scholarly journals Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author(s):  
Arunmozhimaran Elavarasi ◽  
Manya Prasad ◽  
Tulika Seth ◽  
Ranjit Kumar Sahoo ◽  
Karan Madan ◽  
...  

Background: There is no effective therapy for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) have been used for its treatment but their safety and efficacy remain uncertain. Objective: We performed a systematic review to synthesize the available data on the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: Two reviewers searched for published and pre-published relevant articles between December 2019 to 8th June 2020. The data from the selected studies were abstracted and analyzed for efficacy and safety outcomes. Critical appraisal of the evidence was done by Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa scale. The quality of evidence was graded as per the GRADE approach. Results: We reviewed 12 observational and 3 randomized trials which included 10659 patients of whom 5713 received CQ/HCQ and 4966 received only standard of care. The efficacy of CQ/HCQ for COVID-19 was inconsistent across the studies. Meta-analysis of included studies revealed no significant reduction in mortality with HCQ use [RR 0.98 95% CI 0.66-1.46] , time to fever resolution [mean difference -0.54 days (-1.19-011)] or clinical deterioration/development of ARDS with HCQ [RR 0.90 95% CI 0.47-1.71]. There was a higher risk of ECG abnormalities/arrhythmia with HCQ/CQ [RR 1.46 95% CI 1.04 to 2.06]. The quality of evidence was graded as very low for these outcomes. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that CQ or HCQ does not improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19. Well-designed randomized trials are required for assessing the efficacy and safety of HCQ and CQ for COVID-19.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gollapalle L Viswanatha ◽  
CH K V L S N Anjana Male ◽  
Hanumanthappa Shylaja

AbstractBackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsThe electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Google scholar to identify the retrospective observational reports. The studies published from 01 January 2020 to 30th September 2020. Participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Interventions included tocilizumab versus placebo/standard of care. The comparison will be between TCZ versus standard of care (SOC)/placebo. Inconsistency between the studies was evaluated with I2 and quality of the evidences were evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa scale.ResultsBased on the inclusion criteria there were 24 retrospective studies involving 5686 subjects were included. The outcomes of the meta-analysis have revealed that the TCZ has reduced the mortality (M-H,RE-OR −0.11(−0.18 to −0.04) 95% CI, p =0.001, I2 =88%) and increased the incidences of super-infections (M-H, RE-OR 1.49(1.13 to 1.96) 95% CI, p=0.004, I2=47%). However, there is no significant difference in ICU admissions rate (M-H, RE-OR −0.06(−0.23 to 0.12), I2=93%), need of MV (M-H, RE-OR of 0.00(−0.06 to 0.07), I = 74%), LOS (IV −2.86(−0.91 to 3.38), I2=100%), LOS-ICU (IV: −3.93(−12.35 to 4.48), I2=100%), and incidences of pulmonary thrombosis (M-H, RE-OR 1.01 (0.45 to 2.26), I2=0%) compared to SOC/control.ConclusionBased on cumulative low to moderate certainty evidence shows that TCZ could reduce the risk of mortality in hospitalized patients. However, there is no statistically significant difference observed between the TCZ and SOC/control groups in other parameters.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 383-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominique Q Perez ◽  
Adrian I Espiritu ◽  
Roland Dominic G Jamora

Background: Fatigue is a debilitating symptom of multiple sclerosis (MS) affecting at least 75% of patients. Amantadine has been tested for MS-related fatigue treatment but efficacy and safety remain unclear. Materials & methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of qualified literatures searched until 30 April 2020. Results: A total of 11 clinical trials were included. The meta-analysis revealed improvement of MS-related fatigue with amantadine treatment using the patients’ subjective responses and validated fatigue scales. Conclusion: Amantadine is the most studied drug that has shown improvement of MS-related fatigue, with mild side effects and good tolerability. Larger studies using a standard measurement for MS-related fatigue are recommended to improve the quality of evidence. Safety and efficacy on long-term use needs further investigation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (F) ◽  
pp. 410-419
Author(s):  
Anggi Lukman Wicaksana ◽  
Nuzul Sri Hertanti ◽  
Raden Bowo Pramono ◽  
Yu-Yun Hsu

BACKGROUND: Obesity, common condition among patients with COVID-19, contributes to illness severity during hospitalization. To date, knowledge on the prevalence, risk of hospital and intensive care units (ICU) admissions and mortality is limited. Therefore, systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using a PRISMA guideline. PURPOSE: The study aimed to address the prevalence, risk of hospital and ICU admissions and mortality among patients with COVID-19 and obesity. METHODS: The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of a study. Primary outcomes were the prevalence and risk of hospitalization, and secondary outcomes were the risk of ICU admissions and mortality risk. Mantel–Haenszel with random effects was applied, and the effect measure was odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the systematic review, and only four studies for meta-analysis. Among 29,776 patients with COVID-19, obesity was identified as the second-highest comorbidity. The prevalence rates of obesity and severe obesity among patients with COVID-19 were 26.1% and 15.5%, respectively. Obesity resulted in significantly increased risk of hospital admission (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.12–3.53, p = 0.02) and ICU admission (OR = 1.77, 95% = CI 1.52–2.06, p < 0.00001). Severe obesity had a significantly increased risk of ICU admission (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.42–2.25, p < 0.00001). The mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 and obesity was about 30.5% (438/1,434), and 19.7% (2,777/14,095) of them recovered from COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Obesity poses as nearly twice the risk of hospital and ICU admissions, and severe obesity contributes to almost twice the risk of ICU admissions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chan-Young Kwon ◽  
Boram Lee ◽  
Sun-Yong Chung ◽  
Jong Woo Kim ◽  
Aesook Shin ◽  
...  

