Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions on mortality and the average length of hospital stay of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Up to now, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined various drugs as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results were diverse and occasionally even inconsistent with each other. To this point,we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological agents in published RCTs.

Areas covered

A literature search was performed using PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. RCTs evaluating mortality and the average length of hospital stay to standard of care (SOC)/placebo/control were included. RCTs mainly were classified into five categories of drugs, including anti-inflammatory, antiviral, antiparasitic, antibody and antibiotics. Meta-analysis was done on 5 drugs classes and sub-group meta-analysis was done on single drugs and moderate or severe stage of disease.

Expert opinion

Mortality and the average length of hospital stay of COVID-19 patients were significantly reduced with anti-inflammatory drugs (odds ratio [OR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69 to 0.85, P<0.00001, and mean difference [MD]: -1.41, CI:-1.75 to -1.07, P<0.00001, respectively) compared to SOC/control/placebo. Furthermore, antiparasitic was associated with reduced length of hospital stay (MD: -0.65, CI: -1.26 to -0.03, P<0.05) in comparison to SOC/placebo/control. However, no effectiveness was found in other pharmacological interventions.

SUBMITTER: Akbari A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8787838 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMany strategies to reduce hospital length of stay (LOS) have been implemented, but few studies have evaluated hospital-led interventions focused on high-risk populations. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Learning Health System panel commissioned this study to further evaluate system-level interventions for LOS reduction.ObjectiveTo identify and synthesize evidence regarding potential systems-level strategies to reduce LOS for patients at high risk for prolonged LOS.Evidence reviewMultiple databases, including MEDLINE and Embase, were searched for English-language systematic reviews from January 1, 2010, through September 30, 2020, with updated searches through January 19, 2021. The scope of the protocol was determined with input from AHRQ Key Informants. Systematic reviews were included if they reported on hospital-led interventions intended to decrease LOS for high-risk populations, defined as those with high-risk medical conditions or socioeconomically vulnerable populations (eg, patients with high levels of socioeconomic risk, who are medically uninsured or underinsured, with limited English proficiency, or who are hospitalized at a safety-net, tertiary, or quaternary care institution). Exclusion criteria included interventions that were conducted outside of the hospital setting, including community health programs. Data extraction was conducted independently, with extraction of strength of evidence (SOE) ratings provided by systematic reviews; if unavailable, SOE was assessed using the AHRQ Evidence-Based Practice Center methods guide.FindingsOur searches yielded 4432 potential studies. We included 19 systematic reviews reported in 20 articles. The reviews described 8 strategies for reducing LOS in high-risk populations: discharge planning, geriatric assessment, medication management, clinical pathways, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary care, case management, hospitalist services, and telehealth. Interventions were most frequently designed for older patients, often those who were frail (9 studies), or patients with heart failure. There were notable evidence gaps, as there were no systematic reviews studying interventions for patients with socioeconomic risk. For patients with medically complex conditions, discharge planning, medication management, and interdisciplinary care teams were associated with inconsistent outcomes (LOS, readmissions, mortality) across populations. For patients with heart failure, clinical pathways and case management were associated with reduced length of stay (clinical pathways: mean difference reduction, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.33 to 2.44] days; case management: mean difference reduction, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.52 to 2.04] days).Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review found inconsistent results across all high-risk populations on the effectiveness associated with interventions, such as discharge planning, that are often widely used by health systems. This systematic review highlights important evidence gaps, such as the lack of existing systematic reviews focused on patients with socioeconomic risk factors, and the need for further research.

