Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aim

Ivermectin became a popular choice for COVID-19 treatment among clinicians and the public following encouraging results from preprint 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).

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched from January 1st, 2020 to September 1st, 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.

Results

Three OSs and 14 RCTs were included in the review. Most RCTs were rated as having some concerns in regards to risk of bias, while observational studies 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.

Conclusions

Based on very low to moderate quality of evidence, ivermectin was not efficacious at managing COVID-19. It's safety profile permits its use in trial settings to further clarify its role in COVID-19 treatment.

Protocol registration

The review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021275302).

SUBMITTER: Deng J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8500108 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIvermectin is a drug with antiviral properties and has been proposed as an alternative treatment for patients with COVID-19, in some countries; however, there is limited evidence to support its clinical use. Accordingly, the aim of this review and meta-analysis is to obtain superior evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ivermectin in treatment of COVID-19.Methods and analysisWe will search in the medical databases and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases for randomised clinical trials and quasi-randomised trials published from December 2019. The criteria for inclusion are that infection needs to be confirmed by a real-time PCR or serology test, and the effect of ivermectin has been compared with placebo, symptomatic treatment or no treatment. We will exclude observational studies and clinical trials that involved patients with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, but without a laboratorial diagnosis. Outcomes of interest include mortality, time to symptom resolution, time of hospitalisation, frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome, admission to intensive care unit, viral load, PCR-negative status, percentage of infection after prophylactic use, and total incidence of adverse and side effects. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two reviewers will independently select the studies and assess their eligibility. Two other reviewers will independently extract data from each study. Meta-analysis will then be carried out using fixed-effects or random-effects model, using the mean difference for continuous outcomes and the relative risk for dichotomous outcomes. Bias risk will be assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The quality of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. Review Manager V.5.3.5 will be used for synthesis and subgroup analysis.Ethics and disseminationOwing to the nature of the review, ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.Prospero registration numberCRD42020197395.

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.

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.

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.

Project description:Repurposed drugs like hydroxycloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are being tested for potential therapeutic role in COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of HCQ and CQ in COVID-19. Using PubMed, EMBASE, medRxiv, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, electronic search was carried out to identify relevant articles till June 2020 with re-evaluation in last week of November 2020. Observational and interventional clinical studies comparing efficacy of CQ or HCQ to standard management or other drug/s for SARS-CoV-2 infection patients were included. Cochrane review manager version 5.3 was used for synthesis of meta-analysis results. For randomized controlled trials, risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment tool, version 2.0 (ROB-2). ROBINS-I was used for quality assessment of observational studies. Overall evidence quality generated by review was graded as per GRADE Recommendation. A total of 903 studies were screened. Nineteen studies were included in synthesis of meta-analysis with total of 4,693, 1,626, and 6,491 patients in HCQ/CQ, HCQ/CQ + AZ and control groups, respectively. HCQ/CQ treatment was associated with significantly increased rates of virological cure (OR = 2.08, 95%CI = 1.36-3.17; P = 0.0007) and radiological cure (OR = 3.89, 95%CI = 1.35 - 11.23; P = 0.01) compared to control. HCQ/CQ had no difference in unadjusted mortality rate (unadjusted OR = 0.98 95% CI = 0.70-1.37, P = 0.89, random effect model) and adjusted hazard ratio for mortality (adjusted HR = 1.05, 95%CI = 0.86--1.29; P = 0.64). However, a significant increase in odds of disease progression (OR = 1.77, 95%CI = 1.46-2.13; P < 0.00001) and QT prolongation (OR = 11.15, 95%CI = 3.95-31.44; P < 0.00001) was noted. The results with HCQ/CQ and azithromycin combination were similar to HCQ/CQ mono-therapy. In the light of contemporary evidence on effectiveness of HCQ/CQ, judicious and monitored use of HCQ/CQ for treatment of COVID-19 patients is recommended in low to middle income countries with emphasis on no mortality benefit. Registration number of Systematic review. Register in PROSPERO database: cRD42020187710.

