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

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
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
English Language ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Independent Review

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 and analysis: 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 for the design and reporting 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 a netmeta package implemented in R. Ethics and dissemination: There are no ethical considerations associated with this study as we will use publicly available data from previously published studies. We plan to publish results in open access peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO registration number: ID=CRD42021230919.

scholarly journals Randomized Controlled Trials of Early Ambulatory Hydroxychloroquine in the Prevention of COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death: Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Ladapo ◽  
John E. McKinnon ◽  
Peter A. McCullough ◽  
Harvey Risch
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Exposure Prophylaxis

Objective--To determine if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) reduces the incidence of new illness, hospitalization or death among outpatients at risk for or infected with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Design--Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Data sources--Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, medRxiv, PROSPERO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Also review of reference lists from recent meta-analyses. Study selection--Randomized clinical trials in which participants were treated with HCQ or placebo/standard-of-care for pre-exposure prophylaxis, post-exposure prophylaxis, or outpatient therapy for COVID-19. Methods--Two investigators independently extracted data on trial design and outcomes. Medication side effects and adverse reactions were also assessed. The primary outcome was COVID-19 hospitalization or death. When unavailable, new COVID-19 infection was used. We calculated random effects meta-analysis according to the method of DerSimonian and Laird. Heterogeneity between the studies was evaluated by calculation of Cochran Q and I2 parameters. An Egger funnel plot was drawn to investigate publication bias. We also calculated the fixed effects meta-analysis summary of the five studies. All calculations were done in Excel, and results were considered to be statistically significant at a two-sided threshold of P=.05. Results--Five randomized controlled clinical trials enrolling 5,577 patients were included. HCQ was associated with a 24% reduction in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization or death, P=.025 (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.97]). No serious adverse cardiac events were reported. The most common side effects were gastrointestinal. Conclusion--Hydroxychloroquine use in outpatients reduces the incidence of the composite outcome of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death. Serious adverse events were not reported and cardiac arrhythmia was rare. Systematic review registration--This review was not registered.

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 Hydroxychloroquine Efficacy for the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nayara Izabel Viana ◽  
Ruan Pimenta ◽  
Guilherme Lopes Gonçalves ◽  
Thaynara Faria Gomes ◽  
Vanessa Ribeiro Guimarães ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antiviral Treatment ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Quality Information ◽  
Transmission Rates ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background and Purpose: COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease - 2019) represents a public health emergency because of the elevated transmission rates and associated mortality. There is an urgent need to limit the spread of the virus and to develop an effective antiviral treatment for the patients harboring such disease. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the results of the existing randomized clinical trials assessing the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat COVID-19.Methods: A systematic review was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) recommendations. Information from randomized controlled trials (RCT) was retrieved and included in a meta-analysis.Results: Among 214 studies that were found, 3 were included for in the meta‐ analysis. Patients treated with HCQ had a faster clearance of virus or pneumonia improvement than those that received standard treatment (OR = 7.08, 95% CI 2.79 to 4.12; P = 0.001). Only minor side effects were reported.Conclusions: Although this meta-analysis has found favorable evidence for the use of HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19, the literature does not yet present well-designed clinical studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of this medication. We believe that clinical trials coordinated by standardized guidelines, with complete and quality information, must be carried out worldwide and are urgently needed.

L-arginine effect on inflammatory mediators: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyed Reza Mirhafez ◽  
Mitra Hariri
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Inflammatory Mediators ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Human Adults ◽  
Factor Α

Abstract. L-arginine is an important factor in several physiological and biochemical processes. Recently, scientists studied L-arginine effect on inflammatory mediators such as C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). We conducted a systematic review on randomized controlled trials assessing L-arginine effect on inflammatory mediators. We searched data bases including Google scholar, ISI web of science, SCOPUS, and PubMed/Medline up to April 2019. Randomized clinical trials assessing the effect of L-arginine on inflammatory mediators in human adults were included. Our search retrieved eleven articles with 387 participants. Five articles were on patients with cancer and 6 articles were on adults without cancer. L-arginine was applied in enteral form in 5 articles and in oral form in 6 articles. Eight articles were on both genders, two articles were on women, and one article was on men. L-arginine could not reduce inflammatory mediators among patients with and without cancer except one article which indicated that taking L-arginine for 6 months decreased IL-6 among cardiopathic nondiabetic patients. Our results indicated that L-arginine might not be able to reduce selected inflammatory mediators, but for making a firm decision more studies are needed to be conducted with longer intervention duration, separately on male and female and with different doses of L-arginine.

Maternal and Neonatal Effect of Fentanyl as a Premedication before Induction of General Anesthesia in Cesarean Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 232-237
Author(s):  
Mir Hadi Musavi ◽  
Behzad Jodeiri ◽  
Keyvan Mirnia ◽  
Morteza Ghojazadeh ◽  
Zeinab Nikniaz
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cesarean Section ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Apgar Score ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intravenous Fentanyl ◽  
Neonatal Effect ◽  
Fentanyl Group

Background: Although, some clinical trials investigated the maternal and neonatal effect of fentanyl as a premedication before induction of general anesthesia in cesarean section, to the best of our knowledge, there is no systematic review to summarize these results. Objectives: The present systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the maternal and neonatal effect of intravenous fentanyl as a premedication before induction of general anesthesia in cesarean section. Methods: The databases of Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane library were searched till July 2017 to identify randomized clinical trials which evaluated the effects of intravenous fentanyl as a premedication before induction of general anesthesia compared with placebo on neonate first and fifth minute Apgar score and maternal heart rate and mean arterial pressure (MAP) in cesarean section. Standard Mean difference (SMD) was calculated and I-square statistic test was used for heterogeneity analysis. Results: The present systematic review and meta-analysis consisted of three clinical trials including 180 women in labor. Considering the results of meta-analysis, there is no significant differences between fentanyl and placebo in the case of Apgar score at 1 minute; however, the Apgar score of 5 minutes was significantly lower in fentanyl group compared with placebo (SMD -0.68, 95%CI: - 0.98, -0.38, p<0.001). In the term of maternal hemodynamics, the heart rate (SMD -0.43, 95%CI: - 0.72, -0.13, p=0.004) and MAP (SMD -0.78, 95% CI: -1.09, -0.48, p<0.001) in fentanyl group were significantly lower compared with placebo group. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis showed that using intravenous fentanyl as a premedication before induction of general anesthesia had adverse effects on neonate Apgar score. However, it had positive effects on preventing adverse consequences of intubation on maternal hemodynamics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document