Dataset Information

Clinical efficacy and safety of interferon-β-containing regimens in the treatment of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to investigate the efficacy of interferon (IFN)-β-containing regimens in treating patients with COVID-19.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to July 17, 2021. RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of IFN-β-containing regimens (study group) to other antiviral treatment options or placebo (control group) in treating patients with COVID-19 were included.

Results

: Eight RCTs were included. No significant difference in the 28-day all -cause mortality rate was observed between the study and control groups (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.44-1.24; I² = 51%). The study groups had a lower rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions than the control groups (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95; I² = 0%). Furthermore, INF-β was not associated with an increased risk of any adverse event (AE) or serious AE when compared with the control group.

Conclusions

IFN-β does not appear to provide an increased survival benefit in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but may help reduce the risk of ICU admission. Moreover, IFN-β is a safe agent for use in the treatment of COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Chen WC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8607540 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical β-blockers in the treatment of superficial infantile hemangiomas (SIH) and mixed infantile hemangiomas (MIH), respectively, and compare the efficacy and safety of topical β-blockers with other interventions.MethodsThe PRISMA guidelines were adhered to. We searched for randomized controlled trials in databases from 2010 to 2018 comparing topical β-blockers with other interventions for infantile hemangiomas. The outcomes evaluated were efficacy and adverse effects. Data analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3. Publication bias was assessed to account for bias in patient selection.ResultsEleven studies, involving 1,235 patients, were subjected to this meta-analysis. Six studies compared topical β-blockers with other interventions (propranolol, placebo, corticosteroids or pulsed dye laser) in treating SIH, and 5 studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of a topical β-blocker when it was combined with another intervention in treating MIH. A topical β-blocker was discovered to be as effective as oral propranolol in treating SIH (risk ratio, RR, 0.96, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.91-1.02, p = 0.20, I2 = 0%), and topical β-blockers were more beneficial than placebo, corticosteroids or pulsed dye laser in treating SIH (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.66-3.05, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Topical β-blockers combined with another intervention gave rise to a better clinical response in the treatment of MIH than intervention alone (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.10-3.60, p = 0.02, I2 = 55%) (standard mean difference 0.80, 95% CI 0.28-1.31, p = 0.002, I2 = 0%). Compared with oral propranolol, topical β-blockers were associated with fewer incidences of adverse effects (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.39, p = 0.004, I2 = 0%). No significant difference in adverse effects was found when a topical β-blocker was combined with another intervention in treating MIH (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.58-1.74, p = 0.98, I2 = 0%).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis provided evidence that topical β-blockers may replace oral propranolol as first-line therapy for SIH and that they are of additive value in treating MIH.

Project description:ObjectEldecalcitol (ED-71) is a vitamin D analog for the treatment of osteoporosis. However, inconsistent results have been reported in this regard. Hence, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ED-71 for osteoporosis.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify potential trials from inception until April 2021. The investigated outcomes included bone mineral density and fractures at various sites, and potential adverse events. The pooled effect estimates were calculated using weighted mean difference (WMD) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model.ResultsEight RCTs involving 2368 patients were selected for the final meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that ED-71 were associated with a higher level of femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) (WMD: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.24-1.60; P = 0.008), while it had no significant effect on lumbar spine BMD (WMD: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.11 to 2.30; P = 0.076) and hip BMD (WMD: 1.12; 95% CI: -0.16 to 2.40; P = 0.088). Moreover, the use of ED-71 could protect against the risk of all osteoporotic fracture (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.88; P = 0.003) and vertebral fracture (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55-0.98; P = 0.038), while it did not affect the risk of nonvertebral fracture (RR: 0.53; 95%CI: 0.23-1.23; P = 0.140). The subgroup analyses found that the effects of ED-71 were superior to those of alfacalcidol on both BMD and fracture results. Moreover, the use of ED-71 plus bisphosphonate was associated with a greater improvement in BMD at various sites compared with bisphosphonate alone. Finally, ED-71 was associated with an increased risk of increased urine calcium level (RR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.33-2.15; P < 0.001).ConclusionThis study found that the use of ED-71 could improve BMD and fractures at various sites, especially compared with alfacalcidol or a combination with bisphosphonate for patients with osteoporosis.Systematic review registration[http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42021270536].

Project description:BackgroundPatients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are characterized with high risk of heart failure. Although mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have beneficial effect on relieving cardiac fibrosis and, thus, reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease and cardiac death, the therapeutic benefits and adverse effects are still controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to measure the safety and efficacy of spironolactone in patients undergoing dialysis.MethodsA systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Primary outcomes included changes in all-cause mortality (ACM), serum potassium concentration, incidence of hyperkalemia and gynecomastia (GYN). Secondary outcomes included changes in blood pressure (BP), left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were further conducted. This research was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; No. CRD42021287493).ResultsFifteen RCTs with 1,258 patients were enrolled in this pooled-analysis. Spironolactone treatment significantly decreased ACM (RR = 0.42, P < 0.0001), CCV (RR = 0.54, P = 0.008) and LVMI (MD = -6.28, P = 0.002), also increased occurrence of GYN (RR = 4.36, P = 0.0005). However, LVEF (MD = 2.63, P = 0.05), systolic BP (MD = -4.61, P = 0.14) and diastolic BP (MD = -0.12, P = 0.94) did not change between two groups after treatment. Although serum potassium concentration was increased (MD = 0.22, P < 0.0001) after spironolactone supplement, the risk of hyperkalemia remained unchanged (RR = 1.21, P = 0.31). Further subgroup analysis found more obvious advantageous as well as disadvantageous effects in Asian subjects than European or American ones. Also, with more than 9 months of treatment duration, patients achieved more favorable influence than shorter duration.ConclusionsThese results highlight the therapeutic effects of spironolactone on cardiovascular indexes, including ACM, CCV, and LVMI. However, the unignorable increase of GYN incidence and serum potassium level indicate that close monitor in dialysis-dependent patients, especially Asian patients, is essential.