scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soheil Hassanipour ◽  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Bahman Amani ◽  
Forough Heidarzad ◽  
Mohammad Fathalipour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Supplemental Oxygen ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
General Group

AbstractThe novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and marketed drugs are being tested for repurposing, including Favipiravir. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We registered the protocol in the PROSPERO (CRD42020180032). All clinical trials which addressed the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in comparison to other control groups for treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV2 were included. We searched electronic databases including LitCovid hub/PubMed, Scopus, ISI web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scientific Information Database up to 31 December 2020. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane Collaboration criteria. All analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2, and the risk ratio index was calculated. Egger and Begg test was used for assessing publication bias. Nine studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a significant clinical improvement in the Favipiravir group versus the control group during seven days after hospitalization (RR=1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.41; P=0.001). Viral clearance was more in 14 days after hospitalization in Favipiravir group than control group, but this finding marginally not significant (RR=1.11, 95% CI: 0.98-1.25; P=0.094). Requiring supplemental oxygen therapy in the Favipiravir group was 7% less than the control group, (RR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.67-1.28; P=0.664). Transferred to ICU and adverse events were not statistically different between two groups. The mortality rate in the Favipiravir group was approximately 30% less than the control group, but this finding not statistically significant. Favipiravir possibly exerted no significant beneficial effect in the term of mortality in the general group of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. We should consider that perhaps the use of antiviral once the patient has symptoms is too late and this would explain their low efficacy in the clinical setting.

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Soheil Hassanipour ◽  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Bahman Amani ◽  
Forough Heidarzad ◽  
Mohammad Fathalipour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Supplemental Oxygen ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
General Group

AbstractThe novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and marketed drugs are being tested for repurposing, including Favipiravir. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We registered the protocol in the PROSPERO (CRD42020180032). All clinical trials which addressed the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in comparison to other control groups for treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV2 were included. We searched electronic databases including LitCovid/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scientific Information Database up to 31 December 2020. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane Collaboration criteria. All analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2, and the risk ratio index was calculated. Egger and Begg test was used for assessing publication bias. Nine studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a significant clinical improvement in the Favipiravir group versus the control group during seven days after hospitalization (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09–1.41; P = 0.001). Viral clearance was more in 14 days after hospitalization in Favipiravir group than control group, but this finding marginally not significant (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.98–1.25; P = 0.094). Requiring supplemental oxygen therapy in the Favipiravir group was 7% less than the control group, (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.67–1.28; P = 0.664). Transferred to ICU and adverse events were not statistically different between two groups. The mortality rate in the Favipiravir group was approximately 30% less than the control group, but this finding not statistically significant. Favipiravir possibly exerted no significant beneficial effect in the term of mortality in the general group of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. We should consider that perhaps the use of antiviral once the patient has symptoms is too late and this would explain their low efficacy in the clinical setting.

scholarly journals Autologous Matrix of Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Wound Care Settings: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chayane Karla Lucena de Carvalho ◽  
Beatriz Luci Fernandes ◽  
Mauren Abreu de Souza
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Chronic Wounds ◽  
Wound Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Clinical Heterogeneity ◽  
Platelet Rich Fibrin

Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) consists of a matrix that provides the necessary elements for wound healing, acting as a biodegradable scaffold for cell migration, proliferation, and differentiation, in addition to the delivery of growth factors and angiogenesis. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of the autologous PRF in the treatment of wounds of different etiologies. We carried out a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, guided by the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration using the following databases: Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. The search strategy resulted in the inclusion of ten studies that evaluated the use of PRF dressings for the healing of acute or chronic wounds of multiple etiologies. Among the 172 participants treated with PRF in wounds of varying etiologies and different segment times, 130 presented favorable events with the use of the intervention. Among the 10 studies included, only two of them did not demonstrate better results than the control group. The studies showed clinical heterogeneity, making it impossible to perform a meta-analysis. The findings do not provide enough evidence to support the routine use of PRF dressings as the first line of treatment for the healing of acute or chronic wounds of different etiologies. There was great variability in the application of the various protocols and the ways to prepare the PRF, resulting in clinical heterogeneity. Therefore, it makes it impossible to synthesize and to collect evidence from different types of studies in the meta-analysis, which affects the results and their proper discussion.

