scholarly journals The safety, tolerability and mortality reduction efficacy of remdesivir; based on randomized clinical trials, observational and case studies reported safety outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204209862110425
Author(s):  
Chenchula Santenna ◽  
Kota Vidyasagar ◽  
Krishna Chaitanya Amarneni ◽  
Sai Nikhila Ghanta ◽  
Balakrishnan Sadasivam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antiviral Drug ◽  
Mortality Reduction ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

Introduction: Remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug has shown to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), both in vitro and in vivo. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to quantify the safety and tolerability of remdesivir, based on safety outcome findings from randomized controlled trials, observational studies and case reports of remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: We have performed a systematic search in the PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library using specific keywords such as ‘COVID-19’ OR ‘SARS CoV-2’ AND ‘Remdesivir’. The study endpoints include total adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), grade 3 and grade 4 AEs, mortality and drug tolerability. Statistical analysis was carried out by using Revman 5.4 software. Results: Total 15 studies were included for systematic review, but only 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) ( n = 13,622) were included for meta-analysis. Visual inspection of the forest plots for remdesivir 10-day versus placebo and remdesivir 10-day versus 5-day groups revealed that there is a significant difference in SAEs [10-day remdesivir versus control (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 0.40–0.74) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.56, 0.38–0.84) p = 0.005; I2 = 13%]. In grade 4 AEs, there is a significant difference in 10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.32, 0.19–0.54) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%, but not in comparison to 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.95, 0.59–1.54) p = 0.85; I2 = 0%. But there is no significant difference in grade 3 AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 0.81, 0.59–1.11) p = 0.19; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.24, 0.86–1.80) p = 0.25; I2 = 0%], in total AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.07, 0.66–1.75) p = 0.77; I2 = 79%; remdesivir 10 day versus 5 day (OR = 1.08, 0.70–1.68) p = 0.73; I2 = 54%)], in mortality [10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.93, 0.80–1.08) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.39, 0.73–2.62) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%)] and tolerability [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.05, 0.51–2.18) p = 0.89; I2 = 65%, 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.86, 0.18–4.01) p = 0.85; I2 = 78%]. Discussion & Conclusion: Ten-day remdesivir was a safe antiviral agent but not tolerable over control in the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a need of administration cautiousness for grade 3 AEs. There was no added benefit of 10- or 5-day remdesivir in reducing mortality over placebo. To avoid SAEs, we suggest for prior monitoring of liver function tests (LFT), renal function tests (RFT), complete blood count (CBC) and serum electrolytes for those with preexisting hepatic and renal impairments and patients receiving concomitant hepatotoxic or nephrotoxic drugs. Furthermore, a number of RCTs of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients are suggested. Plain Language Summary Ten-day remdesivir is a safe antiviral drug with common adverse events in comparison to placebo. The rate of serious adverse events and grade 3 adverse events were significantly lower in 10-day remdesivir in comparison to placebo/5-day remdesivir. There was no significant difference in the rate of tolerability and mortality reduction in 10-day remdesivir over placebo/5-day remdesivir. There were no new safety signals reported in vulnerable populations, paediatric, pregnant and lactating women.

scholarly journals Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Safety of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine From Randomized Controlled Trials on Malarial and Non-malarial Conditions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayra Souza Botelho ◽  
Fernanda Bolfi ◽  
Renata Giacomini Occhiuto Ferreira Leite ◽  
Mauro Salles Ferreira Leite ◽  
Luisa Rocco Banzato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Cardiac Complications ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Despite the expectations regarding the effectiveness of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) management, concerns about their adverse events have remained. Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of CQ and HCQ from malarial and non-malarial randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: The primary outcomes were the frequencies of serious adverse events (SAEs), retinopathy, and cardiac complications. Search strategies were applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Trip databases. We used random-effects model to pool results across studies and Peto one-step odds ratio (OR) for event rates below 1 %. Both-armed zero-event studies were excluded from the meta-analyses. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.Results: Ninety-two RCTs were included. We found no significant difference between CQ/HCQ and control (placebo or non-CQ/HCQ) in the frequency of SAEs (OR: 0.98, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.71–1.36, 25 trials, 11,605 participants, moderate certainty of evidence). No clear relationship was observed between CQ/HCQ and retinopathy (OR: 1,63, 95 % CI: -0.4–6.57, 5 trials, 344 participants, very low certainty of evidence). There was a low certainty of evidence of the effect of CQ/HCQ versus control on cardiac complications (Relative risk: 1.48, 95 % CI: 1.1–1.98, 8 trials, 5,970 participants).Conclusions: CQ and HCQ might be safe, with low frequency of SAEs on malarial and non-malarial conditions. No clear effect of their use on the incidence of retinopathy and cardiac complications was observed.The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020177818)

