Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for severe COVID-19 patients: An updated network meta-analysis of 48 randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To date, there has been little agreement on what drug is the "best" drug for treating severe COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of different medications available at present for severe COVID-19.

Methods

We searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 28, 2022, with no language restrictions, of medications recommended for patients (aged 16 years or older) with severe COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on trials and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (ACM), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results

We identified 4021 abstracts and of these included 48 RCTs comprising 9147 participants through database searches and other sources. For decrease in ACM, we found that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG (i.e., a hyperimmune anti-COVID-19 intravenous immunoglobulin), methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/standard-of-care (SOC), interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, high dosage sarilumab (HS), auxora, and imatinib were effective when compared with placebo or SOC group. We found that colchicine and interferon-beta/SOC were only associated with the TEAEs of severe COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion

This study suggested that ivermectin/doxycycline, C-IVIG, methylprednisolone, interferon-beta/SOC, interferon-beta-1b, convalescent plasma (CP), remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, immunoglobulin gamma, HS, auxora, and imatinib were efficacious for treating severe COVID-19 patients. We found that most medications were safe in treating severe COVID-19. More large-scale RCTs are still needed to confirm the results of this study.

SUBMITTER: Cheng Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9575403 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for severe COVID-19 patients: An updated network meta-analysis of 48 randomized controlled trials.

Cheng Qinglin Q Cheng Qinglin Q Zhao Gang G Chen Junfang J Jia Qingjun Q Fang Zijian Z

Medicine 20221001 41

<h4>Background</h4>To date, there has been little agreement on what drug is the "best" drug for treating severe COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of different medications available at present for severe COVID-19.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 28, 2022, with no language restrictions, of medications recommended for patients (aged 16 years or older) with severe COVID-19 infection. We extracte ...[more]

PMID: 36254081

Similar Datasets

Project description:Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -21.89, 95%CrI [-28.97, -14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -22.48 [-34.13, -10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: -20.63 [-33.97, -7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -12.13, 95%CrI [-18.41, -5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -13.21 [-.39, -3.04]; LED: -11.30 [-18.34, -4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.

Project description:BackgroundMany recent studies have investigated the role of drug interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, an important question has been raised about how to select the effective and secure medications for COVID-19 patients. The aim of this analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of the various medications available for severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients based on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs).MethodsWe did an updated network meta-analysis. We searched the databases from inception until July 31, 2021, with no language restrictions. We included RPCTs comparing 49 medications and placebo in the treatment of severe and non-severe patients (aged 18 years or older) with COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on the trial and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, the ratios of virological cure, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect estimates.ResultsFrom 3,869 publications, we included 61 articles related to 73 RPCTs (57 in non-severe COVID-19 patients and 16 in severe COVID-19 patients), comprising 20,680 patients. The mean sample size was 160 (interquartile range 96-393) in this study. The median duration of follow-up drugs intervention was 28 days (interquartile range 21-30). For increase in virological cure, we only found that proxalutamide (OR 9.16, 95% CI 3.15-18.30), ivermectin (OR 6.33, 95% CI 1.22-32.86), and low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.29, 95% CI 1.12-24.99) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo, in which proxalutamide seemed to be better than low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.69, 95% CI 2.43-17.65). For decrease in all-cause mortality, we found that proxalutamide (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.09-0.19), imatinib (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.96), and baricitinib (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.82) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we only found that immunoglobulin gamma (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.89) was related to severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo. For change in treatment-emergent adverse events, we only found that sotrovimab (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.34) was associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we did not find any medications that presented a statistical difference when compared with placebo among severe COVID-19 patients.ConclusionWe conclude that marked variations exist in the efficacy and safety of medications between severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19. It seems that monoclonal antibodies (e.g., low dosage bamlanivimab, baricitinib, imatinib, and sotrovimab) are a better choice for treating severe or non-severe COVID-19 patients. Clinical decisions to use preferentially medications should carefully consider the risk-benefit profile based on efficacy and safety of all active interventions in patients with COVID-19 at different levels of infection.

Project description:Introduction Although several non-pharmacological interventions have been tested in the management of Fibromyalgia (FM), there is little consensus regarding the best options for the treatment of this health condition. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions for FM, in order to assist clinical decision making through a ranking of interventions in relation to the most important clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions endorsed in guidelines and systematic reviews. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases without language or date restrictions (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro). Our primary outcomes will be pain intensity, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and acceptability of treatment will be our secondary outcome. Risk of bias of the included trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). For each pairwise comparison between the different interventions, we will present mean differences (MDs) for pain intensity and QoL outcomes and Relative Risks (RRs) for acceptability, both with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Initially, standard pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model for all comparisons with at least two trials and then we will perform a frequentist NMA using the methodology of multivariate meta-analysis assuming a common heterogeneity parameter, using the mvmeta command and network suite in STATA. In the NMA, two different types of control group, such as placebo/sham and no intervention/waiting list will be combined as one node called “Control”. The competing interventions will be ranked using the P-score, which is the frequentist analogue of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes of interest at immediate- (intervention duration of up to 2 weeks), short- (over 2 weeks up to 12 weeks) and long-terms (over 12 weeks). The confidence in the results from NMA will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta‐analysis (CINeMA) framework. Ethics and dissemination This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Registration OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7MS25) and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020216374).