Project description:ObjectiveThe interdependence of hospitals is underappreciated in patient outcomes studies. We used a network science approach to foreground this interdependence. Specifically, within two large state-based interhospital networks, we examined the relationship of a hospital's network position with in-hospital mortality and length of stay.MethodsWe constructed interhospital network graphs using data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey for Florida (2014) and California (2011). The exposure of interest was hospital centrality, defined as weighted degree (sum of all ties to a given hospital from other hospitals). The outcomes were in-hospital mortality and length of stay with sub-analyses for four acute medical conditions: pneumonia, heart failure, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction. We compared outcomes for each quartile of hospital centrality relative to the most central quartile (Q4), independent of patient- and hospital-level characteristics, in this retrospective cross-sectional study.ResultsThe inpatient cohorts had 1,246,169 patients in Florida and 1,415,728 in California. Compared to Florida's central hospitals which had an overall mortality 1.60%, peripheral hospitals had higher in-hospital mortality (1.97%, adjusted OR (95%CI): Q1 1.61 (1.37, 1.89), p<0.001). Hospitals in the middle quartiles had lower in-hospital mortality compared to central hospitals (%, adjusted OR (95% CI): Q2 1.39%, 0.79 (0.70, 0.89), p<0.001; Q3 1.33%, 0.78 (0.70, 0.87), p<0.001). Peripheral hospitals had longer lengths of stay (adjusted incidence rate ratio (95% CI): Q1 2.47 (2.44, 2.50), p<0.001). These findings were replicated in California, and in patients with heart failure and pneumonia in Florida. These results show a u-shaped distribution of outcomes based on hospital network centrality quartile.ConclusionsThe position of hospitals within an inter-hospital network is associated with patient outcomes. Specifically, hospitals located in the peripheral or central positions may be most vulnerable to diminished quality outcomes due to the network. Results should be replicated with deeper clinical data.

Project description:Hospital length of stay (LOS) and time for a patient to reach clinical stability (TCS) have increasingly become important outcomes when investigating ways in which to combat Community Acquired Pneumonia (CAP). Difficulties arise when deciding how to handle in-hospital mortality. Ad-hoc approaches that are commonly used to handle time to event outcomes with mortality can give disparate results and provide conflicting conclusions based on the same data. To ensure compatibility among studies investigating these outcomes, this type of data should be handled in a consistent and appropriate fashion.Using both simulated data and data from the international Community Acquired Pneumonia Organization (CAPO) database, we evaluate two ad-hoc approaches for handling mortality when estimating the probability of hospital discharge and clinical stability: 1) restricting analysis to those patients who lived, and 2) assigning individuals who die the "worst" outcome (right-censoring them at the longest recorded LOS or TCS). Estimated probability distributions based on these approaches are compared with right-censoring the individuals who died at time of death (the complement of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimator), and treating death as a competing risk (the cumulative incidence estimator). Tests for differences in probability distributions based on the four methods are also contrasted.The two ad-hoc approaches give different estimates of the probability of discharge and clinical stability. Analysis restricted to patients who survived is conceptually problematic, as estimation is conditioned on events that happen at a future time. Estimation based on assigning those patients who died the worst outcome (longest LOS and TCS) coincides with the complement of the KM estimator based on the subdistribution hazard, which has been previously shown to be equivalent to the cumulative incidence estimator. However, in either case the time to in-hospital mortality is ignored, preventing simultaneous assessment of patient mortality in addition to LOS and/or TCS. The power to detect differences in underlying hazards of discharge between patient populations differs for test statistics based on the four approaches, and depends on the underlying hazard ratio of mortality between the patient groups.Treating death as a competing risk gives estimators which address the clinical questions of interest, and allows for simultaneous modelling of both in-hospital mortality and TCS / LOS. This article advocates treating mortality as a competing risk when investigating other time related outcomes.