scholarly journals Risk of Pneumonitis Associated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
You-Meng Sun ◽  
Wei Li ◽  
Zhi-Yu Chen ◽  
Ying Wang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Conventional Chemotherapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically altered the treatment landscape for patients with melanoma. However, their use also generates unique immune-related adverse effects (irAEs). We performed a systematic review and network meta‐analysis to compare the risk of pneumonitis associated with ICIs for patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma.MethodsPhase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with ICIs were identified through comprehensive searches of multiple databases. An NMA was conducted to compare the risk of pneumonitis associated with ICIs and all‐grade (grade 1‐5) and high‐grade (grade 3‐5) immune‐related pneumonitis (IRP) were estimated by odds ratios (ORs).ResultsA total of 10 randomized clinical trials involving 5,335 patients were enrolled in this study. Conventional chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of grade 1–5 IRP compared with ICIs monotherapy (OR, 0.14, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.73) and dual ICIs combination (OR, 0.03, 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.19). In addition, dual ICIs combination showed a noticeably higher risk than ICI monotherapy (OR, 4.45, 95% CI, 2.14 to 9.25) of grade 1–5 IRP. No significant difference in grade 1–5 IRP was observed between cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors. As to grade 3‐5 IRP, no statistically significant difference was found among different ICIs-based regimens.ConclusionThese findings revealed that ICIs could increase the risk of all-grade pneumonitis for patients with advanced melanoma, compared with conventional chemotherapy. Dual ICIs combination could further increase the risk of all-grade pneumonitis than ICIs monotherapy. There was no significant difference in the risk of pneumonia between CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors.

scholarly journals The effects of adding glucocorticosteroids to standard care for children with sepsis. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sanam Safi ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Janus C Jakobsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Glucocorticosteroids are widely used to treat severe sepsis in pediatric intensive care units. However, the evidence on the clinical effects is unclear.Objective: To assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis. Data Sources: We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) (PROSPERO CRD42017054341). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, and more. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of adding glucocorticosteroids to standard care for children with sepsis. Data Extraction: Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Evidence was assessed by GRADE according to our published protocol.Data Synthesis: We included 24 trials randomizing 3073 participants. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of an effect of adding glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis with a mixed focus for any of our outcomes. Meta-analyses suggested evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone for children with meningitis when assessing serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.86; P = 0.001, very low certainty of evidence) and ototoxicity (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88; P = 0.007, low certainty of evidence). TSAs showed that we did not have sufficient data to confirm or reject these results. We found insufficient evidence to confirm or reject an effect on mortality or our other outcomes. No trials reported quality of life or organ failure. Most trials were at high risks of bias. We found high clinical heterogeneity between participants. None of our TSAs showed benefits, harms or futility. Conclusions: Generally, we found no evidence of an effect of glucocorticosteroids for children with sepsis without meningitis. Dexamethasone for sepsis in children due to meningitis may decrease serious adverse events and ototoxicity.

675 FUNDOPLICATION VERSUS ORAL PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS FOR GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Schiliró Tristão ◽  
Francisco Tustumi ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Letícia Nogueira Datrino ◽  
Maria Carolina Andrade Serafim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Reflux Disease ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Intake

