scholarly journals Outpatient therapies for COVID-19: How do we choose?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd C Lee ◽  
Andrew M Morris ◽  
Steven A Grover ◽  
Srinivas Murthy ◽  
Emily G McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Drug Efficacy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Government Purchases ◽  
Choice Of Therapy

Background: Several outpatient COVID-19 therapies have reduced hospitalization in randomized controlled trials. The choice of therapy may depend on drug efficacy, toxicity, pricing, availability, and access to administration infrastructure. To facilitate comparative decision making, we evaluated the efficacy of each treatment in clinical trials and then estimated the associated cost per hospitalization prevented. Methods: Wherever possible, we obtained relative risk for hospitalization from published randomized controlled trials. Otherwise, we extracted data from press releases, conference abstracts, government submissions, or preprints. If more than one study was published, the results were meta-analyzed. Using relative risk, we estimated the number needed to treat (NNT), assuming a baseline hospitalization risk of 5%. Drug pricing was based on Canadian formularies, government purchases, or manufacturer estimates. Administrative and societal costs were not included. Results will be updated online as new studies emerge or final publication numbers become available. Results: At a 5% risk of hospitalization the estimated NNTs were: 87 for colchicine, 80 for fluvoxamine, 72 for inhaled corticosteroids, 24 for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 25 for sotrovimab, 24 for remdesivir, 29 for casirivimab/imdevimab, 29 for bamlanivimab/etesevimab and 52 for molnupiravir. Colchicine, fluvoxamine, inhaled corticosteroids, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had cost per hospitalization prevented point estimates below the CIHI estimated cost of hospitalization ($23000). Interpretation: Canada is fortunate to have access to several effective outpatient therapies to prevent COVID-19 hospitalization. Given differences in efficacy, toxicity, cost and administration complexities, this assessment serves as one tool to help guide policy makers and clinicians in their treatment selection.

scholarly journals Lower Risk of Recurrence After Mesh Repair Versus Non-Mesh Sutured Repair in Open Umbilical Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 108 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Bisgaard ◽  
R. Kaufmann ◽  
M. W. Christoffersen ◽  
P. Strandfelt ◽  
L. L. Gluud
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Mesh Repair ◽  
Umbilical Hernia ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Seroma Formation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background and Aims: The use of mesh repair in a small- or middle-sized umbilical hernia remains controversial, and evidence is based on only few and small heterogeneous randomized trials. The primary aim was to assess differences, if any, in recurrence (clinical and reoperation), and secondary aim was to assess differences in infections, seroma formation, hematomas, chronic pain, cosmetic result, and quality of life. Method: A systematic review (predefined search strategy) and meta-analyses were conducted based on pre-study strict and well-defined methodology. The literature search was completed on 1 January 2018. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Results: Five randomized controlled trials were identified (mesh repair, n = 326 versus non-mesh sutured repair, n = 330) and 602 records were excluded. Randomized controlled trials included patients with defect diameters of ⩾1 to 4 cm. Mesh repair reduced the risk of recurrence compared with sutured repair with a relative risk of 0.28 (95% confidence interval = 0.13–0.58, I2 = 0%, number needed to treat = 13 patients). Additional analyses found no differences between the two surgical techniques regarding infection (relative risk = 0.80, 95% confidence interval = 0.36–1.79), seroma formation (relative risk = 1.38, 95% confidence interval = 0.57–3.32), or hematomas (relative risk = 0.55, 95% confidence interval = 0.23–1.30). Lack of sufficient data precluded meta-analysis evaluating risk of seroma formation, hematomas, chronic pain, cosmetic result, and quality of life. Conclusion: Mesh repair is recommended for umbilical hernia of ⩾1 to 4 cm. More evidence is needed for the optimal placement of the mesh (sublay or onlay) and the role of mesh in patients with an umbilical hernia <1 cm.

scholarly journals Safety of Intravenous Iron in Dialysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 457-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid Hougen ◽  
David Collister ◽  
Mathieu Bourrier ◽  
Thomas Ferguson ◽  
Laura Hochheim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Intravenous Iron ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background and objectivesThe safety of intravenous iron dosing in dialysis is uncertain. Higher-dose intravenous iron may be associated with a higher risk of infections, cardiovascular events, hospitalizations, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to determine the safety of higher-dose versus lower-dose intravenous iron, oral iron, or no iron supplementation in adult patients treated with dialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and CINAHL from inception to January 6, 2017 for randomized, controlled trials and observational studies comparing higher-dose intravenous iron with lower-dose intravenous iron, oral iron, or no iron in patients treated with dialysis that had all-cause mortality, infection, cardiovascular events, or hospitalizations as outcomes.ResultsOf the 2231 eligible studies, seven randomized, controlled trials and 15 observational studies met inclusion criteria. The randomized, controlled trials showed no association between higher-dose intravenous iron (>400 mg/mo for most studies) and mortality (six studies; n=970; pooled relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 1.84; follow-up ranging from 35 days to 26 months) or infection (four studies; n=743; relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.41). The observational studies showed no association between higher-dose intravenous iron (>200 mg/mo for most studies) and mortality (eight studies; n=241,408; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.98 to 1.21; follow-up ranging from 3 to 24 months), infection (eight studies; n=135,532; pooled hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.28), cardiovascular events (seven studies; n=135,675; hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.56), or hospitalizations (five studies; n=134,324; hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.19).ConclusionsHigher-dose intravenous iron does not seem to be associated with higher risk of mortality, infection, cardiovascular events, or hospitalizations in adult patients on dialysis. Strength of this finding is limited by small numbers of participants and events in the randomized, controlled trials and statistical heterogeneity in observational studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document