Dataset Information

Protocol: Benefits and harms of remdesivir for COVID-19 in adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Effective drug treatments for Covid-19 are needed to decrease morbidity and mortality for the individual and to alleviate pressure on health care systems. Remdesivir showed promising results in early randomised trials but subsequently a large publicly funded trial has shown less favourable results and the evidence is interpreted differently in clinical guidelines. Systematic reviews of remdesivir have been published, but none have systematically searched for unpublished data, including regulatory documents, and assessed the risk of bias due to missing evidence.

Methods

We will conduct a systematic review of randomised trials comparing remdesivir to placebo or standard of care in any setting. We will include trials regardless of the severity of disease and we will include trials examining remdesivir for indications other than Covid-19 for harms analyses. We will search websites of regulatory agencies, trial registries, bibliographic databases, preprint servers and contact trial sponsors to obtain all available data, including unpublished clinical data, for all eligible trials. Our primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes will be length of hospital stay, time to death, severe disease, and adverse events. We will assess the risk of bias using the Cochranes Risk of Bias 2 tool and the risk of bias due to missing evidence (e.g. publication bias, selective reporting bias) using the ROB-ME tool. Where appropriate we will synthesise study results by conducting random-effects meta-analysis. We will present our findings in a Summary of Findings table and rate the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

Discussion

By conducting a comprehensive systematic review including unpublished data (where available), we expect to be able to provide valuable information for patients and clinicians about the benefits and harms of remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19. This will help to ensure optimal treatment for individual patients and optimal utilisation of health care resources.

Systematic review registration

CRD42021255915.

SUBMITTER: Paludan-Muller AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8629254 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Efficacy and safety of treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 are uncertain. We systematically reviewed efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.Methods: Studies evaluating remdesivir in adults with hospitalized COVID-19 were searched in several engines until August 21, 2020. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed.Results: We included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2296) [two vs. placebo (n = 1299) and two comparing 5-day vs. 10-day regimens (n = 997)], and two case series (n = 88). Studies used intravenous remdesivir 200mg the first day and 100mg for four or nine more days. One RCT (n = 236) was stopped early due to AEs; the other three RCTs reported outcomes between 11 and 15 days. Time to recovery was decreased by 4 days with remdesivir vs. placebo in one RCT (n = 1063), and by 0.8 days with 5-days vs. 10-days of therapy in another RCT (n = 397). Clinical improvement was better for 5-days regimen vs. standard of care in one RCT (n = 600). Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28, I2 = 43%) and need for invasive ventilation (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42, I2 = 60%) vs. placebo at 14 days but had fewer SAEs; 5-day decreased need for invasive ventilation and SAEs vs. 10-day in one RCT (n = 397). No differences in all-cause mortality or SAEs were seen among 5-day, 10-day and standard of care. There were some concerns of bias to high risk of bias in RCTs. Heterogeneity between studies could be due to different severities of disease, days of therapy before outcome determination, and how ordinal data was analyzed.Conclusions: There is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Until stronger evidence emerges, we cannot conclude that remdesivir is efficacious for treating COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundDespite global containment measures to fight the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the pandemic continued to rise, rapidly spread across the world, and resulting in 2.6?million confirmed cases and 185 061 deaths worldwide as of 23 April 2020. Yet, there are no approved vaccines or drugs to make the disease less deadly, while efforts are underway. Remdesivir, a nucleotide-analogue antiviral drug developed for Ebola, is determined to prevent and stop infections with COVID-19, while results are yet controversial. Here, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19.Method and analysisWe will search MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google scholar databases for articles published as of 30 June 2020 and we will complete the study on 30 August 2020. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines for the design and reporting of the results. We will include RCTs that assessed the efficacy of remdesivir versus placebo or standard of care. The primary endpoint will be time to clinical recovery. The secondary endpoints will be proportion of participants relieved from clinical symptoms defined at the time (in hours) from initiation of the study treatment, all-cause mortality, discharged date, frequency of respiratory progression and treatment-emergent adverse events. RevMan V.5.3 software will be used for statistical analysis. Random effects model will be carried out to calculate mean differences for continuous outcome data and risk ratio for dichotomous outcome data between remdesivir and placebo or standard of care.Ethics and disseminationThere are no ethical considerations associated with this study as we will use publicly available data from previously published studies. We plan to publish results in open-access peer-reviewed journals and present at international and national conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020177953.