Abstract   Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a widely studied and highly prevalent condition. However, few is reported about the exact efficacy and safety of fundoplication (FPT) compared to oral intake proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) aims to compare PPI and FPT in relation to the efficacy, as well as the adverse events associated with these therapies. Methods This systematic review was guided by PRISMA statement. Search carried out in June 2020 was conducted on Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE and LILACS. The inclusion criteria were (I) patients with GERD; (II) Randomized clinical trials, comparing oral intake PPI with FPT; (III) relevant outcomes for this review. The exclusion criteria were (I) reviews, case reports, editorials and letters (II) transoral or endoscopic FPT (III) studies with no full text. No restrictions were set for language or period. Certainty of evidence and risk of bias were assessed with GRADE Pro and with Review Manager Version 5.4 bias assessment tool. Results Ten RCT were included. Meta-analysis showed that heartburn (RD = −0.19; 95% CI = −0.29, −0.09) was less frequently reported by patients that underwent FPT. Furthermore, patients undergoing surgery had greater pressure on the lower esophageal sphincter than those who used PPI (MD = 7.81; 95% CI 4.79, 10.83). There was no significant difference between groups in the percentage of time with pH less than 4 in 24 hours, sustained remission and Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. Finally, FPT did not increase significantly the risk for adverse events such as postoperative dysphagia and impaired belching. Conclusion FPT is a more effective therapy than PPI treatment for GERD, without significantly increasing the risk for adverse events. However, before indicating a possible surgical approach, it is extremely important to correctly assess and select the patients who would benefit from FPT, such as those with severe erosive esophagitis, severe respiratory symptoms, low adherence to continuous drug treatment and patients with non-acid reflux, to ensure better results.

scholarly journals Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492

Metabolic complications with the use of mTOR inhibitors for cancer therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 398-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanthi Sivendran ◽  
Jian Ying ◽  
Benjamin Adam Gartrell ◽  
Neeraj Agarwal ◽  
Kenneth M. Boucher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mtor Inhibitors ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Metabolic Complications ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Grade 3

398 Background: mTOR inhibitors are approved in several malignancies including renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The risk of metabolic complications with these agents is not well characterized. Methods: PubMed was searched for articles published from 2001 until 2011. Eligible studies included prospective randomized trials evaluating temsirolimus, everolimus, and ridaforolimus in patients with all solid tumor malignancies. 16 eligible phase II clinical trials and 8 randomized controlled clinical trials were included in a systematic review and meta-analysis and the number of metabolic related AEs including hyperglycemia, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertriglyceridemia were extracted. Incidence rates and incident rate ratios were calculated. Results: In total, 24 trials (including 4,261 patients) were included. The average incidence rate of any grade metabolic adverse events and grade 3-4 metabolic adverse events was 0.70 per patient and 0.11 (95% CI, 0.08, 0.15) per patient respectively. Analysis of the 3,317 patients across 8 RCT’s revealed that the log incidence rate ratio (IRR) of any grade metabolic adverse events with mTOR inhibitor therapy compared with control was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84, 1.31) using a random-effects model. The risk of grade 3-4 adverse events was also increased with an IRR of 1.52 (95% CI, 1.05, 1.99). The IRR of all grade hyperglycemia was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.76, 1.40) and of grade 3-4 hyperglycemia was 1.66 (95% CI, 1.12, 2.20). The IRR of all grade hypertriglyceridemia was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.56, 1.26) and of grade 3-4 hypertriglyceridemia was 0.70 (95% CI,- 0.43, 1.83). The IRR of all grade hypercholesterolemia was 1.21 (95% CI, 0.77, 1.65) and of grade 3-4 hypercholesterolemia was 1.21 (95% CI, 0.77, 1.65). These findings suggest a statistically significant increase in the risk of hyperglycemia, hypercholesterolemia (all grades and grade 3 and 4), and all grade hypertriglyceridemia associated with mTOR therapy when compared with control. Conclusions: The risk of all grade and grade 3-4 metabolic adverse events are increased in patients treated with mTOR inhibitors compared with control. However, grade 3-4 metabolic adverse events remain relatively uncommon.

scholarly journals Long-acting muscarinic antagonists vs. long-acting β 2 agonists in COPD exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 302-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israel Silva Maia ◽  
Mariângela Pimentel Pincelli ◽  
Victor Figueiredo Leite ◽  
João Amadera ◽  
Anna Maria Buehler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Muscarinic Antagonists ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Exacerbation Rate ◽  
Copd Exacerbations ◽  
Long Acting

