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 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 The Effectiveness and Safety of Probiotic Supplements for Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Preclinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Liuting Zeng ◽  
Ganpeng Yu ◽  
Yang Wu ◽  
Wensa Hao ◽  
Hua Chen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intestinal Flora ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Skin Thickness ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Probiotic Treatment ◽  
Preclinical Trials

Background. Patients with psoriasis need long-term medication to control their condition. Recent studies suggest that changing the intestinal flora may be a potential treatment. Methods. The databases were utilized to search the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and preclinical trials about probiotic supplement in the treatment of psoriasis. The retrieval time is from the establishment of these databases to December 2020. RevMan5.3 was used for the risk assessment of bias and meta-analysis. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021232756). Results. A total of 3 RCTs involving 164 participants were included. Two RCTs showed that probiotics can improve PASI and thereby improve the condition. For inflammation-related indicators, only one RCT showed that probiotics can improve the levels of CRP and TNF-α but have no obvious improvement effect on IL6. One RCT demonstrated the total effective rate of probiotics in the treatment of psoriasis. For adverse events, one RCT showed that the incidence of adverse events of probiotic treatment was low. Preclinical studies showed that continuous intervention with oral probiotics can significantly improve the progression of psoriasis and reduce the expression of inflammatory factors. The meta-analysis showed that the PASI between two groups was of no statistical significance (SMD 1.83 [-0.41, 4.07], P = 0.11 ). Meanwhile, probiotics may improve skin thickness (SMD -5.87 [-11.34, -0.41], P = 0.04 ) in animal model. Conclusion. Prebiotics may have a positive effect on alleviating the clinical symptoms of psoriasis, but a large sample of RCTs is still needed to support its therapeutic effect in psoriasis.

scholarly journals Steroid therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarun Krishna Boppana ◽  
Saurabh Mittal ◽  
Karan Madan ◽  
Anant Mohan ◽  
Vijay Hadda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Steroid Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

There is an urgent need for effective treatment modalities for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Data for the use of steroids in COVID-19 is emerging. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effectiveness of steroid administration in mortality reduction due to COVID-19 compared to the control group. A systematic search of the Pubmed and Embase databases was performed to extract randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the use of steroid therapy for COVID-19. An overall and subgroup (based upon the type of steroid) pooled mortality analysis was performed, and odds ratios were reported. Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Six RCTs, including 7707 patients, were selected for review. Three trials reported 28-day mortality, and two trials reported 21-day mortality, and one trial reported in-hospital mortality. There were 730 deaths among 2837 participants in the steroid group while 1342 deaths among 4870 patients randomized to the control group (Odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.58-1.00, p=0.05). The effect was significant in patients on oxygen or mechanical ventilation. There was no difference in the various preparations and doses of the steroids. There was heterogeneity among the trials as the I2 value was 53%, with a p-value of 0.06. There was no indication of increased serious adverse events. This meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated that the use of systemic corticosteroids is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 on oxygen or mechanical ventilation.

Safety of Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid for Knee Osteoarthritis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Involving More than 8,000 Patients

Cartilage ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 194760351988878
Author(s):  
Larry E. Miller ◽  
Samir Bhattacharyya ◽  
William R. Parrish ◽  
Michael Fredericson ◽  
Brad Bisson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hyaluronic Acid ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Symptomatic Knee

Objective The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to report the safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods We identified randomized controlled trials reporting the safety of IAHA versus IA saline in adults with symptomatic knee OA. Main safety outcomes were adverse events (AEs), local AEs, serious adverse events (SAEs), study withdrawals, and AE-related study withdrawals. Results A total of 35 randomized controlled trials with 38 group comparisons comprising 8,078 unique patients (IAHA: 4,295, IA saline: 3,783) were included in the meta-analysis. Comparing IAHA with IA saline over a median of 6 months follow-up, there were no differences in the risk of AEs (42.4% vs. 39.7%, risk ratio [RR] = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.96-1.07, P = 0.61), SAEs (1.8% vs. 1.2%, RR = 1.44, 95% CI = 0.91-2.26, P=0.12), study withdrawals (12.3% vs. 12.7%, RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.87-1.12, P = 0.83), or AE-related study withdrawals (2.7% vs. 2.1%, RR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.97-1.93, P = 0.08). Local AEs, all of which were nonserious, were more common with IAHA vs. IA saline (14.5% vs. 11.7%, RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.07-1.36, P = 0.003) and typically resolved within days. Conclusion IAHA was shown to be safe for use in patients with symptomatic knee OA. Compared with IA saline, IAHA is associated with an increased risk of nonserious, transient local reactions. There was no evidence to suggest any additional safety risks of IAHA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document