Vitamin C and COVID-19 treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and aims
Vitamin C has been used as an anti-oxidant in various diseases including viral illnesses like coronavirus disease (COVID-19).Methods
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating the role of vitamin C supplementation in COVID-19 was carried out.Results
Total 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.Conclusion
No significant benefit noted with vitamin C administration in COVID-19. Well-designed RCTs with standardized control group needed on this aspect.
SUBMITTER: Rawat D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8552785 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionVitamin D levels have been reported to be associated with COVID-19 susceptibility, severity, and mortality events. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the use of vitamin D intervention on COVID-19 outcomes.Areas coveredLiterature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. We included RCTs reporting the use of vitamin D intervention to control/placebo group in COVID-19. The study was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42021271461.Expert opinionA total of 6 RCTs with 551 COVID-19 patients were included. The overall collective evidence pooling all the outcomes across all RCTs indicated the beneficial use of vitamin D intervention in COVID-19 (relative risk, RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92, Z = 2.33, p = 0.02, I2 = 48%). The rates of RT-CR positivity were significantly decreased in the intervention group as compared to the non-vitamin D groups (RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89, Z = 2.31, p = 0.02, I2 = 0%). Conclusively, COVID-19 patients supplemented with vitamin D are more likely to demonstrate fewer rates of ICU admission, mortality events, and RT-PCR positivity.
| S-EPMC8862170 | 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:BackgroundAlthough the US government approved hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) for hospitalized coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients, some studies denied efficacy of HCQ and CQ. We aimed to evaluate HCQ/CQ treatment for COVID-19.MethodsFive databases were searched on April 15, 2020, without publication date restriction. We followed both Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement reporting recommendations. A random-model meta-analysis was conducted to pool odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR). The quality of evidence for each outcome and the final recommendation was assessed using the GRADE guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians.ResultsWe identified four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and four observational studies with 2,063 COVID-19 cases. All-cause mortality was not affected by the administration of HCQ/CQ [OR: 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-2.09, P=0.89]. No improvement of viral clearance was found neither by time-to-event analysis (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.74-1.94, P=0.47) nor frequency on day 7 (OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 0.33-6.63, P=0.62). HCQ/CQ treatment increased the risk of the any adverse event with OR of 3.56 (95% CI: 1.62-7.83, P=0.002).ConclusionsHCQ/CQ failed to decrease the all-cause mortality (very low quality evidence) and did not improve viral clearance (low or very low quality evidence) but increased the risk of any adverse event (moderate quality evidence). Routine administration of HCQ/CQ for COVID-19 patients is not recommended (weak recommendation, Grade 2C).
| S-EPMC7867802 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10916652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Remdesivir is one of the proposed therapies for the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To assess the effect of remdesivir on mortality, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), time to clinical improvement, and significant adverse effects. The study protocol was prospectively registered with The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registration #CRD42021283221). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English detailing use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. Primary outcome was in hospital mortality among patients receiving remdesivir. Secondary outcomes were need for IMV and ECMO, time to clinical recovery, and significant adverse effects associated with remdesivir. Odds ratios (ORs) of worse outcome with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a forest plot were used to show the results of random effects meta-analysis. Remdesivir and placebo had similar in hospital mortality in the pooled analysis of five RCTs (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.82-1.06). The remdesivir group needed less IMV/ECMO (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.46-0.76) and recovered 1.06 days faster than placebo. Remdesivir did not affect transaminitis or renal damage. Trial sequence analysis showed that death has not reached the number of instances needed to predict futility. This meta-analysis shows that remdesivir therapy for COVID-19 is not associated with a mortality benefit. However, there is significant reduction in the need for IMV/ECMO.
| S-EPMC10824204 | 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: While passive immunotherapy has been considered beneficial for patients with severe respiratory viral infections, the treatment of COVID-19 cases with convalescent plasma produced mixed results. Thus, there is a lack of certainty and consensus regarding its effectiveness. This meta-analysis aims to assess the role of convalescent plasma treatment on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database (end-of-search: 29 December 2022) for RCTs on convalescent plasma therapy compared to supportive care\standard of care. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated with random-effects models. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also performed, in order to address heterogeneity and examine any potential association between the factors that varied, and the outcomes reported. The present meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Per overall analysis, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with lower 28-day mortality [RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.91, 1.06)] or improved 28-day secondary outcomes, such as hospital discharge [RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.97, 1.03)], ICU-related or score-related outcomes, with effect estimates of RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.98, 1.05) and RR = 1.06, 95% CI (0.95, 1.17), respectively. However, COVID-19 outpatients treated with convalescent plasma had a 26% less risk of requiring hospital care, when compared to those treated with the standard of care [RR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.56, 0.99)]. Regarding subgroup analyses, COVID-19 patients treated with convalescent plasma had an 8% lower risk of ICU-related disease progression when compared to those treated with the standard of care (with or without placebo or standard plasma infusions) [RR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.85, 0.99)] based on reported outcomes from RCTs carried out in Europe. Finally, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with improved survival or clinical outcomes in the 14-day subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Outpatients with COVID-19 treated with convalescent plasma had a statistically significantly lower risk of requiring hospital care when compared to those treated with placebo or the standard of care. However, convalescent plasma treatment was not statistically associated with prolonged survival or improved clinical outcomes when compared to placebo or the standard of care, per overall analysis in hospitalized populations. This hints at potential benefits, when used early, to prevent progression to severe disease. Finally, convalescent plasma was significantly associated with better ICU-related outcomes in trials carried out in Europe. Well-designed prospective studies could clarify its potential benefit for specific subpopulations in the post-pandemic era.
| S-EPMC10054551 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsTwelve 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.ResultsSeven 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.ConclusionSignificant 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