scholarly journals Tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vijairam Selvaraj ◽  
Mohammad Saud Khan ◽  
Kwame Dapaah-Afriyie ◽  
Arkadiy Finn ◽  
Chirag Bavishi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality

ABSTRACTBackgroundTo date, only dexamethasone has been shown to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients. Tocilizumab has been recently added to the treatment guidelines for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but data remains conflicting.MethodsElectronic databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane central were searched from March 1, 2020, until February 28th, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of tocilizumab in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality at 28 days, mechanical ventilation, and time to discharge.ResultsEight studies (with 6,311 patients) were included in the analysis. In total, 3,267 patients received tocilizumab, and 3,044 received standard care/placebo. Pooled analysis showed a significantly decreased risk of all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97, p=0.009) and progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.90, p=0.0002) in the tocilizumab arm compared to standard therapy or placebo. In addition, there was a trend towards improved median time to hospital discharge (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.34, p=0.007).ConclusionsTocilizumab therapy improves outcomes of mortality and need for mechanical ventilation, in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection compared with standard therapy or placebo. Our findings suggest the efficacy of tocilizumab therapy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and strengthen the concept that tocilizumab is a promising therapeutic intervention to improve mortality and morbidity in COVID-19 patients.

scholarly journals Tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
pp. jim-2021-002001
Author(s):  
Samiksha Gupta ◽  
Rana Prathap Padappayil ◽  
Agam Bansal ◽  
Salim Daouk ◽  
Brent Brown
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Tocilizumab is an interleukin receptor inhibitor that has been used in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. There are recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation. RCTs comparing tocilizumab with the standard of care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia not requiring mechanical ventilation at the time of administration were included for analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality and the secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality and major adverse events. A total of 6 RCTs were included for the analysis. Tocilizumab was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the primary composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.92, I2=0, tau2=0). Treatment with tocilizumab did not show a statistically significant reduction in 28-day mortality (RR: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.07), I2=0, tau2=0) and rate of serious adverse events (RR: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.62 to 1.10), I2=0, tau2=0). Tocilizumab was associated with a decrease in the incidence of primary outcome, that is, mechanical ventilation or death at 28 days in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

scholarly journals Effects of early extubation followed by noninvasive ventilation versus standard extubation on the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic non-hypercapnic patients: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosanna Vaschetto ◽  
Alessandro Pecere ◽  
Gavin D. Perkins ◽  
Dipesh Mistry ◽  
Gianmaria Cammarota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Noninvasive Ventilation ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Early Extubation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Usefulness of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in weaning patients with non-hypercapnic hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) is unclear. The study aims to assess in patients with non-hypercapnic hARF, the efficacy of NIV after early extubation, compared to standard weaning. Methods In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials published from database inception to October 2020. To be eligible, studies had to include patients treated with NIV after early extubation and compared to conventional weaning in adult non-hypercapnic hARF patients. Anonymized individual patient data from eligible studies were provided by study investigators. Using one-step and two-step meta-analysis models we tested the difference in total days spent on invasive ventilation. Results We screened 1605 records. Six studies were included in quantitative synthesis. Overall, 459 participants (mean [SD] age, 62 [15] years; 269 [59%] males) recovering from hARF were included in the analysis (233 in the intervention group and 226 controls). Participants receiving NIV had a shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation compared to control group (mean difference, − 3.43; 95% CI − 5.17 to − 1.69 days, p < 0.001), a shorter duration of total days spent on mechanical ventilation (mean difference, − 2.04; 95% CI − 3.82 to − 0.27 days, p = 0.024), a reduced risk of ventilatory associated pneumonia (odds ratio, 0.24; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71, p = 0.014), a reduction of time spent in ICU (time ratio, 0.81; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.96, p = 0.015) and in-hospital (time ratio, 0.81; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95, p = 0.010), with no difference in ICU mortality. Conclusions Although primary studies are limited, using an individual patient data metanalysis approach, NIV after early extubation appears useful in reducing total days spent on invasive mechanical ventilation. Trial registration The protocol was registered to PROSPERO database on 12/06/2019 and available at PROSPERO website inserting the study code i.e., CRD42019133837.

scholarly journals Vitamin D supplementation, COVID-19 and disease severity: a meta-analysis