Project description:In the realm of acute respiratory infections, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), poses a global public health challenge. The application of corticosteroids (CSs) in COVID-19 remains a contentious topic among researchers. Accordingly, our team performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to meticulously evaluate the safety and efficacy of CSs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. To explore efficacy of CSs in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, we meticulously screened RCTs across key databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, as well as China's CNKI and Wanfang Data. We focused on assessing the 28 days mortality rates. We evaluated the data heterogeneity using the Chi-square test and I2 values, setting significance at 0.1 and 50%. Data from 21 RCTs involving 5721 participants were analyzed. The analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between CSs intervention and the 28 days mortality risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.84-1.03; P = 0.15). However, subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in 28 days mortality among patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (RR at 0.85; 95% CI: 0.76-0.95; P = 0.004). Specifically, short-term CS administration (≤ 3 days) was associated with a substantial improvement in clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004), as was longer-term use (≥ 8 days) (RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77-0.99; P = 0.04). Additionally, in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, the administration of dexamethasone increased the number of 28 days ventilator-free days (Mean Difference = 1.92; 95% CI: 0.44-3.40; P = 0.01). Methylprednisolone also demonstrated significant benefits in improving clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that although there is no significant difference in 28 days mortality rates among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the use of CSs may be beneficial in improving clinical outcomes in moderate or severe COVID-19 patients. There was no significant increase in the occurrence of adverse events associated with the use of CSs. Our meta-analysis provides evidence that while CSs may not be suitable for all COVID-19 patients, they could be effective and safe in severely ill COVID-19 patients. Consequently, it is recommended to administer CSs for personalized treatments in COVID-19 cases to improve the clinical outcomes while minimizing adverse events.

Project description:Convalescent plasma is currently being used in the treatment of COVID-19. Recommendations regarding use convalescent plasma in COVID-19 requires systematic summaries of available evidence. We searched the databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistomonikos, Medrxiv and Biorxiv. Title/abstract screening, full text screening and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate by two reviewers. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. GRADE tool was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Twenty two studies were found eligible for inclusion: nine randomized controlled trials and thirteen cohort studies. Low certainty evidence from eight RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on mortality at 28 days (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.18). Low certainty evidence from thirteen cohort studies showed a reduction in mortality at 28 days (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82). The pooled OR for clinical improvement was 1.07 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.34) representing low certainty evidence. Evidence from three RCTs showed inconclusive effect of CP on the need for mechanical ventilation (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.98). Four cohort studies reporting unadjusted estimates suggested a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation with convalescent plasma (OR 0.80 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, low certainty). Pooled estimates from 2 RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on the proportion of patients with nondetectable levels of virus in nasopharyngeal specimens on day 3 (OR 3.62, 95% CI 0.43, 30.49, very low-quality evidence). The present review reports uncertain estimates on the efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of COVID-19. There is low certainty evidence of a possible reduction in mortality and mechanical ventilation, a faster viral clearance and the absence of any serious adverse events. However, its efficacy for these outcomes requires evidence from good quality and adequately powered randomized controlled trials.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12288-021-01417-w.

Project description:The novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and marketed drugs are being tested for repurposing, including Favipiravir. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We registered the protocol in the PROSPERO (CRD42020180032). All clinical trials which addressed the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in comparison to other control groups for treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV2 were included. We searched electronic databases including LitCovid/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scientific Information Database up to 31 December 2020. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane Collaboration criteria. All analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2, and the risk ratio index was calculated. Egger and Begg test was used for assessing publication bias. Nine studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a significant clinical improvement in the Favipiravir group versus the control group during seven days after hospitalization (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.41; P = 0.001). Viral clearance was more in 14 days after hospitalization in Favipiravir group than control group, but this finding marginally not significant (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.98-1.25; P = 0.094). Requiring supplemental oxygen therapy in the Favipiravir group was 7% less than the control group, (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.67-1.28; P = 0.664). Transferred to ICU and adverse events were not statistically different between two groups. The mortality rate in the Favipiravir group was approximately 30% less than the control group, but this finding not statistically significant. Favipiravir possibly exerted no significant beneficial effect in the term of mortality in the general group of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. We should consider that perhaps the use of antiviral once the patient has symptoms is too late and this would explain their low efficacy in the clinical setting.