Project description:Language barriers between patients and providers may influence the process and quality of care.To examine the association of language preference with length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality for patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Electronic administrative hospital discharge data for all non-disabled Medicaid beneficiaries age 35 years and older admitted to all acute care California hospitals with a diagnosis of AMI between 1994 and 1998.We used multivariate regression to explore whether observed differences in the hospital LOS and in-hospital mortality between non-English preference (NEP) and English preference (EP) individuals could be explained by individual and/or hospital level factors. We adjusted for patient level characteristics using 24 covariates from a previously validated prediction model of mortality after hospitalization for AMI.Of 12,609 Medicaid patients across 401 California hospitals, 2,757 (22%) had NEP. NEP was associated with a 3.9% increased LOS (95% CI 0.7, 7.1; p = 0.02) in unadjusted analysis and a 3.8% increased LOS (95% CI 0.3, 7.3; p = 0.03) after controlling for patient level characteristics. Differences in LOS were no longer significant after adjusting receipt of cardiac procedure/ surgery (2.8%; 95% CI -0.6, 6.2; p = 0.1) or after adjusting for hospital (0.9%; 95% CI -2.5, 4.3; p = 0.6). Non-English language preference was associated with lower in-hospital mortality in unadjusted analysis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80; 95% CI 0.69, 0.94; p = 0.005), but was not significant after adjusting for patient level characteristics (adjusted OR [AOR] 0.95; 95% CI 0.78, 1.27; p = 0.6). Adjusting for receipt of cardiac procedure/ surgery (AOR 0.97; 95% CI 0.79, 1.18; p = 0.7) and hospital (AOR 0.97; 95% CI 0.78; 1.21; p = 0.8) did not alter this finding.Language preference is not associated with AMI mortality, and the small increase in length of stay associated with non-English preference is accounted for by hospital level factors. Our results suggest that system level differences are important to consider in studies of the effect of language barriers in the health care setting.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This review aimed to assess the existing evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in adults with insomnia and identify where research or policy development is needed. METHODS:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched from inception until June 14, 2017, along with relevant gray literature sites. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles, and a single reviewer with an independent verifier completed charting, data abstraction, and quality appraisal. RESULTS:A total of 64 systematic reviews (35 with meta-analysis) were included after screening 5024 titles and abstracts and 525 full-text articles. Eight of the included reviews were rated as high quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) tool, and over half of the included articles (n?=?40) were rated as low or critically low quality. Consistent evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on more than one high- or moderate quality review with meta-analysis was found for zolpidem, suvorexant, doxepin, melatonin, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on one high-quality review with meta-analysis was found for temazepam, triazolam, zopiclone, trazodone, and behavioral interventions. These interventions were mostly evaluated in the short term (<?16 weeks), and there was very little harms data available for the pharmacological interventions making it difficult to evaluate their risk-benefit ratio. CONCLUSIONS:Assuming non-pharmacological interventions are preferable from a safety perspective CBT can be considered an effective first-line therapy for adults with insomnia followed by other behavioral interventions. Short courses of pharmacological interventions can be supplements to CBT or behavioral therapy; however, no evidence regarding the appropriate duration of pharmacological therapy is available from these reviews. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017072527.

Project description:Bleeding complications after percutaneous transcatheter interventions that used large-bore catheters are frequent and associated with high mortality and morbidity.To describe the incidence of bleeding complications among patients undergoing contemporary endovascular interventions involving large-bore catheters and its association with in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and health care cost.This retrospective cohort study analyzed all 17?672 patients from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample database who were recorded as having undergone a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n?=?3223), an endovascular aneurysm repair (n?=?12?633), or a percutaneous left ventricular assist device implant (n?=?1816) between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013. Bleeding complication was defined as any transfusion, any hemorrhage or hematoma, or the need for percutaneous or surgical intervention to control the bleeding event. Health care costs were determined by multiplying the total charge for each visit by the cost to charge ratios reported for each hospital code in the database. Data were collected from the database on April 29, 2016.Adjusted association between bleeding complications and mortality was determined by multivariable logistic regression. Length of stay and total health care costs were compared using multivariable linear regression between patients who did and patients who did not have bleeding complications.Bleeding complications occurred in 3128 patients (17.7%) (1984 men and 1144 women, with a mean [SD] age of 75.6 [11.9] years). Bleeding was associated with higher mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.27-3.22; P?<?.001) and longer hospital stay (adjusted multiplicative difference, 2.14; 95% CI, 2.06-2.16; P?<?.001). Median (interquartile range) total health care costs were $48?663 ($32?620-$71?547) for patients with bleeding complications compared with $29?968 ($21?924-$43?287) for patients without a bleeding complication (adjusted multiplicative difference, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.52-1.59; P?<?.001).Periprocedural bleeding was common among patients who underwent transcatheter intervention using large-bore catheters and was associated with a statistically significant increase in mortality, length of stay, and cost.