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Shah ◽  
D Saxena ◽  
D Mavalankar
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin D ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin D Supplementation ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Objective: Current meta-analysis aims to understand the effect of oral supplementation of vitamin D on intensive care unit (ICU) requirement and mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: Databases PubMed, preprint servers, and google scholar were searched from December 2019 to December 2020. Authors searched for the articles assessing role of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19. Cochrane RevMan tool was used for quantitative assessment of the data, where heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and Q statistics and data was expressed using odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Results: Final meta-analysis involved pooled data of 532 hospitalized patients (189 on vitamin D supplementation and 343 on usual care/placebo) of COVID-19 from three studies (Two randomized controlled trials, one retrospective case-control study). Statistically (p&lt;0.0001) lower ICU requirement was observed in patients with vitamin D supplementation as compared to patients without supplementations (odds ratio: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.210-0.626). However, it suffered from significant heterogeneity, which reduced after sensitivity analysis. In case of mortality, vitamin D supplements has comparable findings with placebo treatment/usual care (odds ratio: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.413-2.113; p=0.87). The studies did not show any publication bias and had fair quality score. Subgroup analysis could not be performed due to limited number of studies and hence dose and duration dependent effect of vitamin D could not be evaluated. Conclusions: Although the current meta-analysis findings indicate potential role of vitamin D in improving COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients, more robust data from randomized controlled trials are needed to substantiate its effects on mortality.

Long-term mortality and patency after drug-coated balloon angioplasty in the hemodialysis circuit: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2022 ◽  
pp. 112972982110701
Author(s):  
Yunfeng Li ◽  
Zhenwei Shi ◽  
Yunyun Zhao ◽  
Zhanjiang Cao ◽  
Zhengli Tan
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Balloon Angioplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Patency ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Technical Success ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Drug Coated Balloon

Purpose: To compare all-cause mortality and primary patency with drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) compared with plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) in people with hemodialysis-related stenosis. Materials and methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from November 1966 to February 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the use of DCBA versus PBA for stenosis in hemodialysis circuits. Data extracted from the articles were integrated to determine all-cause mortality, target lesion primary patency (TLPP), circuit access primary patency (CAPP), 30-day adverse events, and technical success for the two approaches. We performed meta-analysis on these results using a fixed-effects model to evaluate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where I2 < 50% in a test for heterogeneity, or a random-effect model if otherwise. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: Sixteen RCTs of 1672 individuals were included in our meta-analysis, of which 839 individuals received DCBA and 833 received PBA. The pooled outcome showed no statistical difference between DCBA and PBA in all-cause mortality at 6 months (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.72–2.32, p = 0.39, I2 = 4%), 12 months (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.68–1.53, p = 0.91, I2 = 0%), and 24 months (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 0.87–2.57, p = 0.15, I2 = 0%), 30-day adverse events (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.30–3.98, p = 0.90, I2 = 66%), and technical success (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.02–1.92, p = 0.16, I2 = 65%). The DCBA had significantly better outcomes versus PBA in TLPP at 6 months (OR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.84–3.04, p < 0.001, I2 = 44%) and 12 months (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.22–2.56, p = 0.002, I2 = 56%), and CAPP at 6 months (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.21–3.54, p = 0.008, I2 = 67%) and 12 months (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.29–2.15, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: In hemodialysis circuit stenosis, DCBA appears to have similar safety but greater efficacy than PBA.

scholarly journals Intravenous Colistin Monotherapy versus Combination Therapy against Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Infections: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 208 ◽  
Author(s):  
I-Ling Cheng ◽  
Yu-Hung Chen ◽  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
Hung-Jen Tang
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Gram Negative Bacteria ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Carbapenem Resistant ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality

This meta-analysis aims to compare intravenous colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (GNB) infections. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating colistin alone and colistin-based combination therapy in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant GNB infections were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Five RCTs including 791 patients were included. Overall, colistin monotherapy was associated with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89–1.20, I2 = 0%) for all-cause mortality compared with colistin-based combination therapy. The non-significant difference was also detected in infection-related mortality (RR, 1.23, 95% CI, 0.91–1.67, I2 = 0%) and microbiologic response (RR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.72–1.04, I2 = 62%). In addition, no significant difference was observed in the subgroup analysis—high or low dose, with or without a loading dose, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections, and in combination with rifampicin. Finally, colistin monotherapy was not associated with lower nephrotoxicity than colistin combination therapy (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84–1.21, I2 = 0%). Based on the analysis of the five RCTs, no differences were found between colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant GNB infections, especially for A. baumannii infections.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document