ABSTRACT Objective: To determine whether long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) provide superior therapeutic effects over long-acting β2 agonists (LABAs) for preventing COPD exacerbations. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving patients with stable, moderate to severe COPD according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease criteria, treated with a LAMA (i.e., tiotropium bromide, aclidinium, or glycopyrronium), followed for at least 12 weeks and compared with controls using a LABA in isolation or in combination with a corticosteroid. Results: A total of 2,622 studies were analyzed for possible inclusion on the basis of their title and abstract; 9 studies (17,120 participants) were included in the analysis. In comparison with LABAs, LAMAs led to a greater decrease in the exacerbation rate ratio (relative risk [RR] = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84-0.93]; a lower proportion of patients who experienced at least one exacerbation (RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87-0.94; p < 0.00001); a lower risk of exacerbation-related hospitalizations (RR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.69-0.87; p < 0.0001); and a lower number of serious adverse events (RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67-0.96; p = 0.0002). The overall quality of evidence was moderate for all outcomes. Conclusions: The major findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis were that LAMAs significantly reduced the exacerbation rate (exacerbation episodes/year), as well as the number of exacerbation episodes, of hospitalizations, and of serious adverse events.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and Safety of Remdesivir in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hai-Bo Yao ◽  
Jie-Ru Peng ◽  
Xue-Mei Zheng ◽  
Zhuo Yang ◽  
Huang Yan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Antiviral Drug ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Effect Model ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Remdesivir, a nucleoside analogue antiviral drug developed for Ebola, is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19. However, the findings of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies vary regarding the effectiveness of remdesivir. We aimed to comprehensively review the available evidence identify the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19.Methods: Seven databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang database, SinoMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and Chinese Science Journal Database) were searched for literatures published until November 2020.Following the PRISMA flow diagram, we included RCTs and prospective observational studies that reported the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19. With extracting study details, as well as patient characteristics and outcomes, data were meta-analyzed by using Review Manager software version 5.4.1. Meta-analyses were conducted with fixed-effect model or random-effect model to calculate risk ratio (RR).Results: Four studies involving 2,279 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, 10-day remdesivir was associated with significant increased clinical improvement on days 14 and 28 with RR 1.19 (95%CI 1.09-1.30) and RR 1.09 (95%CI 1.03-1.16). The clinical improvement of 5-day remdesivir was better than 10-day remdesivir on days 7 with RR 1.20 (95%CI 1.02-1.41), but the efficacy advantage of 5-day remdesivir disappeared on days 14 (RR 1.08; 95%CI 0.90-1.29). Remdesivir was associated with lower serious adverse events rates and grade 3 or 4 adverse events rates as compared with placebo with RR 0.75(95%CI 0.63-0.89) and RR 0.89(95%CI 0.80-0.99). Compared with 10-day remdesivir, 5-day remdesivir for patients with COVID-19 decreased the risk of serious adverse events rates and grade 3 or 4 adverse events rates with RR 0.65(95%CI 0.47-0.88) and RR 0.74 (95%CI 0.58-0.95). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggested that remdesivir would increase clinical improvement conditions and decrease serious adverse events on patients with COVID-19. 5-day remdesivir had the similar clinical effectiveness and mortality with 10-day remdesivir, and had lower serious adverse events rate. Comprehensive considering the cost and benefit, 5-day remdesivir may be a better therapeutic option if available medical resources are limited.

scholarly journals Comparing The Efficacy of Anti-Infectious Drugs For The Treatment of Mild To Severe COVID-19 Patients: A Protocol For A Systematic Review And Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dejene Tolossa Debela ◽  
Kidist Digamo Heraro ◽  
Abebaw Fekadu ◽  
Merga Belina ◽  
Tsegahun Manyazewal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
English Language ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antiviral Drug ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Independent Review

Abstract Background: COVID-19 is a viral infection spreading at a great speed and has quickly caused an extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. No intervention has yet been proven highly effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Different drugs were being evaluated and reported through randomized clinical trials, and more are currently under trial. This review aimed to compare the efficacy of anti-infectious drugs with a comparator of the standard of care or placebo in patients with COVID-19.Methods: Two independent review authors will extract data and assess a risk of bias using RoB2. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluate single and/or combined antiviral drugs recommended by WHO latest guideline for the treatment of COVID-19 will be included. We will search for Pub Med, the Cochrane Center for Clinical Trial database (CENTRAL), clinicaltrials.gov, etc. databases for articles published in the English language between December 2019 to April 2021. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) involving Network Meta-analysis guidelines to design and report of the results. The primary endpoints will be time to clinical recovery and time to RNA negativity. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE extension of NMA. Data analysis will be performed using the frequentist NMA approach with the netmeta package implemented in R.Discussion: This review will reveal the best antiviral drug treatment for covid-19 and show the hierarchy of those drugs.Systematic review registration: The protocol was registered on PROSPERO with ID number CRD42021230919

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document