Abstract This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of Sihogayonggolmoryeo-tang (SGYMT), a classical herbal medicine consisting of 11 herbs, for treatment of post-stroke depression (PSD). Thirteen databases were comprehensively searched from their inception dates until July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using SGYMT as a monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for PSD patients were included. Where appropriate data were available, meta-analysis was performed and presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the quality of RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Jadad scale. The quality of evidence for each main outcome was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Twenty-one RCTs with 1,644 participants were included. In the comparison between the SGYMT and antidepressants groups, the SGYMT group scored significantly lower on both the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) (8 studies; MD −2.08, 95% CI −2.62 to −1.53, I2 = 34%) and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) (2 studies; MD −0.84, 95% CI −1.40 to −0.29, I2 = 19%), and significantly higher on the Barthel index (3 studies; MD 4.30, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.57, I2 = 66%). Moreover, the SGYMT group was associated with significantly fewer adverse events (6 studies; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.37, I2 = 0%) than the antidepressants group. In the subgroup analysis, SGYMT treatment consistently reduced HAMD scores within the first 8 weeks of treatment, but thereafter this difference between groups disappeared. Comparisons between SGYMT combined with antidepressants, and antidepressants alone, showed significantly lower scores in the combination group for both HAMD (7 studies; MD = −6.72, 95% CI = −11.42 to −2.01, I2 = 98%) and NIHSS scores (4 studies; MD −3.03, 95% CI −3.60 to −2.45, I2 = 87%). In the subgroup analysis, the reductions of HAMD scores in the SGYMT combined with antidepressants group were consistent within 4 weeks of treatment, but disappeared thereafter. The quality of RCTs was generally low and the quality of evidence evaluated by the GRADE approach was rated mostly “Very low” to “Moderate.” The main causes of low quality ratings were the high risk of bias and imprecision of results. Current evidence suggests that SGYMT, used either as a monotherapy or an adjuvant therapy to antidepressants, might have potential benefits for the treatment of PSD, including short-term reduction of depressive symptoms, improvement of neurological symptoms, and few adverse events. However, since the methodological quality of the included studies was generally low and there were no large placebo trials to ensure reliability, it remains difficult to draw definitive conclusions on this topic. Further well-designed RCTs addressing these shortcomings are needed to confirm our results.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. e0009370
Author(s):  
Francesca Tamarozzi ◽  
Ronaldo Silva ◽  
Veronica Andrea Fittipaldo ◽  
Dora Buonfrate ◽  
Bruno Gottstein ◽  
...  

Background The diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis (CE) is primarily based on imaging, while serology should be applied when imaging is inconclusive. CE cyst stage has been reported among the most important factors influencing the outcome of serodiagnosis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the relation between cyst stage of hepatic CE and diagnostic sensitivity of serological tests, to evaluate whether their relation is a consistent finding and provide guidance for the interpretation of results of serological tests. Methodology/Principal findings MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Lilacs databases were searched on December 1st 2019. Original studies published after 2003 (year of publication of the CE cyst classification), reporting sensitivity of serological tests applied to the diagnosis of human hepatic CE, as diagnosed and staged by imaging, were included. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data from 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Summary estimates of sensitivities and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using random effects meta-analysis. Overall, test sensitivity was highest in the presence of CE2 and CE3 (CE3a and/or CE3b), and lowest in the presence of CE5 and CE4 cysts. ELISA, ICT and WB showed the highest sensitivities, while IHA performed worst. Conclusions/Significance The results of our study confirm the presence of a clear and consistent relation between cyst stage and serological tests results. Limitations of evidence included the heterogeneity of the antigenic preparations used, which prevented to determine whether the relation between cyst stage and sensitivity was influenced by the type of antigenic preparation, the paucity of studies testing the same panel of sera with different assays, and the lack of studies assessing the performance of the same assay in both field and hospital-based settings. Our results indicate the absolute need to consider cyst staging when evaluating serological results of patients with hepatic CE.


