Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach.Study design and setting
In this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints).Results
We included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4-57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth.Conclusion
There was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication.
SUBMITTER: McDonald S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8858007 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveWe investigated characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) assessing measures to prevent COVID-19 by (1) identifying SR registrations in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), (2) identifying published SRs in COVID-19 Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) and (3) estimating the proportion of PROSPERO registrations published as full SR between 8 and 16 months after registration.Study designThis meta-research study is part of the German CEOsys project, www.covid-evidenz.de. We searched PROSPERO entries registered between 1 January 2020 and 31 August 2020, and we searched COVID-19 L-OVE for published SRs (search date: 5 May 2021) focusing on measures to prevent COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The two samples were screened for eligibility and key characteristics were extracted and summarised.ResultsOf 612 PROSPERO registrations, 47 focused on prevention and were included. The preventive measures included public health interventions (20), followed by personal protective equipment (10), vaccinations (9) and others (8). In total, 13 of 47 (28%) PROSPERO registrations had been published as full SR (as preprint only (6), as peer-reviewed article only (6), as preprint and peer-reviewed article (1)). Median time between PROSPERO registration and publication was 5 months for peer-reviewed SRs and 2 months for preprints.Of the 2182 entries identified in COVID-19 L-OVE, 51 published SRs focused on prevention and were included. Similar to the PROSPERO sample, most published SRs focused on public health interventions (21). The number of included primary studies ranged between 0 and 64 (median: 7). Nine published SRs did not include any studies because of a lack of primary studies.ConclusionConsidering the urgent information needs of policymakers and the public, our findings reveal the high-speed publication of preprints and lack of primary studies in the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. Further meta-research on COVID-19 SRs is important to improve research efficiency among researchers across the world.Prospero registration numberCRD42021240423.
| S-EPMC9086284 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to summarize the antiviral activities of remdesivir against SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19.MethodsAvailable publications were systematically explored on some databases and gray literature was examined. Publications were discussed narratively.ResultsRemdesivir inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication, reduces viral load, and exerts protective effects in SARS-CoV-2 infected animals. Remdesivir also reduces the pathological process, alleviates mild symptoms, and improves pulmonary lesions in SARS-CoV-2-infecetd animals. Remdesivir has been used as a compassionate drug for treating COVID-19 patients.ConclusionAlthough remdesivir has shown potent antiviral activities, more efficacy assessments are urgently warranted in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC7410793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare cancer-related systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) and high-impact journals, with respect to type, content, quality and citation rates.DesignMethodological SR with assessment and comparison of SRs and meta-analyses. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-based extraction form. Both authors independently screened search results, extracted content-relevant characteristics and retrieved citation numbers of the included reviews using the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database.Data sourcesCancer-related SRs were retrieved from the CDSR, as well as from the 10 journals which publish oncological SRs and had the highest impact factors, using a comprehensive search in both the CDSR and MEDLINE.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included all cancer-related SRs and meta-analyses published from January 2011 to May 2016. Methodological SRs were excluded.ResultsWe included 346 applicable Cochrane reviews and 215 SRs from high-impact journals. Cochrane reviews consistently met more individual AMSTAR criteria, notably with regard to an a priori design (risk ratio (RR) 3.89; 95%?CI 3.10 to 4.88), inclusion of the grey literature and trial registries (RR 3.52; 95%?CI 2.84 to 4.37) in their searches, and the reporting of excluded studies (RR 8.80; 95%?CI 6.06 to 12.78). Cochrane reviews were less likely to address questions of prognosis (RR 0.04; 95%?CI 0.02 to 0.09), use individual patient data (RR 0.03; 95%?CI 0.01 to 0.09) or be based on non-randomised controlled trials (RR 0.04; 95%?CI 0.02 to 0.09). Citation rates of Cochrane reviews were notably lower than those for high-impact journals (Cochrane reviews: mean number of citations 6.52 (range 0-143); high-impact journal SRs: 74.45 (0-652)).ConclusionsWhen comparing cancer-related SRs published in the CDSR versus those published in high-impact medical journals, Cochrane reviews were consistently of higher methodological quality, but cited less frequently.
| S-EPMC5875625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe use of remdesivir for pregnant patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed conflicting results in prior studies. We aimed to systematically review its efficacy and safety for this population from the existing literature.MethodsOn July 26, 2021, registries (ClinicalTrials.gov) and databases (MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, JSTOR, DOAJ, and medRxiv) were systematically searched for research articles investigating remdesivir use in pregnant people with COVID-19. Clinical outcome, hospitalization duration, laboratory outcome, mortality, and adverse events were investigated.ResultsWe obtained 13 observation studies with 113 pregnant people. In these studies, remdesivir improved the clinical condition of pregnant patients with COVID-19, especially those who had a better clinical status at baseline and received earlier remdesivir treatment. Most fetuses were delivered via cesarean section, primarily because of emergency causes. No vertical transmissions were noted. The most reported adverse event was transaminitis, in which 10-day remdesivir treatment yielded more incidence than the 5-day treatment.ConclusionsIn pregnancy, the use of Remdesivir in combination with other COVID-19 treatments is inconclusive but its use should be followed with careful monitoring of adverse reactions and transaminase enzyme levels. Further studies are required to confirm its finding.
| S-EPMC8802673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNavigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.MethodsNine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO's Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes.ResultsEighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as "critically low". Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82-95%), cough with or without sputum (58-72%), dyspnea (26-59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29-51%), sore throat (10-13%), headache (8-12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5-9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%.ConclusionsIn this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was "critically low". Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.
