Azithromycin in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Azithromycin has been widely used in the management of COVID-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence to date on the beneficial and adverse effects of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19.Methods
The PRISMA 2020 statement criteria were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated with and without azithromycin, indexed until 5 July 2021, were searched in PubMed, Embase, The Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MedRXivs. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled effect size from aggregate data.Results
The initial search produced 4950 results. Finally, 16 studies, 5 RCTs and 11 with an observational design, with a total of 22 984 patients, were included. The meta-analysis showed no difference in mortality for those treated with or without azithromycin, in observational studies [OR: 0.90 (0.66-1.24)], RCTs [OR: 0.97 (0.87-1.08)] and also when both types of studies were pooled together [with an overall OR: 0.95 (0.79-1.13)]. Different individual studies also reported no significant difference for those treated with or without azithromycin in need for hospital admission or time to admission from ambulatory settings, clinical severity, need for intensive care, or adverse effects.Conclusions
The results presented in this systematic review do not support the use of azithromycin in the management of COVID-19. Future research on treatment for patients with COVID-19 may need to focus on other drugs.
SUBMITTER: Ayerbe L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8690025 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Azithromycin (AZM) is commonly used in Covid-19 patients based on low-quality evidence, increasing the risk of developing adverse events and antimicrobial resistance. The current systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the safety and efficacy of AZM in treating Covid-19 patients using published randomized controlled trials. Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, MEDLINE, bioRxiv and medRxiv were searched for relevant studies. The random-effects model was used to pool estimates using the Paule-Mandel estimate for heterogeneity. The odds ratio and raw difference in medians were used for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. The analysis included seven studies with 8822 patients (median age, 55.8 years; 61% males). The risk of bias was assessed as 'low' for five of the seven mortality results and as 'some concerns' and 'high' in one trial each. There were 657/3100 (21.2%) and 1244/5654 (22%) deaths among patients randomized to AZM and standard of care, respectively. The use of AZM was not associated with mortality in Covid-19 patients (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.88-1.05, p = 0.317 based on the random-effect meta-analysis). The use of AZM was not associated with need for invasive mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.49-1.87, p = 0.85) and length of stay (Δ = 1.11, 95% CI -2.08 to 4.31, p = 0.49). The results show that using AZM as routine therapy in Covid-19 patients is not justified due to lack of efficacy and potential risk of bacterial resistance that is not met by an increased clinical benefit.
| S-EPMC8209938 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeHydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir are drugs that were used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the early pandemic period. It is well-known that these agents can prolong the QTc interval and potentially induce Torsades de Pointes (TdP). We aim to assess the prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation and arrhythmic events in COVID-19 patients treated with these drugs.MethodsWe searched electronic databases from inception to September 30, 2020 for studies reporting peak QTc ≥500 ms, peak QTc change ≥60 ms, peak QTc interval, peak change of QTc interval, ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, or atrioventricular block (AVB). All meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.ResultsForty-seven studies (three case series, 35 cohorts, and nine randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) involving 13 087 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of peak QTc ≥500 ms was 9% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3%-18%) and 8% (95%CI, 3%-14%) in patients who received hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin, respectively. Likewise, the use of hydroxychloroquine (risk ratio [RR], 2.68; 95%CI, 1.56-4.60) and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin (RR, 3.28; 95%CI, 1.16-9.30) was associated with an increased risk of QTc prolongation compared to no treatment. Ventricular arrhythmias, TdP, sudden cardiac death, and AVB were reported in <1% of patients across treatment groups. The only two studies that reported individual data of lopinavir/ritonavir found no cases of QTc prolongation.ConclusionsCOVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine with or without azithromycin had a relatively high prevalence and risk of QTc prolongation. However, the prevalence of arrhythmic events was very low, probably due to underreporting. The limited information about lopinavir/ritonavir showed that it does not prolong the QTc interval.
| S-EPMC8251490 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo analyze the survival rates of patients with COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and compare the survival rates of patients with COVID-19 supported with ECMO to patients with influenza supported with ECMO.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of ECMO as supportive therapy of COVID-19.SettingThe authors performed a search through the Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE/PubMed databases from inception to February 19, 2021, for studies reporting hospitalized patients with COVID-19 managed with ECMO.ParticipantsA total of 134 studies were selected, including 6 eligible for the comparative meta-analysis of COVID-19 versus influenza.InterventionsThe authors pooled the risk ratio and random effects model.Measurements and main resultsThe primary endpoint was the overall mortality of patients with COVID-19 receiving ECMO. Of the total number of 58,472 patients with COVID-19 reported, ECMO was used in 4,044 patients. The analysis suggested an overall in-hospital mortality of 39% (95% CI 0.34-0.43). In the comparative analysis, patients with COVID-19 on ECMO had a higher risk ratio (RR) for mortality when compared to influenza patients on ECMO: 72/164 (44%) v 71/186 (38%) RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.05-1.71; p = 0.03.ConclusionsECMO could be beneficial in patients with COVID-19, according to the authors' meta-analysis. The reported mortality rate was 39%. This systematic analysis can provide clinical advice in the current era and ongoing pandemic.
