in December 2019. Corticosteroid therapy was empirically used for clinical treatment in the early stage of the disease outbreak; however, data regarding its efficacy and safety are controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid therapy in patients with COVID-19.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and China Science and Technology Journal (VIP) databases were searched for studies. Data on clinical improvement, mortality, virus clearance time, adverse events (AEs), utilization of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization, and hospital stay were extracted by two authors independently. Study quality was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (cohort studies). The pooled data were meta-analyzed using a random effects model, and the quality of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach.ResultsEleven cohort studies (corticosteroid group vs control group), two retrospective cohort studies (without control group), and seven case studies were identified. A total of 2840 patients were included. Compared with the control treatments, corticosteroid therapy was associated with clinical recovery (RR = 1.30, 95% CI [0.98, 1.72]) and a significantly shortened length of ICU hospitalization (RR = -6.50; 95% CI [-7.63 to -5.37]), but it did not affect the mortality ((RR = 1.59; 95% CI [0.69-3.66], I2 = 93.5%), utilization of mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.35; 95% CI [0.10, 1.18]), duration of symptoms (WMD = 1.69; 95% CI [-0.24 to 3.62]) or virus clearance time (RR = 1.01; 95% CI [-0.91 to 2.92], I2 = 57%) in COVID-19 patients. Treatment with corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 may cause mild adverse outcomes. The quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes.ConclusionThe findings of our study indicate that corticosteroid therapy is not highly effective, but it appears to improve prognosis and promote clinical recovery in patients with severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7510504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An indole derivative umifenovir (Arbidol) is one of the most widely used antiviral drugs for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and some other viral infections. The purpose of the present study was to shed light on the transformation processes of umifenovir in municipal wastewater, including disinfection with active chlorine, as well as to assess the levels of the antiviral drug and its metabolites entering and accumulating in natural reservoirs under conditions of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The combination of high-performance liquid chromatography with electrospray ionization high-resolution mass-spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry was used for tentative identification and quantification of umifenovir and its transformation products in model reaction mixtures and real samples of wastewater, river water, biological sludge and bottom sediments taken at the wastewater treatment plant in Arkhangelsk, a large cultural and industrial center at the Russian North. Laboratory experiments allowed identifying fifteen bromine-containing transformation products, forming at the initial stages of the chlorination and fourteen classic volatile and semi volatile disinfection by-products with bromoform as the dominant one. Chlorinated derivatives are only the minor disinfection by-products forming by substitution of alkylamine group in the aromatic ring. The schemes of umifenovir transformation in reactions with dissolved oxygen and sodium hypochlorite are proposed. Two established primary transformation products formed by oxidation of the thioether group to sulfoxide and elimination of thiophenol were detected in noticeable concentrations in the wastewater together with their precursor. The level of umifenovir reached 1.3 mg kg-1 in the sludge and municipal wastewater treat contained 1 μg L-1 of that drug, while its removal during biological wastewater treatment was about 40%. Pronounced accumulation of umifenovir and its transformation products in biological sludge and bottom sediments of natural reservoirs may be a source of the future secondary pollution of the environment.
| S-EPMC8451976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring the initial phases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, there was an unfounded fervor surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ); however, recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended against routine use of HCQ outside of study protocols citing possible adverse outcomes.MethodsMultiple databases were searched to identify articles on COVID-19. An unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was used to calculate the safety and efficacy of HCQ on a random effect model.ResultsTwelve studies comprising 3,912 patients (HCQ 2,512 and control 1400) were included. The odds of all-cause mortality (OR: 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.58 - 3.13, P value < 0.00001) were significantly higher in patients on HCQ compared to patients on control agent. The response to therapy assessed by negative repeat polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 0.50 - 6.75, P = 0.36), radiological resolution (OR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.47 - 8.36, P value = 0.36) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.34 - 4.33, P value = 0.76) were identical between the two groups. Overall, four times higher odds of net adverse events (NAEs) were observed in the HCQ group (OR: 4.59, 95% CI 1.73 - 12.20, P value = 0.02). The measures for individual safety endpoints were also numerically lower in the control arm; however, none of these values reached the level of statistical significance.ConclusionsHCQ might offer no benefits in terms of decreasing the viral load and radiological improvement in patients with COVID-19. HCQ appears to be associated with higher odds of all-cause mortality and NAEs.
| S-EPMC7430873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCytokine release syndrome with elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels is associated with multiorgan damage and death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to update the data in a living systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy and toxicity of the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.MethodsData sources were Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus up, preprint servers and Google from 8th October 2020 till 24th February 2021. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies at low or moderate risk of bias. The participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and intervention was tocilizumab versus placebo or standard of care. We pooled crude risk ratios (RRs) of RCTs with a random effects model and evaluated inconsistency between studies with I2. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsOf 1600 citations, eight RCTs and 28 cohorts were eligible. The eight RCTs had low risk of bias, and with 6311 patients they examined the effect of tocilizumab on short-term mortality; pooled RR was 0.91 (95%CI 0.78-1.07, I2 25%). Only the REMAP-CAP and RECOVERY trials, with the majority of their patients on concomitant corticosteroids, showed lower 30-day mortality with tocilizumab use: RR 0.74 (95%CI 0.59-0.93) and 0.89 (95%CI 0.81-0.97), respectively. Seven RCTs, with 5391 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on risk of mechanical ventilation; pooled RR was 0.84 (95%CI 0.76-0.93), I2 0%, with a corresponding number needed to treat of 20 (95%CI 14.3-33.3). Eight RCTs, with 5340 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on a composite of poor outcome; pooled RR was 0.82 (95%CI 0.76-0.90, I2 3%). Data from the RCTs showed a lower risk of infections and no higher risk of serious adverse events with tocilizumab: pooled RR 0.67 (95%CI 0.45-0.99, eight RCTs) and 0.85 (95%CI 0.63-1.16, seven RCTs), respectively. Among 28 cohorts with 15 484 patients, the pooled adjusted RR for mortality was 0.53 (95%CI 0.43-0.67, I2 76%).ConclusionsCumulative high-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of poor outcome and the risk of secondary infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This review will continuously evaluate the role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC8076756 | biostudies-literature