| S-EPMC8177249 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study examines the conduct of systematic reviews during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, including compliance to protocol registration and duplication of reviews on similar topics. The methodological and reporting quality were also explored.MethodsA cross-sectional, bibliometric study was undertaken of all systematic review manuscripts on a COVID-19 intervention published between January 1st and June 30th, 2020. Protocol registration on a publicly accessible database was recorded. Duplication was determined by systematically recording the number of reviews published on each topic of analysis. Methodological quality and reporting quality were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA 2009 instruments, respectively.ResultsThirty-one eligible systematic reviews were identified during the inclusion period. The protocol of only four (12.9%) studies was registered on a publicly accessible database. Duplication was frequent, with 15 (48.4%) of the 31 included studies focusing on either hydroxychloroquine (and/or chloroquine) or corticosteroids. Only one study (3.2%) was of "high" methodological quality, four (12.9%) were "low" quality, and the remainder (n = 26, 83.9%) were of "critically low" quality. The median completeness of reporting was 20 out of 27 items (74.1%) with a range of 5-26 (interquartile range: 14-23).ConclusionSystematic reviews during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic were uncommonly registered, frequently duplicated, and mostly of low methodological quality. In contrast, the reporting quality of manuscripts was generally good but varied substantially across published reports. There is a need for heightened stewardship of systematic review research, particularly during times of medical crisis where the generation of primary evidence may be rapid and unstable.
| S-EPMC9059200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Consumers, clinicians, policymakers and researchers require high quality evidence to guide decision-making in child health. Though Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) are a well-established source of evidence, little is known about the characteristics of non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs. To complement published descriptions of Cochrane SRs, we aimed to characterize the epidemiologic, methodological, and reporting qualities of non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs published in 2014. METHODS:English-language child-relevant SRs of quantitative primary research published outside the Cochrane Library in 2014 were eligible for this descriptive analysis. A research librarian searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PubMed in August 2015. A single reviewer screened articles for inclusion; a second verified the excluded studies. Reviewers extracted: general characteristics of the review; included study characteristics; methodological approaches. We performed univariate analyses and presented the findings narratively. RESULTS:We identified 1598 child-relevant SRs containing a median (IQR) 19 (11, 33) studies. These originated primarily from high-income countries (n?=?1247, 78.0%) and spanned 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Most synthesized therapeutic (n?=?753, 47.1%) or epidemiologic (n?=?701, 43.8%) evidence. Though 39.3% (n?=?628) of SRs included evidence related to children only, few were published in pediatric-specific journals (n?=?283, 17.7%). Reporting quality seemed poor based on the items we assessed; few reviews mentioned an a-priori protocol (n?=?246, 15.4%) or registration (n?=?111, 6.9%), and only 23.4% (n?=?374) specified a primary outcome. Many SRs relied solely on evidence from non-RCTs (n?=?796, 49.8%). Less than two-thirds (n?=?953, 59.6%) appraised the quality of included studies and assessments of the certainty of the body of evidence were rare (n?=?102, 6.4%). CONCLUSIONS:Child-relevant Cochrane SRs are a known source of high quality evidence in pediatrics. There exists, however, an abundance of evidence from non-Cochrane SRs that may be complementary. Our findings show that high-quality non-Cochrane SRs may not be practical nor easy for knowledge users to find. Improvements are needed to ensure that evidence syntheses published outside of the Cochrane Library adhere to the high standard of conduct and reporting characteristic of Cochrane SRs.
| S-EPMC6167827 | biostudies-other
Project description:Remdesivir (Veklury®), a nucleotide analogue prodrug with broad-spectrum antiviral activity, is approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Unlike some antivirals, remdesivir has a low potential for drug-drug interactions. In the pivotal ACTT-1 trial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, daily intravenous infusions of remdesivir significantly reduced time to recovery relative to placebo. Subsequent trials provided additional support for the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19, with a greater benefit seen in patients with minimal oxygen requirements at baseline. Clinical trials also demonstrated the efficacy of remdesivir in other patient populations, including outpatients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, as well as hospitalized paediatric patients. In terms of mortality, results were equivocal. However, remdesivir appeared to have a small mortality benefit in hospitalized patients who were not already being ventilated at baseline. Remdesivir was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, but pharmacovigilance data found an increased risk of hepatic, renal and cardiovascular adverse drug reactions in the real-world setting. In conclusion, remdesivir represents a useful treatment option for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require supplemental oxygen.
| S-EPMC10474216 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Human coronaviruses (HCoV) were discovered in the 1960s and were originally thought to cause only mild upper respiratory tract diseases in immunocompetent hosts. This view changed since the beginning of this century, with the 2002 SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) epidemic and the 2012 MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) outbreak, two zoonotic infections that resulted in mortality rates of approximately 10% and 35%, respectively. Despite the importance of these pathogens, no approved antiviral drugs for the treatment of human coronavirus infections became available. However, remdesivir, a nucleotide analogue prodrug originally developed for the treatment of Ebola virus, was found to inhibit the replication of a wide range of human and animal coronaviruses in vitro and in preclinical studies. It is therefore not surprising that when the highly pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus emerged in late 2019 in China, causing global health concern due to the virus strong human-to-human transmission ability, remdesivir was one of the first clinical candidates that received attention. After in vitro studies had shown its antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, and a first patient was successfully treated with the drug in the USA, a number of trials on remdesivir were initiated. Several had encouraging results, particularly the ACTT-1 double blind, randomized, and placebo controlled trial that has shown shortening of the time to recovery in hospitalized patients treated with remdesivir. The results of other trials were instead negative. Here, we provide an overview of remdesivir discovery, molecular mechanism of action, and initial and current clinical studies on its efficacy.
| S-EPMC7836944 | biostudies-literature