Effects of cinnamon supplementation on systolic and diastolic blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeinab Yazdanpanah ◽  
Mandana Amiri ◽  
Azadeh Nadjarzadeh ◽  
Hadis Hooshmandi ◽  
Maryam Azadi-Yazdi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Diastolic Blood Pressure ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Introduction: Hypertension is a chronic condition that might lead to renal and cardiovascular diseases. The previous trials examining the effect of cinnamon supplementation on blood pressure have led to conflicting results. The present systematic review aimed to summarize the effect of cinnamon supplementation on blood pressure using a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled clinical trials. Methods: To identify the eligible articles, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception until September 2019 for relevant articles. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane collaboration tool. A Random-effects model was applied to calculate the summary effects. Results: Totally, 11 trials with 686 participants were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The dose of cinnamon supplement consumption varied from 500 to 10000 mg/d. The meta-analysis revealed that cinnamon supplementation significantly decreases systolic blood pressure (SBP) [WMD (weighted mean difference)= -5.72 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -8.63 to -2.80; P<0.001, I2= 81.1)] and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD= -4.06 mmHg, 95% CI: -6.68 to -1.44; P= 0.002, I2 = 88.6). Subgroup analysis suggested no significant reduction of DBP in subjects with diabetes (WMD= -2.015 mmHg, 95% CI: -4.55 to 0.52; P= 0.12, I2 = 72.3) and prediabetes or metabolic syndrome (WMD= -4.8 mmHg, 95% CI: -10.06 to 0.44; P= 0.073, I2= 92.5). Conclusions: Cinnamon supplementation could be beneficial in lowering SBP and DBP in adults. Further studies with different doses are recommended to confirm the present findings.

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of antimuscarinics for the prevention or treatment of catheter-related bladder discomfort: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhongbao Zhou ◽  
Yuanshan Cui ◽  
Xiaoyi Zhang ◽  
Youyi Lu ◽  
Zhipeng Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Facial Flushing ◽  
Blurred Vision ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Objectives This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antimuscarinics for the prevention or treatment of catheter related bladder discomfort (CRBD). Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (from 1987 to July 2021) were used to search randomized controlled trials. The PRISMA checklists were followed. RevMan5.4.0 was used for statistical analysis. Results Eleven studies involving 1165 patients were involved in the analysis. The study reported that the incidence of CRBD observed in the antimuscarinics group was significantly lower than that of the control group at 0-, 1-, 2-, and 6-h after drug therapy (P = 0.001, P < 0.0001, P = 0.0005, and P = 0.001, respectively). For side effects, there were not statistical differences between the antimuscarinics group and the control group, mainly including dry mouth (risk ratio (RR) = 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.95 to 1.80, P = 0.09), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.90, P = 0.87), facial flushing (RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.43 to 2.61, P = 0.90), and blurred vision (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.35 to 2.58, P = 0.91). Besides, rescue analgesics were required less in the antimuscarinics group than in the control group (RR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.80, P = 0.003). Conclusions Compared with the control group, the antimuscarinics group had a significant improvement on CRBD, the patients were well tolerated and the use rate of rescue analgesics was low.

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

Vaccines ◽  
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.

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of interferons for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsaneh Noormandi ◽  
Mohammad Fathalipour ◽  
Reza Daryabeygi-Khotbehsara ◽  
Soheil Hassanipour
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Time Of Administration

Background and objective: COVID-19 has since been declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), infecting millions worldwide. The use of Interferon (INF) subtypes previously examined in the treatment of SARS and MERS is also being initiated in some clinical trials. Although different clinical trials were evaluated IFNs in the treatment of COVID-19, their efficacy and safety remain unknown. Therefore, this study aims to systematically assess IFNs efficacy and safety in treating patients with COVID-19. Methods: The protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register (CRD42020200643) on 24 July 2020. This protocol has been arranged according to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist. Discussion: Due to lack of approved medication for the covid-19 treatment and also various mutations of this virus, evaluated the efficacy and safety of medications by various studies could help for finding treatments with high effectiveness. IFNs are one of the medications that have been administered in covid-19 infection.  Moreover, the best time of administration and dose of this medication was unknown. Although meta-analysis is a potent source for assessing the accuracy of subjects, heterogeneity of articles is a potent limitation of our work.

Efficacy and safety of bone marrow-derived cell transplantation for spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 786-795 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao Chuan Li ◽  
Cheng Fan Zhong ◽  
Gui Bin Deng ◽  
Rong Wei Liang ◽  
Chun Ming Huang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Spinal Cord Injury ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cell Transplantation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Cord Injury
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document