Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of current medications for treating severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients: an updated network meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Many recent studies have investigated the role of drug interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, an important question has been raised about how to select the effective and secure medications for COVID-19 patients. The aim of this analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of the various medications available for severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients based on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs).

Methods

We did an updated network meta-analysis. We searched the databases from inception until July 31, 2021, with no language restrictions. We included RPCTs comparing 49 medications and placebo in the treatment of severe and non-severe patients (aged 18 years or older) with COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on the trial and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, the ratios of virological cure, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect estimates.

Results

From 3,869 publications, we included 61 articles related to 73 RPCTs (57 in non-severe COVID-19 patients and 16 in severe COVID-19 patients), comprising 20,680 patients. The mean sample size was 160 (interquartile range 96-393) in this study. The median duration of follow-up drugs intervention was 28 days (interquartile range 21-30). For increase in virological cure, we only found that proxalutamide (OR 9.16, 95% CI 3.15-18.30), ivermectin (OR 6.33, 95% CI 1.22-32.86), and low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.29, 95% CI 1.12-24.99) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo, in which proxalutamide seemed to be better than low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.69, 95% CI 2.43-17.65). For decrease in all-cause mortality, we found that proxalutamide (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.09-0.19), imatinib (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.96), and baricitinib (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.82) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we only found that immunoglobulin gamma (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.89) was related to severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo. For change in treatment-emergent adverse events, we only found that sotrovimab (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.34) was associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we did not find any medications that presented a statistical difference when compared with placebo among severe COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion

We conclude that marked variations exist in the efficacy and safety of medications between severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19. It seems that monoclonal antibodies (e.g., low dosage bamlanivimab, baricitinib, imatinib, and sotrovimab) are a better choice for treating severe or non-severe COVID-19 patients. Clinical decisions to use preferentially medications should carefully consider the risk-benefit profile based on efficacy and safety of all active interventions in patients with COVID-19 at different levels of infection.

SUBMITTER: Cheng Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8507270 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The safety and efficacy of different drugs in treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients who could not maintain normal glucose level only through diet and exercise remains to be debated. We performed this network meta-analysis (NAM) to compare and rank different antidiabetic drugs in glucose level control and pregnancy outcomes in GDM patients.We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase up to December 31, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to different drugs in the treatment of GDM patients were enrolled. We extracted the relevant information and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model and then adopted random-effects NAM combining both direct and indirect evidence within a Bayesian framework, to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and to draw a surface under the cumulative ranking curve of the neonatal and maternal outcomes of different treatments in GDM patients.Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this NAM, including 6 kinds of treatments (metformin, metformin plus insulin, insulin, glyburide, acarbose, and placebo). The results of the NAM showed that regarding the incidence of macrosomia and LGA, metformin had lower incidence than glyburide (OR, 0.5411 and 0.4177). In terms of the incidence of admission to the NICU, insulin had higher incidence compared with glyburide (OR, 1.844). As for the incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia, metformin had lower incidence than insulin and glyburide (OR, 0.6331 and 0.3898), and insulin was lower than glyburide (OR, 0.6236). For mean birth weight, metformin plus insulin was lower than insulin (SMD, -0.5806), glyburide (SMD, -0.7388), and placebo (SMD, -0.6649). Besides, metformin was observed to have lower birth weight than glyburide (SMD, 0.2591). As for weight gain, metformin and metformin plus insulin were lower than insulin (SMD, -0.9166, -1.53). Ranking results showed that glyburide might be the optimum treatment regarding average glucose control, and metformin is the fastest in glucose control for GDM patients; glyburide have the highest incidence of macrosomia, preeclampsia, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, shortest gestational age at delivery, and lowest mean birth weight; metformin (plus insulin when required) have the lowest incidence of macrosomia, PIH, LGA, RDS, low gestational age at delivery, and low birth weight. Besides, insulin had the highest incidence of NICU admission, acarbose had the lowest risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.Our study concluded that metformin is fastest in glucose control, with a more favorable pregnancy outcomes-would be a better option, but its rate of glucose control is the lowest.However, glyburide is the optimumtreatment regarding the rate of glucose control, but withmore adverse outcomes. This NAMbased on 32 RCTs will strongly help to guide further development of management for GDM patients, clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of different treatments according to various situations.