Project description:To determine benefits and harms of arthroscopic knee surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for middle aged or older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease.Systematic review and meta-analysis.Pain and physical function.Systematic searches for benefits and harms were carried out in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to August 2014. Only studies published in 2000 or later were included for harms.Randomised controlled trials assessing benefit of arthroscopic surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for patients with or without radiographic signs of osteoarthritis were included. For harms, cohort studies, register based studies, and case series were also allowed.The search identified nine trials assessing the benefits of knee arthroscopic surgery in middle aged and older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease. The main analysis, combining the primary endpoints of the individual trials from three to 24 months postoperatively, showed a small difference in favour of interventions including arthroscopic surgery compared with control treatments for pain (effect size 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.26). This difference corresponds to a benefit of 2.4 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 4.3) mm on a 0-100?mm visual analogue scale. When analysed over time of follow-up, interventions including arthroscopy showed a small benefit of 3-5?mm for pain at three and six months but not later up to 24 months. No significant benefit on physical function was found (effect size 0.09, -0.05 to 0.24). Nine studies reporting on harms were identified. Harms included symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (4.13 (95% confidence interval 1.78 to 9.60) events per 1000 procedures), pulmonary embolism, infection, and death.The small inconsequential benefit seen from interventions that include arthroscopy for the degenerative knee is limited in time and absent at one to two years after surgery. Knee arthroscopy is associated with harms. Taken together, these findings do not support the practise of arthroscopic surgery for middle aged or older patients with knee pain with or without signs of osteoarthritis.PROSPERO CRD42014009145.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine benefits and harms of arthroscopic knee surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for middle aged or older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Main outcome measuresPain and physical function.Data sourcesSystematic searches for benefits and harms were carried out in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to August 2014. Only studies published in 2000 or later were included for harms.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials assessing benefit of arthroscopic surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for patients with or without radiographic signs of osteoarthritis were included. For harms, cohort studies, register based studies, and case series were also allowed.ResultsThe search identified nine trials assessing the benefits of knee arthroscopic surgery in middle aged and older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease. The main analysis, combining the primary endpoints of the individual trials from three to 24 months postoperatively, showed a small difference in favour of interventions including arthroscopic surgery compared with control treatments for pain (effect size 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.26). This difference corresponds to a benefit of 2.4 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 4.3) mm on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale. When analysed over time of follow-up, interventions including arthroscopy showed a small benefit of 3-5 mm for pain at three and six months but not later up to 24 months. No significant benefit on physical function was found (effect size 0.09, -0.05 to 0.24). Nine studies reporting on harms were identified. Harms included symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (4.13 (95% confidence interval 1.78 to 9.60) events per 1000 procedures), pulmonary embolism, infection, and death.ConclusionsThe small inconsequential benefit seen from interventions that include arthroscopy for the degenerative knee is limited in time and absent at one to two years after surgery. Knee arthroscopy is associated with harms. Taken together, these findings do not support the practise of arthroscopic surgery for middle aged or older patients with knee pain with or without signs of osteoarthritis.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014009145.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A comprehensive overview of treatments of common fractures is missing, although it would be important for shared decision-making in clinical practice. The aim was to determine benefits and harms of surgical compared to non-surgical treatments for traumatic skeletal fractures. METHODS:We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL until November 2018, for randomized trials of surgical treatment in comparison with or in addition to non-surgical treatment of fractures in adults. For harms, only trials with patient enrollment in 2000 or later were included, while no time restriction was applied to benefits. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data from full-text trials, and performed risk of bias assessment. Outcomes were self-reported pain, function, and quality of life, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Random effects model (Hedges' g) was used. RESULTS:Out of 28375 records screened, we included 61 trials and performed meta-analysis on 12 fracture types in 11 sites: calcaneus, clavicula, femur, humerus, malleolus, metacarpus, metatarsus, radius, rib, scaphoideum, and thoraco-lumbar spine. Seven other fracture types only had one trial available. For distal radius fractures, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was 0.31 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.53, n = 378 participants) for function, favoring surgery, however, with greater risk of SAEs (RR = 3.10 (1.42 to 6.77), n = 436). For displaced intra-articular calcaneus fractures, SMD was 0.64 (0.13 to 1.16) for function (n = 244) and 0.19 (0.01 to 0.36) for quality of life (n = 506) favoring surgery. Surgery was associated with a smaller risk of SAE than non-surgical treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures (RR = 0.62 (0.42 to 0.92), n = 1394). None of the other comparisons showed statistical significance differences and insufficient data existed for most of the common fracture types. CONCLUSIONS:Of 12 fracture types with more than one trial, only two demonstrated a difference in favor of surgery (distal radius fractures and displaced intra-articular calcaneus fractures), one of which demonstrated a greater risk of harms in the surgical group (distal radius fractures). Our results highlight the current paucity of high-quality randomized trials for common fracture types and a considerable heterogeneity and risk of bias in several of the available trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42015020805.

Project description:BackgroundFew treatments exist for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).PurposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and harms of remdesivir for COVID-19.Data sourcesSeveral databases, tables of contents of journals, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration and company websites were searched from 1 January through 31 August 2020.Study selectionEnglish-language, randomized trials of remdesivir treatments for adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. New evidence will be incorporated using living review methods.Data extractionSingle-reviewer abstraction and risk-of-bias assessment verified by a second reviewer; GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods used for certainty-of-evidence assessments.Data synthesisFour randomized trials were included. In adults with severe COVID-19, remdesivir compared with placebo probably improves recovery by a large amount (absolute risk difference [ARD] range, 7% to 10%) and may result in a small reduction in mortality (ARD range, -4% to 1%) and a shorter time to recovery or clinical improvement. Remdesivir may have little to no effect on hospital length of stay. Remdesivir probably reduces serious adverse events by a moderate amount (ARD range, -6% to -8%). Compared with a 10-day remdesivir course, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, increase recovery or clinical improvement by small to moderate amounts, reduce time to recovery, and reduce serious adverse events among hospitalized patients not requiring mechanical ventilation. Recovery due to remdesivir may not vary by age, sex, symptom duration, or disease severity.LimitationsLow-certainty evidence with few published trials, including 1 preliminary report and 2 open-label trials. Trials excluded pregnant women and adults with severe kidney or liver disease.ConclusionIn hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably improves recovery and reduces serious adverse events and may reduce mortality and time to clinical improvement. For adults not receiving mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, a 5-day course of remdesivir may provide similar benefits to and fewer harms than a 10-day course.Primary funding sourceU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service, and Evidence Synthesis Program.