Dataset Information

Randomized trials of therapeutic heparin for COVID-19: A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pulmonary endothelial injury and microcirculatory thromboses likely contribute to hypoxemic respiratory failure, the most common cause of death, in patients with COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest differences in the effect of therapeutic heparin between moderately and severely ill patients with COVID-19. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to determine the effects of therapeutic heparin in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, medRxiv, and medical conference proceedings for RCTs comparing therapeutic heparin with usual care, excluding trials that used oral anticoagulation or intermediate doses of heparin in the experimental arm. Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine odds ratios (ORs).

Results and conclusions

There were 3 RCTs that compared therapeutic heparin to lower doses of heparin in 2854 moderately ill ward patients, and 3 RCTs in 1191 severely ill patients receiving critical care. In moderately ill patients, there was a nonsignificant reduction in all-cause death (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57-1.02), but significant reductions in the composite of death or invasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 0.98), and death or any thrombotic event (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77). Organ support-free days alive (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.57) were significantly increased with therapeutic heparin. There was a nonsignificant increase in major bleeding. In severely ill patients, there was no evidence for benefit of therapeutic heparin, with significant treatment-by-subgroup interactions with illness severity for all-cause death (P = .034). In conclusion, therapeutic heparin is beneficial in moderately ill patients but not in severely ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Sholzberg M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8681879 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/Aim: Since 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a devastating disease affecting global health to a great extent. Some countries have added on herbal medicines as a complementary treatment for combating COVID-19 due to the urgency of stopping the spread of this viral disease. However, whether these herbal medicines are effective is uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of herbal medicine combined therapy in the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: A literature search was performed following the PRISMA Statement and without language restrictions. Seven databases were searched from inception through December 2021. All selected studies were randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Comparing the effects of herbal medicine combined therapy with conventional western medicine, including improvement of clinical symptoms, chest CT images, viral conversion rate, C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin 6. Cochrane criteria were applied to examine the methodological quality of the enrolled trials; and meta-analysis software (RevMan 5.4.1) was used for data analysis. Results: In total, the data of 5,417 participants from 40 trials were included in this systematic review; and 28 trials were qualified for meta-analysis. The trials had medium-to-high quality based on GRADE system. Meta-analysis showed that combining herbal medicine vs conventional treatment in 1) coughing (1.43 95% CI:1.21, 1.71, p = 0.0001), 2) fever (1.09 95% CI:1.00, 1.19, p = 0.06), 3) fatigue (1.21 95% CI:1.10, 1.33, p = 0.0001); 4) CT images (1.26 95% CI:1.19, 1.34, P ≤ 0.00001), 5) viral conversion rates (1.22 95% CI:1.06, 1.40, p = 0.005) and 6) viral conversion times (-3.72 95% CI: -6.05, -1.40, p = 0.002), 7) IL6 change (1.97 95% CI: -0.72, 4.66, p = 0.15) and 8) CRP change (-7.92 95% CI: -11.30, -4.53, P ≤ 0.00001). Conclusion: Herbal medicine combined therapy significantly reduces COVID-19 clinical symptoms, improving CT images and viral conversion rates. Reported adverse events are mild. However, for certain biases in the included studies, and the need for further study on effective components of herbal medicine. Further large trials with better randomized design are warranted to definite a more definite role of herbal medicine.

Project description:Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications. Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Project description:IntroductionChinese patent medicine (CPM) is an indispensable part of traditional Chinese medicine. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) manifests is an acute respiratory infectious disease. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the therapeutic effects and safety of oral CPM for COVID-19.MethodsWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested oral CPM for the treatment of COVID-19 identified from publications in CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Web of Science, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, BioRxiv, MedRxiv and arXiv before November 2nd, 2020. The risk of bias for each trial was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. RevMan 5.4 software was used for data analyses. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the online GRADEpro tool.ResultsSeven RCTs including 1079 participants were identified. The overall bias was assessed as "-high risk of bias" for all included trials. Oral CPM investigated were: Lianhua Qingwen capsule/granules (LHQW), Jinhua Qinggan granules (JHQG), Huoxiang Zhengqi dripping pills (HXZQ), Toujie Quwen granules (TJQW) and Lianhua Qingke granules (LHQK). Compared with conventional western therapy alone for people with COVID-19: regarding the main outcomes, the results showed that oral CPM combined with conventional western therapy improved cure rate (RR = 1.20, 95 % CI 1.04-1.38, involving LHQW and TJQW), reduced aggravation rate (RR = 0.50, 95 % CI 0.29 - 0.85, involving LHQW, JHQG, LHQK and TJQW); with regard to additional outcomes, the results showed that add-on oral CPM shortened the duration of fever, cough and fatigue, improved the recovery rate of cough and fatigue, and increased the improvement and recovery rate of chest CT manifestations. There were some differences in therapeutic effects among various CPMs for the same COVID-19 outcome. The use of TJQW and LHQG appeared not to increase the risk of adverse events, but JHQG may cause mild diarrhea.ConclusionLow-certainty or very low-certainty evidence demonstrated that oral CPM may have add-on potential therapeutic effects for patients with non-serious COVID-19. These findings need to be further confirmed by well-designed clinical trials with adequate sample sizes.