Project description:PurposeNitazoxanide is a broad-spectrum antiparasitic that has been tested for COVID-19 due to its anti-inflammatory effects and in vitro antiviral activity. This study synthesized the best evidence on the efficacy and safety of nitazoxanide in COVID-19.MethodsSearches for studies were performed in peer-reviewed and grey-literature from January 1, 2020 to May 23, 2022. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) Population: individuals with COVID-19; (2) Intervention: nitazoxanide; (3) Comparison: placebo; (4) Outcomes: primary outcome was death, and secondary outcomes were viral load, positive RT-PCR status, serum biomarkers of inflammation, composite measure of disease progression (ICU admission or invasive mechanical ventilation), and any adverse events; (5) Study type: blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Treatment effects were reported as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsFive blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs were included and enrolled individuals with mild or moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. We found no difference between nitazoxanide and placebo in reducing viral load (SMD = - 0.16; 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.05) and the frequency of positive RTP-PCR results (RR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06). In addition, there was no decreased risk for disease progression (RR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.04) and death (RR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78) among patients receiving nitazoxanide. Patients with COVID-19 treated with nitazoxanide had decreased levels of white blood cells (SMD = - 0.15; 95% - 0.29 to - 0.02), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (SMD - 0.32; 95% - 0.52 to - 0.13), and D-dimer (SMD - 0.49; 95% CI - 0.68 to - 0.31) compared to placebo, but the magnitude of effect was considered small to moderate.ConclusionThis systematic review showed no evidence of clinical benefits of the use of nitazoxanide to treat patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. In addition, we found a reduction in WBC, LDH, and D-dimer levels among nitazoxanide-treated patients, but the effect size was considered small to moderate.

Project description:Background: Severe pneumonia (SP) has a high mortality rate and is responsible for significant healthcare costs. Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) have been widely used in China as a novel and promising treatment option for SP. Therefore, this study assessed and ranked the effectiveness of CHIs to provide more sights for the selection of SP treatment. Method: Seven databases were searched from their inception up to April 1, 2021. The methodological quality of included study was evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Then, a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed by OpenBUGS 3.2.3 and STATA 14.0 software. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values were applied to rank the examined treatments. A clustering analysis was utilized to compare the effect of CHIs between two different outcomes. Results: A total of 64 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5,904 participants were identified for this analysis. Six CHIs including Xuebijing injection (XBJ), Tanreqing injection (TRQ), Reduning injection (RDN), Xiyanping injection (XYP), Shenfu injection (SF), and Shenmai injection (SM) were included. The results of the NMA showed that XBJ [odds ratio (OR) = 0.24, 95% credible interval (CI): 0.19, 0.30], TRQ (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.37), RDN (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.94), and SM (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.63) combined with conventional Western medicine (WM) improved the clinical effective rate more significantly than WM alone. Based on SUCRA values, TRQ + WM (SUCRA: 66.4%) ranked the highest in improving the clinical effective rate, second in four different outcomes, and third in only one. According to the cluster analysis, TRQ + WM exerted a positive effect on improving the efficacy of SP. As for safety, less than 30% (18 RCTs) of the included studies reported adverse drug reactions/adverse drug events (ADRs/ADEs), including 14 RCTs of XBJ, 3 RCTs of TRQ, and 1 RCT of RDN. Conclusion: In conclusion, the study found that the CHIs as co-adjuvant therapy could be beneficial for patients with SP. TRQ + WM showed an outstanding improvement in patients with SP considering both the clinical effective rate and other outcomes. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021244587].