| S-EPMC8585556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without azithromycin have been widely promoted to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) following early in vitro antiviral effects against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin decreased COVID-19 mortality compared with the standard of care.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, Embase Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and MedRxiv were searched up to 25 July 2020.Study eligibility criteriaWe included published and unpublished studies comparing the mortality rate between patients treated with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin and patients managed with standard of care.ParticipantsPatients ≥18 years old with confirmed COVID-19.InterventionsChloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin.MethodsEffect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model. Multiple subgroup analyses were conducted to assess drug safety.ResultsThe initial search yielded 839 articles, of which 29 met our inclusion criteria. All studies except one were conducted on hospitalized patients and evaluated the effects of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin. Among the 29 articles, three were randomized controlled trials, one was a non-randomized trial and 25 were observational studies, including 11 with a critical risk of bias and 14 with a serious or moderate risk of bias. After excluding studies with critical risk of bias, the meta-analysis included 11 932 participants for the hydroxychloroquine group, 8081 for the hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin group and 12 930 for the control group. Hydroxychloroquine was not significantly associated with mortality: pooled relative risk (RR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.06, n = 17 studies) for all studies and RR = 1.09 (95% CI 0.97-1.24, n = 3 studies) for randomized controlled trials. Hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin was associated with an increased mortality (RR = 1.27; 95% CI 1.04-1.54, n = 7 studies). We found similar results with a Bayesian meta-analysis.ConclusionHydroxychloroquine alone was not associated with reduced mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients but the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin significantly increased mortality.
| S-EPMC7449662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has killed over 2.5 million people worldwide, but effective care and therapy have yet to be discovered. We conducted this analysis to better understand tocilizumab treatment for COVID-19 patients.Main textWe searched major databases for manuscripts reporting the effects of tocilizumab on COVID-19 patients. A total of 25 publications were analyzed with Revman 5.3 and R for the meta-analysis. Significant better clinical outcomes were found in the tocilizumab treatment group when compared to the standard care group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.70, 95% confidential interval (C): 0.54-0.90, P = 0.007]. Tocilizumab treatment showed a stronger correlation with good prognosis among COVID-19 patients that needed mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.59, 95% CI, 0.37-0.93, P = 0.02). Among stratified analyses, reduction of overall mortality correlates with tocilizumab treatment in patients less than 65 years old (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.60-0.77, P < 0.00001), and with intensive care unit patients (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.55-0.70, P < 0.00001). Pooled estimates of hazard ratio showed that tocilizumab treatment predicts better overall survival in COVID-19 patients (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.24-0.84, P = 0.01), especially in severe cases (HR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.49-0.68, P < 0.00001).ConclusionsOur study shows that tocilizumab treatment is associated with a lower risk of mortality and mechanical ventilation requirement among COVID-19 patients. Tocilizumab may have substantial effectiveness in reducing mortality among COVID-19 patients, especially among critical cases. This systematic review provides an up-to-date evidence of potential therapeutic role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 management.
| S-EPMC8128625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 patients frequently exhibit coagulation abnormalities and thrombotic events. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the association between coagulopathy and the severity of COVID-19 illness. Using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, WanFang Database, CNKI, and medRxiv, a systematic literature search was conducted for studies published between December 1, 2019 and May 1, 2020. We then analyzed coagulation parameters in COVID-19 patients exhibiting less severe and more severe symptoms. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata14.0 software. A total of 3,952 confirmed COVID-19 patients from 25 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Patients with severe symptoms exhibited higher levels of D-dimer, prothrombin time (PT), and fibrinogen (FIB) than patients with less severe symptoms (SMD 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.97, I2 56.9%; SMD 0.39, 95% CI: 0.14-0.64, I2 79.4%; and SMD 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.53, I2 42.4%, respectively). However, platelet and activated partial thromboplastin times did not differ (SMD -0.26, 95% CI: -0.56-0.05, I2 82.2%; and SMD -0.14, 95% CI: -0.45-0.18, I2 75.7%, respectively). These findings demonstrate that hypercoagulable coagulopathy is associated with the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and that D-dimer, PT, and FIB values are the main parameters that should be considered when evaluating coagulopathy in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7803569 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus. Although general and local public health report deathly cases, case fatality rates are still largely unknown. Thus, we sought to evaluate the mortality of COVID-19.MethodsWe searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for articles evaluating the clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients that included clinical outcomes, between December 2020 and 24 April 2020. Two authors performed an independent selection using predefined terms of search.ResultsWe retrieved 33 studies with a total of 13,398 patients with COVID-19 diagnosis. The mortality rate of the COVID-19 patients was 17.1% (95% CI 12.7; 22.7, I2 = 96.9%). For general patients admitted to the hospital (excluding critical care-only studies) the mortality rate of the COVID-19 was 11.5% (95% CI 7.7; 16.9, I2 = 96.7%). Among critical illness studies (n = 7) we found a 40.5% mortality (95% CI 31.2; 50.6, I2 = 91.8%).ConclusionHigh COVID-19 mortality among general admitted patients and critical care cases should guide resources allocations and economic burden calculations during the pandemics.
| S-EPMC7920817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) may complicate the course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).ObjectivesTo evaluate the incidence of VTE in patients with COVID-19.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched up to 24th June 2020 for studies that evaluated the incidence of VTE, including pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in patients with COVID-19. Pooled proportions with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals (PI) were calculated by random-effect meta-analysis.Results3487 patients from 30 studies were included. Based on very low-quality evidence due to heterogeneity and risk of bias, the incidence of VTE was 26% (95% PI, 6%-66%). PE with or without DVT occurred in 12% of patients (95% PI, 2%-46%) and DVT alone in 14% (95% PI, 1%-75%). Studies using standard algorithms for clinically suspected VTE reported PE in 13% of patients (95% PI, 2%-57%) and DVT in 6% (95% PI, 0%-60%), compared to 11% (95% PI, 2%-46%) and 24% (95% PI, 2%-85%) in studies using other diagnostic strategies or patient sampling. In patients admitted to intensive care units, VTE occurred in 24% (95% PI, 5%-66%), PE in 19% (95% PI, 6%-47%), and DVT alone in 7% (95% PI, 0%-69%). Corresponding values in general wards were respectively 9% (95% PI, 0%-94%), 4% (95% PI, 0%-100%), and 7% (95% CI, 1%-49%).ConclusionsVTE represents a frequent complication in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and often occurs as PE. The threshold for clinical suspicion should be low to trigger prompt diagnostic testing.
| S-EPMC7420982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObesity is common in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The effects of obesity on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 warrant systematical investigation.ObjectiveThis study explores the effects of obesity with the risk of severe disease among patients with COVID-19.MethodsBody mass index (BMI) and degree of visceral adipose tissue (VAT) accumulation were used as indicators for obesity status. Publication databases including preprints were searched up to August 10, 2020. Clinical outcomes of severe COVID-19 included hospitalization, a requirement for treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and mortality. Risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes are presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for cohort studies with BMI-defined obesity, and standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95%CI for controlled studies with VAT-defined excessive adiposity.ResultsA total of 45, 650 participants from 30 studies with BMI-defined obesity and 3 controlled studies with VAT-defined adiposity were included for assessing the risk of severe COVID-19. Univariate analyses showed significantly higher ORs of severe COVID-19 with higher BMI: 1.76 (95%: 1.21, 2.56, P = 0.003) for hospitalization, 1.67 (95%CI: 1.26, 2.21, P<0.001) for ICU admission, 2.19 (95%CI: 1.56, 3.07, P<0.001) for IMV requirement, and 1.37 (95%CI: 1.06, 1.75, P = 0.014) for death, giving an overall OR for severe COVID-19 of 1.67 (95%CI: 1.43, 1.96; P<0.001). Multivariate analyses revealed increased ORs of severe COVID-19 associated with higher BMI: 2.36 (95%CI: 1.37, 4.07, P = 0.002) for hospitalization, 2.32 (95%CI: 1.38, 3.90, P = 0.001) for requiring ICU admission, 2.63 (95%CI: 1.32, 5.25, P = 0.006) for IMV support, and 1.49 (95%CI: 1.20, 1.85, P<0.001) for mortality, giving an overall OR for severe COVID-19 of 2.09 (95%CI: 1.67, 2.62; P<0.001). Compared to non-severe COVID-19 patients, severe COVID-19 cases showed significantly higher VAT accumulation with a SMD of 0.49 for hospitalization (95% CI: 0.11, 0.87; P = 0.011), 0.57 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.81; P<0.001) for requiring ICU admission and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.71; P = 0.035) for IMV support. The overall SMD for severe COVID-19 was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.68; P<0.001).ConclusionsObesity increases risk for hospitalization, ICU admission, IMV requirement and death among patients with COVID-19. Further, excessive visceral adiposity appears to be associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes. These findings emphasize the need for effective actions by individuals, the public and governments to increase awareness of the risks resulting from obesity and how these are heightened in the current global pandemic.
| S-EPMC7521361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Backgrounds and aimsThe role of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 is not fully known. We studied the efficacy of HCQ compared to the control in COVID-19 subjects on - a. viral clearance measured by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and, b. death due to all cause.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and MedRxiv database were searched using the specific keywords up to April 30, 2020. Studies that met our objectives were assessed for the risk of bias applying various tools as indicated. Three studies each that reported the outcome of viral clearance by RT-PCR and death due to all cause, were meta-analyzed by applying inverse variance-weighted averages of logarithmic risk ratio (RR) using a random effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using the I2 statistic and funnel plots, respectively.ResultsMeta-analysis of 3 studies (n = 210) on viral clearance assessed by RT-PCR showed no benefit (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.38; p = 0.74), although with a moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 61.7%, p = 0.07). While meta-analysis of 3 studies (n = 474) showed a significant increase in death with HCQ, compared to the control (RR, 2.17; 95% 1.32 to 3.57; p = 0.002), without any heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.43).ConclusionsNo benefit on viral clearance but a significant increase in mortality was observed with HCQ compared to control in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7215156 | biostudies-literature