PD48 OTL38, A Tumour-Specific Agent In Surgery For Ovarian Cancer

Introduction:Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest mortality rate of all gynecologic malignancies. Completeness of cytoreductive surgery is a key prognostic factor for survival. To differentiate clearly between malignant and healthy tissue is essential for achieving complete cytoreduction. Using current approaches, this differentiation is difficult and can lead to incomplete tumour removal. OTL38 is a folate analogue conjugated to a near-infrared fluorescent dye which has high specificity and affinity for folate receptor alpha (FRα) expressed in OC. OTL38 together with a specific imaging system can help the surgeon to visualize diseased tissue. The objective of this work is to know the effectiveness and safety of OTL38 in of OC surgery.Methods:Early assessment of OTL38 identified through the early-awareness and alert-system, “SINTESIS-new technologies”, of AETS-ISCIII. The searched databases were: PubMed, WOS, Tripdatabase, Dynamed, Cochrane Library and ICTRP. Clinical studies using the OTL38 in cytoreductive surgery in OC published until September 2017 were reviewed.Results:Only one publication, supported by industry, was retrieved. The study assesses the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of OLT38 in 30 healthy people randomized into 4 groups with different doses and a control group. The study also analyses the percentage of cytoreduction in 12 OC patients. Infusion of 0.025, 0.05, and 0.1 mg/kg OTL38 doses was associated with mild adverse events which did not require intervention. The 0.2 mg/kg dose was associated to adverse events of moderate severity. In OC patients, 0.0125 mg/kg dose was considered the optimal dose with mild adverse events. OTL38 accumulated in FRα-positive tumours and metastases allowed the surgeon to resect an additional 29 percent of malignant lesions which were not detected using standard inspection and palpation methods.Conclusions:The OTL38 is an emergent health technology, which could help in cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer. However, the evidence is scarce and it would be necessary to continue further studies.

Download Full-text

PP262 PapSEEK: Liquid Biopsy For Endometrial And Ovarian Cancer Screening

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462320001440 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 36 (S1) ◽

pp. 22-23

Author(s):

Ana Isabel Hijas-Gómez ◽

Mª Mar Polo-de-Santos ◽

Setefilla Luengo-Matos ◽

Luís María Sánchez-Gómez

Keyword(s):

Ovarian Cancer ◽

Endometrial Cancer ◽

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Pap Smear ◽

New Technologies ◽

Gynecological Cancer ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Early Assessment ◽

Preliminary Results ◽

Tumor Types

IntroductionEndometrial and ovarian cancer are the first and second leading causes of death from gynecological cancer in Spain. Survival is generally determined by stage at diagnosis, but there is no test currently used for early detection of both tumor types. PapSEEK is a test developed to diagnose endometrial and ovarian cancer by detecting aneuploidies and somatic mutations commonly associated with both tumor types through DNA next-generation sequencing (NGS) of liquid from Papanicolaou test (Pap smear) samples. The objective of this work was to assess the effectiveness and safety of PapSEEK.MethodsPapSEEK was identified by the Early Awareness and Alert System, “SINTESIS-new technologies”, of the Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias in Spain (AETS-ISCIII). An early assessment of the technology was conducted through a literature search of the following databases: PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, the Trip database, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and The Cochrane Library. Clinical studies on the effectiveness and safety of PapSEEK published up to February 2019 were reviewed.ResultsThe evidence comprised proof of concept and diagnostic accuracy studies, which showed good preliminary results regarding the accuracy of the test for diagnosing endometrial cancer (sensitivity ranged from 0.81 to 0.93), but not for ovarian cancer (sensitivity ranged from 0.33 to 0.45). The specificity for both tumor types ranged from 0.99 to 1.00. Since PapSEEK uses a sampling method that is routinely used in clinical practice (the Pap smear), no evidence was found in the literature on the safety of the test.ConclusionsPapSEEK is a novel technology developed to diagnose endometrial and ovarian cancer by means of DNA-NGS of Pap smear samples. The identified studies showed good preliminary results regarding the ability of the test to diagnose endometrial cancer, but not ovarian cancer. PapSEEK may be useful as a screening tool for endometrial cancer. However, further research on PapSEEK is needed to prospectively evaluate its diagnostic accuracy, compare it with current tests used in the early diagnosis of both cancer types, evaluate its effect on patient survival and disease progression, and measure its economic impact.

Download Full-text

PD78 Minimally Invasive Capsulorhexis In Children's Cataracts

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462318003318 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 34 (S1) ◽

pp. 156-157

Author(s):

Luis María Sánchez-Gómez ◽

Setefilla Luengo-Matos ◽

Juan Pablo ◽

Chalco Orrego ◽

Mar Polo-Desantos

Keyword(s):

Minimally Invasive ◽

Standard Treatment ◽

New Technologies ◽

Corneal Edema ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Early Assessment ◽

Visual Axis ◽

Open Label ◽

Pediatric Cataract

Introduction:Minimally invasive capsulorhexis is an incision in the anterior capsule in the peripheral zone for cataract extraction. It allows reduction of the size of the lesion, ensuring a better transparency of the visual axis, preserving the capsule almost intact and a layer of lenticular epithelial cells. The procedure could have a potential regenerative effect of the lens in a natural way. The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive capsulorhexis to promote lens regeneration in children's cataracts.Methods:This technology was identified by the early Awareness and Alert System, “SINTESIS-new technologies” of Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS) Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII). An early assessment was conducted. The searched databases were: PubMed, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), and Cochrane Library. Clinical studies using the procedure published in any language until 29 September 2017 were reviewed.Results:An open-label, randomized trial in pediatric cataract patients (age: 0–2 years) was retrieved. Twelve patients underwent minimally invasive capsulorhexis, while twenty-five patients received the standard treatment. Regarding efficacy, a transparent regenerated biconvex lens was found in 100 percent of eyes three months after surgery, but wasn't found in the control group. 100 percent of capsular openings healed within one month after surgery in the experimental group, but not in the control group. Both groups increased their visual acuity parameters without significant differences. Regarding safety, children receiving the standard technique had a higher incidence of corneal edema (eight percent in the intervention vs thirty percent in the control group), anterior chamber inflammation (seventeen percent vs seventy-four percent), additional laser capsulotomy (zero percent vs eighty-four percent) and increased visual axis opacification (four percent vs eighty-four percent).Conclusions:Minimally invasive capsulorhexis in children's cataracts seems to be a promising new procedure. Preliminary efficacy results were good and safety profile was better than standard treatment. However, it would be necessary to continue further studies to confirm these results.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials ◽

10.2174/1574887114666191105152404 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 34-47 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Muhammed Rashid ◽

Madhan Ramesh ◽

K. Shamshavali ◽

Amit Dang ◽

Himanshu Patel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Quality Assessment ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

Download Full-text

Nervous and Muscular Adverse Events after COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Vaccines ◽

10.3390/vaccines9080939 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (8) ◽

pp. 939

Author(s):

Jiaxin Chen ◽

Yuangui Cai ◽

Yicong Chen ◽

Anthony P. Williams ◽

Yifang Gao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Control Group ◽

Open Label

Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12–1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.

Download Full-text

VP92 Portable Robotic Exoskeleton Stride Management Assist (SMA®)

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462319003362 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 35 (S1) ◽

pp. 95-95

Author(s):

Luis María Sánchez-Gómez ◽

Ana Isabel Hijas-Gómez ◽

Mar Polo-DeSantos ◽

Setefilla Luengo-Matos

Keyword(s):

Energy Expenditure ◽

Conventional Therapy ◽

New Technologies ◽

Adult Population ◽

Safety Data ◽

Gait Training ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Early Assessment ◽

Robotic Exoskeleton ◽

Gait Parameters

IntroductionThe Stride Management Assist (SMA®) device consist in a portable robotic exoskeleton designed for gait rehabilitation and training by repetition of walking patterns with automated regular gait cycles. Used for adult population with gait disorders of neurological or musculoskeletal origin that require rehabilitation. The objective of this work is to assess its efficacy and safety.MethodsThis technology was identified by the early Awareness and Alert System, “SINTESIS-new technologies” of AETS-ISCIII. An early assessment of the technology was conducted. The searched databases were: Pubmed, Embase, WOS, Tripdatabase, ClinicalTrials.org and Cochrane Library. Clinical studies using the device published in any language until 10 October 2018 were reviewed.ResultsWe found 3 abstracts to congresses and 6 clinical trials that evaluated the use of the device. Outcomes measures among studies included spatiotemporal gait parameters, energy expenditure, muscular activity and functional performance. Five studies consisted in proof-of-concept analysis; 3 studies evaluated the effect of gait training with SMA® compared with conventional therapy alone in individuals after stroke (2 studies) and Parkinson disease (1 study); and 1 before-and-after study assessed the effect of gait training with SMA® in elderly adults. During its use, improvements in spatiotemporal gait parameters were described in 4/5 studies, and 2/5 studies showed less energy expenditure versus 2/5 studies that found no differences. After gait training, 3/4 studies described greater improvements in gait parameters when associated its use. Only one clinical trial collected safety data reporting no adverse events.ConclusionsThe SMA® device allows to increase the efficiency and parameters of the march during its use. The assistance in the stride might have an impact on health by facilitating the recovery of the gait; however, further research is needed to determine the feasibility in the latter case since comparative studies with conventional therapy are limited.

Download Full-text

Randomized trial of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in women with primary advanced peritoneal, ovarian, and tubal cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.5520 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 5520-5520 ◽

Cited By ~ 32

Author(s):

Myong Cheol Lim ◽

Suk-Joon Chang ◽

Heong Jong Yoo ◽

Byung-Ho Nam ◽

Robert Bristow ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ovarian Cancer ◽

Cytoreductive Surgery ◽

Residual Tumor ◽

Study Endpoint ◽

Rank Test ◽

Control Group ◽

Term Survival ◽

Log Rank Test ◽

And Control ◽

The Impact

5520 Background: Cytoreductive surgery followed by taxane and platinum-based chemotherapy is standard treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. We compared results of randomly allocated HIPEC in primary advanced epithelial ovarian cancer who have optimal cytoreductive surgery in this prospective randomized multicenter trial. The study endpoint is to evaluate progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods: 184 patients staged III and IV were randomly allocated to trial arm (HIPEC, cisplatin 75 mg/m2, 90 min) or control arm (no HIPEC), intraoperatively based on residual tumor (size <1cm) from July 2010 to January 2016. The groups were well balanced according to the age, body mass index, performance status, stage, histology, serum CA125 level, and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) at study entry. Results: 184 pts (HIPEC, 92; control, 92) were included in this preplanned analysis. No mortality after surgery ± HIPEC was identified in both groups. Postoperative outcomes including extent of surgery, estimated blood loss, residual tumor, and hospitalization day were not different between both group, except operation time (487 vs. 404 min, p<0.001) due to HIPEC procedure. The most common adverse event was anemia: 67.4% in HIPEC and 50% in control group (p=0.025). The other toxicity common in HIPEC group is the elevation of creatinine (15.2% vs. 4.3%, p=0.026). There were no differences between both groups for transfusion (35.9 vs. 29.3, p=0.432), neutropenia (19.6 vs. 10.9%, p=0.151), and thrombocytopenia (9.8 vs. 3.3%, p=0.136). Two-year PFS was 43.2% and 43.5% and 5-year PFS was 20.9% and 16.0% in HIPEC and control group, respectively (p=0.569). Five-year OS was 51.0% and 49.4% in HIPEC and control group, respectively (p=0.574). In women who received NAC, the median PFS for HIPEC and control group were 20 and 19 months, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.137) and the median OS for HIPEC and control group were 54 and 51 months, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.407). In the subgroup with NAC, 2-year PFS was 37.2% in HIPEC group and 29.5% in control group and 5-year OS was 47.9% in HIPEC group and 27.7% in control group. After 20 months in PFS and 30 months in OS, two survival curves in women who received NAC showed the trend of gradual distinction, favoring HIPEC group. Conclusions: No mortality was identified and postoperative morbidities were not statistically different between two groups except anemia and creatinine elevation in HIPEC group. The survival analysis did not show the statistical superiority of the HIPEC arm. More follow-up is required to confirm the impact of HIPEC on long-term survival outcome in ovarian cancer, especially in NAC group. Clinical trial information: NCT01091636.

Download Full-text

Near-infrared fluorescent imaging of metastatic ovarian cancer using folate receptor-targeted high-density lipoprotein nanocarriers

Nanomedicine ◽

10.2217/nnm.12.137 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 8 (6) ◽

pp. 875-890 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Ian R Corbin ◽

Kenneth K Ng ◽

Lili Ding ◽

Andrea Jurisicova ◽

Gang Zheng

Keyword(s):

Ovarian Cancer ◽

High Density Lipoprotein ◽

Near Infrared ◽

Folate Receptor ◽

Density Lipoprotein ◽

High Density ◽

Fluorescent Imaging

Download Full-text

Survival in Advanced-Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients with Cardiophrenic Lymphadenopathy Who Underwent Cytoreductive Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽

10.3390/cancers13195017 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (19) ◽

pp. 5017

Author(s):

Malika Kengsakul ◽

Gatske M. Nieuwenhuyzen-de Boer ◽

Anna H. J. Bijleveld ◽

Suwasin Udomkarnjananun ◽

Stephen J. Kerr ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ovarian Cancer ◽

Epithelial Ovarian Cancer ◽

Cytoreductive Surgery ◽

Perioperative Complications ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Preoperative Imaging ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Prognostic Impact ◽

Advanced Stage ◽

Increased Risk

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of enlarged cardiophrenic lymph node (CPLN) in advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery. Methods: The Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles from the database inception to June 2021. Meta-analysis was conducted to determine the prognostic impact of surgical outcome, postoperative complication, and survival using random-effects models. Results: A total of 15 studies involving 727 patients with CPLN adenopathy and 981 patients without CPLN adenopathy were included. The mean size of preoperative CPLN was 9.1± 3.75 mm. Overall, 82 percent of the resected CPLN were histologically confirmed pathologic nodes. Surgical outcomes and perioperative complications did not differ between both groups. The median OS time was 42.7 months (95% CI 10.8–74.6) versus 47.3 months (95% CI 23.2–71.2), in patients with and without CPLN adenopathy, respectively. At 5 years, patients with CPLN adenopathy had a significantly increased risk of disease recurrence (HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.82–2.52, p < 0.001) and dying from the disease (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.06–2.86, p = 0.029), compared with those without CPLN adenopathy. CPLN adenopathy was significantly associated with ascites (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.90–5.72, p < 0.001), pleural metastasis (OR 2.58, 95% CI 1.37–4.82, p = 0.003), abdominal adenopathy (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.53–3.46, p < 0.001) and extra-abdominal metastasis (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.61–6.67, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Enlarged CPLN in preoperative imaging is highly associated with metastatic involvement. Patients with CPLN adenopathy had a lower survival rate, compared with patients without CPLN adenopathy. Further randomized controlled trials should be conducted to definitively demonstrate whether CPLN resection at the time of cytoreductive surgery is beneficial.

Download Full-text

Monoclonal Antibody Therapy in Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Control Trials

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2021.652759 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Fanxin Kong ◽

Jianjun Wang ◽

Haotao Zheng ◽

Haobin Cai ◽

Jun Hua ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Monoclonal Antibody ◽

Monoclonal Antibodies ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Neuromyelitis Optica ◽

Antibody Therapy ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Monoclonal Antibody Therapy ◽

Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders ◽

Spectrum Disorders

Background: To update the efficacy and safety data of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) and explore the differences in the effect of treatment between patients seropositive and seronegative for AQP4-IgG. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library published up to July 2020 were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of monoclonal antibodies treatment (mAb) in patients with NMOSD. The primary outcome was the hazard ratio (HR) for relapse. The secondary outcomes included Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) changes from baseline, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). A random-effects model was applied for the effect of heterogeneity among trials. Results: We included 603 patients (monoclonal antibody group, n=382, and control group, n=221) from seven RCTs. There were fewer relapses in the mAb group (HR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.23-0.46, p<0.001), as well as in the AQP4-IgG-seropositive patients (HR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.10–0.32, p<0.001), but not in AQP4-IgG-seronegative NMOSD. Similar results were observed when considering satralizumab only. The mAb had no impact on the changes in EDSS scores from baseline (WMD=−0.21, 95% CI: −0.50-0.09, p=0.176). The mAb did not lead to a higher frequency of AEs (OR=1.18, 95% CI: 0.70–1.98, p=0.529) or SAEs (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.63–1.56, p=0.975) compared with the control group. Conclusions: Compared to the control arm, monoclonal antibody therapy showed a significantly better outcome in restraining the HR for relapse among patients with NMOSD but insignificant effects in NMOSD patients with seronegative APQ4-IgG. The safety profile in each arm had no significant difference.

Download Full-text

Repurposing of drugs for Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.1101/2020.06.07.20124677 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Pinky Kotecha ◽

Alexander Light ◽

Enrico Checcucci ◽

Daniele Amparore ◽

Cristian Fiori ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Clinical Improvement ◽

Case Reports ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Case Series ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Significant Difference

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the data currently available regarding the repurposing of different drugs for Covid-19 treatment. Participants with suspected or diagnosed Covid-19 will be included. The interventions being considered are drugs being repurposed, and comparators will include standard of care treatment or placebo.MethodsWe searched Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trial registration site in the UK(NIHR), Europe (clinicaltrialsregister.eu), US (ClinicalTrials.gov) and internationally (isrctn.com), and reviewed the reference lists of articles for eligible articles published up to April 22, 2020. All studies in English that evaluated the efficacy of the listed drugs were included. Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess study quality. This systematic review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol is available at PROSPERO (CRD42020180915).ResultsFrom 708 identified studies or clinical trials, 16 studies and 16 case reports met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 6 were randomized controlled trials (763 patients), 7 cohort studies (321 patients) and 3 case series (191 patients). Chloroquine (CQ) had a 100% discharge rate compared to 50% with lopinavir-ritonavir at day 14, however a trial has recommended against a high dosage due to cardiotoxic events. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown no significant improvement in negative seroconversion rate which is also seen in our meta-analysis (p=0.68). Adverse events with HCQ have a significant difference compared to the control group (p=0.001). Lopinavir-ritonavir has shown no improvement in time to clinical improvement which is seen in our meta-analyses (p=0.1). Remdesivir has shown no significant improvement in time to clinical improvement but this trial had insufficient power.DiscussionDue to the paucity in evidence, it is difficult to establish the efficacy of these drugs in the treatment of Covid-19 as currently there is no significant clinical effectiveness of the repurposed drugs. Further large clinical trials are required to achieve more reliable findings. A risk-benefit analysis is required on an individual basis to weigh out the potential improvement in clinical outcome and viral load reduction compared to the risks of the adverse events. (1-16)

Download Full-text