Project description:ObjectiveSeveral antiseizure medications (ASMs) have been approved for the treatment of focal epilepsy. However, there is a paucity of evidence on direct comparison of ASMs. We evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of all approved add-on ASMs for the treatment of focal epilepsy using network meta-analysis.MethodsData through extensive literature search was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrial.gov databases using predefined search terms from inception through March 2023. PRISMA reporting guidelines (CRD42023403450) were followed in this study. Efficacy outcomes assessed were ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% responder rates. Patient retention rate and safety outcomes such as overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and individual TEAEs were assessed. "Gemtc" 4.0.4 package was used to perform Bayesian analysis. Outcomes are reported as relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsLiterature search retrieved 5807 studies of which, 75 studies were included in the analysis. All ASMs showed significantly higher ≥50% responder rate compared with placebo. Except the ≥75% seizure frequency reduction for zonisamide (2.23; 95% CI: 1.00-5.70) and 100% for rufinamide (2.03; 95% CI: 0.54-11.00), all other interventions showed significantly higher ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared with placebo. Among treatments, significantly higher 100% responder rate was observed with cenobamate compared to eslicarbazepine (10.71; 95% CI: 1.56-323.9) and zonisamide (10.63; 95% CI: 1.37-261.2). All ASMs showed a lower patient retention rate compared to placebo, with the least significant value observed for oxcarbazepine (0.77; 95% CI: 0.7-0.84). Levetiracetam showed a lower risk of incidence (1.0; 95%CI: 0.94-1.1; SUCRA: 0.885067) for overall TEAE compared with other medications.SignificanceAll approved ASMs were effective as add-on treatment for focal epilepsy. Of the ASMs included, cenobamate had the greatest likelihood of allowing patients to attain seizure freedom.Plain language summaryThis article compares the efficacy and safety of antiseizure medications (ASMs) currently available to neurologists in the treatment of epileptic patients. Several newer generation ASMs that have been developed may be as effective or better than the older medications. We included 75 studies in the analysis. In comparison, all drugs improved ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% responder rates compared to control, except for Zonisamide and Rufinamide in the ≥75% and 100% responder rate categories. Retention of patients undergoing treatment was lower in drugs than placebo. All drugs were tolerated, the levetiracetam showed the best tolerability. Cenobamate more likely help completely to reduce seizures.

Project description:BackgroundSevere pneumonia (SP) has a high mortality and is responsible for significant healthcare cost. Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) have been widely used in China as a novel and promising treatment option for SP. Therefore, this study will assess and rank the effectiveness of CHIs to provide more sights for the selection of SP treatment.MethodSeven databases will be searched, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and the Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) from their inception up to October, 2021. The literatures screening, data extraction and the quality assessment of included studies will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Then Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) will be performed by WinBUGS 14.0 and STATA 14.0 software. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values will be applied to rank the examined treatments. The risk of bias of each included study will be evaluated using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (ROB 2). Publication bias will be reflected by a funnel plot.ResultsThe results of this NMA will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal publication.ConclusionOur study findings maybe reveal which CHI or CHIs will be better in the treatment of SP and provide more therapy strategies for clinical practitioners and patients.Prospero registration numberCRD42021244587.Strengths and limitations of this studyBayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) can integrate direct evidence with indirect evidence of severe pneumonia treated by Chinese herbal injections to generate a clinically useful ranking of these regimens. This NMA will address Chinese herbal injections for SP and its findings may help to provide more sights for selection of SP treatment. Evidence drawn from an NMA is limited and should be interpreted with caution. We only included studies in Chinese and English languages, which may increase the publication bias.

Project description:Cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials (CVOTs) of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) therapies have mostly used randomized comparison with placebo to demonstrate non-inferiority to establish that the investigational drug does not increase CV risk. Recently, several glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) demonstrated reduced CV risk. Consequently, future T2DM therapy trials could face new ethical and clinical challenges if CVOTs continue with the traditional, placebo-controlled design. To address this challenge, here we review the methodologic considerations in transitioning to active-controlled CVOTs and describe the statistical design of a CVOT to assess non-inferiority versus an active comparator and if non-inferiority is proven, using novel methods to assess for superiority versus an imputed placebo. Specifically, as an example of such methodology, we introduce the statistical considerations used for the design of the "Effect of Tirzepatide versus Dulaglutide on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes" trial (SURPASS CVOT). It is the first active-controlled CVOT assessing antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with T2DM designed to demonstrate CV efficacy of the investigational drug, tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 RA, by establishing non-inferiority to an active comparator with proven CV efficacy, dulaglutide. To determine the efficacy margin for the hazard ratio, tirzepatide versus dulaglutide, for the composite CV outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (MACE-3), which is required to claim superiority versus an imputed placebo, the lower bound of efficacy of dulaglutide compared with placebo was estimated using a hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of placebo-controlled CVOTs of GLP-1 RAs. SURPASS CVOT was designed so that when the observed upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio is less than the lower bound of efficacy of dulaglutide, it demonstrates non-inferiority to dulaglutide by preserving at least 50% of the CV benefit of dulaglutide as well as statistical superiority of tirzepatide to a theoretical placebo (imputed placebo analysis). The presented methods adding imputed placebo comparison for efficacy assessment may serve as a model for the statistical design of future active-controlled CVOTs.