2021 ◽  
pp. 175045892096415
Author(s):  
Tito D Tubog ◽  
Richard S Bramble

The incidence rates of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension vary depending on the surgical procedures. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron in reducing the incidence of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension in non-caesarean delivery. Thirteen trials consisting of 1166 patients were included for analysis. Compared to placebo, there is a low quality of evidence that ondansetron was effective in reducing the incidence of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.87; p = 0.005) and bradycardia (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; p = 0.02). We also found a moderate quality of evidence that ondansetron lowered the number of rescue ephedrine (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87; p = 0.007). Patients treated with ondansetron have higher mean arterial pressure 15 to 20 minutes after spinal anaesthesia induction and higher systolic arterial pressure 5, 10, 15 and 20 minutes after spinal anaesthesia. The evidence suggests that prophylactic administration of ondansetron results in the reduction of the incidence of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension, bradycardia and rescue ephedrine in patients undergoing non-caesarean delivery under spinal anaesthesia.


Author(s):  
Yusuke Handa ◽  
Kenya Okada ◽  
Hiroshi Takasaki

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether the use of a lumbar roll reduced forward head posture (FHP) while sitting among individuals with or without musculoskeletal disorders. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from their inception to August 2020. The quality of evidence for variables used in the meta-analysis was determined using the GRADE system. Five studies satisfied the criteria for data analysis. All studies included individuals without any spinal symptoms. Data from five studies on neck angle showed a statistically significant (p = 0.02) overall effect (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.77), indicating a lesser neck flexion angle while sitting with a lumbar roll than without it. Data from two studies on head angle showed a statistically significant (p = 0.04) overall effect (SMD = 0.47), indicating a lesser head extension angle while sitting with a lumbar roll than without it. In each meta-analysis, the quality of evidence was very low in the GRADE system. The use of a lumbar roll while sitting reduced FHP among individuals without spinal symptoms.


2021 ◽  
pp. 026921552199095
Author(s):  
Danilo Harudy Kamonseki ◽  
Letícia Bojikian Calixtre ◽  
Rodrigo Py Gonçalves Barreto ◽  
Paula Rezende Camargo

Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness of electromyographic biofeedback interventions to improve pain and function of patients with shoulder pain. Design: Systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Literature search: Databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS) were searched in December 2020. Study selection criteria: Randomized clinical trials that investigated the effects of electromyographic biofeedback for individuals with shoulder pain. Patient-reported pain and functional outcomes were collected and synthesized. Data synthesis: The level of evidence was synthesized using GRADE and Standardized Mean Differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated using a random-effects inverse variance model for meta-analysis. Results: Five studies were included with a total sample of 272 individuals with shoulder pain. Very-low quality of evidence indicated that electromyographic biofeedback was not superior to control for reducing shoulder pain (standardized mean differences = −0.21, 95% confidence interval: −0.67 to 0.24, P = 0.36). Very-low quality of evidence indicated that electromyographic biofeedback interventions were not superior to control for improving shoulder function (standardized mean differences = −0.11, 95% confidence interval: −0.41 to 0.19, P = 0.48). Conclusion: Electromyographic biofeedback may be not effective for improving shoulder pain and function. However, the limited number of included studies and very low quality of evidence does not support a definitive recommendation about the effectiveness of electromyographic biofeedback to treat individuals with shoulder pain.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Oberndorfer ◽  
I Grabovac ◽  
S Haider ◽  
T E Dorner

Abstract Background Reports of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes (ECs) for smoking cessation vary across different studies making implementation recommendations hard to attain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation. Methods PubMed, PsycInfo and Embase databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing nicotine ECs with non-nicotine ECs or with established smoking cessation interventions (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and or counselling) published between 01/01/2014 and 01/05/2019. Data from eligible studies were extracted and used for random-effects meta-analyses. Results Our literature review yielded 13190 publications with 10 studies being identified as eligible for systematic review, covering 8362 participants, and 8 for meta-analyses (n = 30 - 6006). Using the last follow-up of eligible studies, the proportion of smokers achieving abstinence was 1.67 [95CI:0.99 - 2.81] times higher in nicotine EC users compared to non-nicotine EC users. The proportion of abstinent smokers was 1.69 [95CI:1.25 - 2.27] times higher in EC users compared to participants receiving NRT. EC users showed a 2.70 [95CI:1.15 - 6.30] times higher proportion of abstinent smokers in comparison to participants solely receiving counselling. Conclusions Our analysis showed modest effects of nicotine-ECs compared to non-nicotine ECs. When compared to NRT or counselling, results suggest that nicotine EC may be more effective for smoking cessation. As ECs also help maintaining routinized behaviour and social aspects of smoking, we hypothesise that this may explain their advantage as a tool for smoking cessation. However, given the small number of included studies, different populations, heterogeneous designs, and the overall moderate to low quality of evidence, it is not possible to offer clear recommendations. More comparable data is needed to strengthen confidence in the quality of evidence. Key messages The number of previous studies assessing the effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation is limited. Further, comparability of these studies is restricted, weakening the quality of evidence. Although current evidence on the effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation is inconclusive, our meta-analyses suggest that ECs could be a promising alternative tool in attempts to achieve abstinence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document