Project description:BackgroundThe global pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major public health problem and presents an unprecedented challenge. However, no specific drugs were currently proven. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions in patients with COVID-19.MethodsMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/SARS-CoV. Random-effects network meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework was performed, followed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system assessing the quality of evidence. The primary outcome of interest includes mortality, cure, viral negative conversion, and overall adverse events (OAEs). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated as the measure of effect size.ResultsSixty-six RCTs with 19,095 patients were included, involving standard of care (SOC), eight different antiviral agents, six different antibiotics, high and low dose chloroquine (CQ_HD, CQ_LD), traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), corticosteroids (COR), and other treatments. Compared with SOC, a significant reduction of mortality was observed for TCM (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20-0.56, moderate quality) and COR (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.96, low quality) with improved cure rate (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.60-2.91, low quality for TCM; OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.05-1.30, low quality for COR). However, an increased risk of mortality was found for CQ_HD vs. SOC (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 1.18-8.73, low quality). TCM was associated with decreased risk of OAE (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.70, very low quality) but CQ_HD (OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.20-5.24) and interferons (IFN) (OR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.02-7.08) vs. SOC with very low quality were associated with an increased risk.ConclusionsCOR and TCM may reduce mortality and increase cure rate with no increased risk of OAEs compared with standard care. CQ_HD might increase the risk of mortality. CQ, IFN, and other antiviral agents could increase the risk of OAEs. The current evidence is generally uncertain with low-quality and further high-quality trials are needed.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To systematically review and compare the efficacy of all available home-based non-pharmacological treatments of depression. DESIGN:Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:Medline, Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were searched since inceptions to 7 August 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of home-based non-pharmacological interventions with usual care of patients with depression were included in the review. MAIN OUTCOMES:Depression symptom scores and disease remission rates at the end of treatment. RESULTS:Seventeen studies were included in the review. Home-based non-pharmacological interventions were categorised as (1) home-based psychological intervention, (2) home-based exercise intervention, (3) combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention and (4) complementary medicine. Complementary medicine approaches were excluded from the meta-analysis due to heterogeneity. The standardised mean differences of post-treatment depression symptom scores between usual care groups and home-based psychological intervention, home-based exercise intervention and combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention were âˆ'0.57 (95% CI âˆ'0.84 to âˆ'0.31), âˆ'1.03 (95% CI âˆ'2.89 to 0.82) and âˆ'0.78 (95% CI âˆ'1.09 to âˆ'0.47), respectively. These results suggest that only home-based psychological intervention and combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention could significantly decrease depression scores. Compared with usual care groups, the disease remission rate was also significantly higher for home-based psychological intervention (pooled risk ratio=1.53; 95%â€‰CI 1.19 to 1.98) and combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention (pooled risk ratio=3.47; 95%â€‰CI 2.11 to 5.70). Of all the studied interventions, combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention had the highest probability of resulting in disease remission. CONCLUSION:Our study confirms the efficacy of home-based psychological intervention and combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention in the treatment of depression. Combined home-based psychological intervention and exercise intervention was the best treatment and should be considered for inclusion in clinical guidelines for managing depression.

Project description:The safety and efficacy of different drugs in treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients who could not maintain normal glucose level only through diet and exercise remains to be debated. We performed this network meta-analysis (NAM) to compare and rank different antidiabetic drugs in glucose level control and pregnancy outcomes in GDM patients.We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase up to December 31, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to different drugs in the treatment of GDM patients were enrolled. We extracted the relevant information and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model and then adopted random-effects NAM combining both direct and indirect evidence within a Bayesian framework, to calculate the odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and to draw a surface under the cumulative ranking curve of the neonatal and maternal outcomes of different treatments in GDM patients.Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this NAM, including 6 kinds of treatments (metformin, metformin plus insulin, insulin, glyburide, acarbose, and placebo). The results of the NAM showed that regarding the incidence of macrosomia and LGA, metformin had lower incidence than glyburide (OR, 0.5411 and 0.4177). In terms of the incidence of admission to the NICU, insulin had higher incidence compared with glyburide (OR, 1.844). As for the incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia, metformin had lower incidence than insulin and glyburide (OR, 0.6331 and 0.3898), and insulin was lower than glyburide (OR, 0.6236). For mean birth weight, metformin plus insulin was lower than insulin (SMD, -0.5806), glyburide (SMD, -0.7388), and placebo (SMD, -0.6649). Besides, metformin was observed to have lower birth weight than glyburide (SMD, 0.2591). As for weight gain, metformin and metformin plus insulin were lower than insulin (SMD, -0.9166, -1.53). Ranking results showed that glyburide might be the optimum treatment regarding average glucose control, and metformin is the fastest in glucose control for GDM patients; glyburide have the highest incidence of macrosomia, preeclampsia, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, shortest gestational age at delivery, and lowest mean birth weight; metformin (plus insulin when required) have the lowest incidence of macrosomia, PIH, LGA, RDS, low gestational age at delivery, and low birth weight. Besides, insulin had the highest incidence of NICU admission, acarbose had the lowest risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.Our study concluded that metformin is fastest in glucose control, with a more favorable pregnancy outcomes-would be a better option, but its rate of glucose control is the lowest.However, glyburide is the optimumtreatment regarding the rate of glucose control, but withmore adverse outcomes. This NAMbased on 32 RCTs will strongly help to guide further development of management for GDM patients, clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of different treatments according to various situations.

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.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for severe COVID-19 patients: An updated network meta-analysis of 48 randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for severe COVID-19 patients: An updated network meta-analysis of 48 randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets