scholarly journals Efficacy and harms of convalescent plasma for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Piscoya ◽  
Luis Ng-Sueng ◽  
Angela Parra del Riego ◽  
Renato Cerna-Viacava ◽  
Vinay Pasupuleti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Grade Methodology

IntroductionWe systematically reviewed benefits and harms of convalescent plasma (CP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Material and methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing CP effects on hospitalized, adult COVID-19 patients were searched until November 24, 2020. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement, and adverse events.ResultsFive RCTs (n = 1067) and 6 cohorts (n = 881) were included. Three and 1 RCTs had some concerns and high RoB, respectively; and there was serious RoB in all cohorts. Convalescent plasma did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of severe (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33–1.10) or moderate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.09–3.86) COVID-19 vs. standard of care (SOC); CP reduced all-cause mortality vs. SOC in cohorts (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49–0.91). Convalescent plasma did not reduce invasive ventilation vs. SOC in moderate disease (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.47–1.55). In comparison to placebo + SOC, CP did not affect all-cause mortality (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.48–1.16) or clinical improvement (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82–1.40) in severe patients. Adverse and serious adverse events were scarce, similar between CP and controls. Quality of evidence was low or very low for most outcomes.ConclusionsIn comparison to SOC or placebo + SOC, CP did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma did not have an effect on other clinical or safety outcomes. Until now there is no good quality evidence to recommend CP for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

scholarly journals Efficacy of early treatment with hydroxychloroquine in people with mild to moderate COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Hernandez ◽  
John Ingemi III ◽  
Michael Sherman ◽  
Vinay Pasupuleti ◽  
Joshuan Barboza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Early Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Viral Clearance ◽  
Treatment Intervention ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Symptom Resolution ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionNo early treatment intervention for COVID-19 has proven effective to date. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as early treatment for COVID-19.Material and methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine for early treatment of COVID-19 were searched in five engines and preprint websites until September 14, 2021. Primary outcomes were hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included COVID-19 symptom resolution, viral clearance, and adverse events. Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed and quality of evidence (QoE) per outcome was assessed with GRADE methods.ResultsFive RCTs (n=1848) were included. The comparator was placebo in four RCTs and usual care in one RCT. The RCTs used hydroxychloroquine total doses between 1,600 and 4,400 mg and had follow up times between 14 and 90 days. Compared to the controls, early treatment with hydroxychloroquine did not reduce hospitalizations (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.47-1.36, I2=2%, 5 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.16-3.68, I2=0%, 5 RCTs, very low QoE), symptom resolution (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.77-1.16, I2=71%, 3 RCTs, low QoE) or viral clearance at 14 days (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.82-1.27, I2=65%, 2 RCTs, low QoE). There was a higher non-significant increase of adverse events with hydroxychloroquine vs. controls (RR 2.17, 95%CI 0.86-5.45, I2=92%, 5 RCTs, very low QoE).ConclusionsHydroxychloroquine was not efficacious as early treatment for COVID-19 infections in RCTs with low to very low quality of evidence for all outcomes. More RCTs are needed to elucidate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as early treatment intervention.

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 Efficacy and safety of colchicine in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

RMD Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. e001746
Author(s):  
Kedar Gautambhai Mehta ◽  
Tejas Patel ◽  
Paragkumar D Chavda ◽  
Parvati Patel
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Ventilatory Support ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundColchicine, an anti-inflammatory drug is prescribed nowadays for COVID-19. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated efficacy and safety of colchicine in patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe searched databases for randomised controlled studies evaluating efficacy and/or safety of colchicine as compared with supportive care in patients with COVID-19. The efficacy outcomes were mortality, ventilatory support, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of hospital stay. The safety outcomes were adverse events, serious adverse events and diarrhoea. A meta-analytical summary was estimated using random effects model through Mantle-Hanzle method. An I2 test was used to assess heterogeneity. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess quality of evidence for each outcome.ResultsOut of 69 full texts assessed, 6 studies (16148 patients with COVID-19) were included in meta-analysis. Patients receiving colchicine did not show significant reduction in mortality (risk difference, RD −0.00 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.01), I2=15%), ventilatory support (risk ratio, RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.21), I2=47%), ICU admission (RR 0.49 (95% CI 0.19 to 1.25), I2=34%), length of hospital stay (mean difference: −1.17 (95% CI −3.02 to 0.67), I2=77%) and serious adverse events (RD −0.01 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.00), I2=28%) than those who received supportive care only. Patients receiving colchicine had higher rates of adverse events (RR 1.58 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.33), I2=81%) and diarrhoea (RR 1.93 (95% CI 1.62 to 2.29), I2=0%) than supportive care treated patients. The GRADE quality of evidence was moderate for most outcomes.ConclusionThe moderate quality evidence suggests no benefit of addition of colchicine to the standard care regimen in patients with COVID-19.

scholarly journals Efficacy and harms of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Piscoya ◽  
Luis Fernando Ng-Sueng ◽  
Angela Parra del Riego ◽  
Renato Cerna-Viacava ◽  
Vinay Pasupuleti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractBackgroundWe evaluated the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.MethodsSystematic review in five engines, pre-print webpages and RCT registries until May 22, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating remdesivir on confirmed, COVID-19 adults with pneumonia and/or respiratory insufficiency. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAE). Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, progression of pneumonia, and adverse events (AE). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed.ResultsTwo placebo-controlled RCTs (n=1300) and two case series (n=88) were included. All studies used remdesivir 200mg IV the first day and 100mg IV for 9 more days, and followed up until 28 days. Wang et al. RCT was stopped early due to AEs; ACTT-1 was preliminary reported at 15-day follow up. Time to clinical improvement was not decreased in Wang et al. RCT, but median time to recovery was decreased by 4 days in ACTT-1. Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28) and need for invasive ventilation at 14 days (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42), but had fewer SAEs (RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.63 to 0.94). AEs were similar between remdesivir and placebo arms. Risk of bias ranged from some concerns to high risk in RCTs.InterpretationThere is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in adult, hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Remdesivir should not be recommended for the treatment of severe COVID-19.

scholarly journals Ivabradine added to usual care in patients with heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111724
Author(s):  
Mathias Maagaard ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Naqash Javaid Sethi ◽  
Ning Liang ◽  
Si-Hong Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality

ObjectivesTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in participants with heart failure.DesignA systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Eligibility criteriaRandomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine and usual care with usual care (with or without) placebo in participants with heart failure.Information sourcesMedline, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, CNKI, VIP and other databases and trial registries up until 31 May 2021.Data extractionPrimary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and non-serious adverse events. We performed meta-analysis of all outcomes. We used trial sequential analysis to control risks of random errors, the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risks of systematic errors and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsWe included 109 randomised clinical trials with 26 567 participants. Two trials were at low risk of bias, although both trials were sponsored by the company that developed ivabradine. All other trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could reject that ivabradine versus control reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)=0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; p=0.09; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that ivabradine seemed to reduce the risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.94; p<0.00001; number needed to treat (NNT)=26.2; low certainty of evidence). This was primarily due to a decrease in the risk of ‘cardiac failure’ (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; p=0.02; NNT=43.9), ‘hospitalisations’ (RR=0.89; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; p<0.0001; NNT=36.4) and ‘ventricular tachycardia’ (RR=0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; p=0.001; NNT=212.8). However, the trials did not describe how these outcomes were defined and assessed during follow-up. Meta-analyses showed that ivabradine increased the risk of atrial fibrillation (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.35; p=0.008; number needed to harm (NNH)=116.3) and bradycardia (RR=3.95; 95% CI 1.88 to 8.29; p=0.0003; NNH=303). Ivabradine seemed to increase quality of life on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (mean difference (MD)=2.92; 95% CI 1.34 to 4.50; p=0.0003; low certainty of evidence), but the effect size was small and possibly without relevance to patients, and on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) (MD=−5.28; 95% CI −6.60 to −3.96; p<0.00001; very low certainty of evidence), but the effects were uncertain. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between ivabradine and control when assessing cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of non-serious adverse events.Conclusion and relevanceHigh certainty evidence shows that ivabradine does not seem to affect the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. The effects on quality of life were small and possibly without relevance to patients on the KCCQ and were very uncertain for the MLWHFQ. The effects on serious adverse events, myocardial infarction and hospitalisation are uncertain. Ivabradine seems to increase the risk of atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and non-serious adverse events.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018112082.

scholarly journals Efficacy and harms of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243705
Author(s):  
Alejandro Piscoya ◽  
Luis F. Ng-Sueng ◽  
Angela Parra del Riego ◽  
Renato Cerna-Viacava ◽  
Vinay Pasupuleti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Ordinal Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Background Efficacy and safety of treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 are uncertain. We systematically reviewed efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods Studies evaluating remdesivir in adults with hospitalized COVID-19 were searched in several engines until August 21, 2020. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. Results We included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2296) [two vs. placebo (n = 1299) and two comparing 5-day vs. 10-day regimens (n = 997)], and two case series (n = 88). Studies used intravenous remdesivir 200mg the first day and 100mg for four or nine more days. One RCT (n = 236) was stopped early due to AEs; the other three RCTs reported outcomes between 11 and 15 days. Time to recovery was decreased by 4 days with remdesivir vs. placebo in one RCT (n = 1063), and by 0.8 days with 5-days vs. 10-days of therapy in another RCT (n = 397). Clinical improvement was better for 5-days regimen vs. standard of care in one RCT (n = 600). Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28, I2 = 43%) and need for invasive ventilation (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42, I2 = 60%) vs. placebo at 14 days but had fewer SAEs; 5-day decreased need for invasive ventilation and SAEs vs. 10-day in one RCT (n = 397). No differences in all-cause mortality or SAEs were seen among 5-day, 10-day and standard of care. There were some concerns of bias to high risk of bias in RCTs. Heterogeneity between studies could be due to different severities of disease, days of therapy before outcome determination, and how ordinal data was analyzed. Conclusions There is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Until stronger evidence emerges, we cannot conclude that remdesivir is efficacious for treating COVID-19.

A Meta-Analysis of Safety of Different Regimens of Remdesivir in COVID-19 Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahanjit Konwar ◽  
Miteshkumar Maurya ◽  
Debdipta Bose
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Lower Drug ◽  
Us Fda ◽  
Renal Function Tests ◽  
Risk Ratios

: Remdesivir is an adenosine analogue drug that targets RNA dependent RNA polymerase enzyme and inhibits the viral replication. As on 22nd of October 2020, US FDA fully approved drug Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 patients who requires hospitalisation. Many clinical studies reported the derangement in hepatic and renal function tests which is alarming considering the health conditions of the COVID-19 patients. In view of these results, the present study was envisaged to review the safety of Remdesivir in COVID-19 patients. The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was searched using ‘Remdesivir’, ‘veklury’, ‘SARS’ and ‘COVID’ till 1st of December 2020. The studies included in this meta-analysis were either randomised or non-randomised studies that evaluated Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 against Placebo [standard of care]. The Adverse events [AEs], Serious adverse events [SAEs] and Treatment Discontinuation due to Adverse Events (TDAE) was used as primary outcome measures. The quality of studies was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessment of RoB. Data analysis was performed by two authors (MK & DB) using statistical software Review manager [Revman] version 5.3. The pooled Risk Ratios (RR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated by using a random-effects model for both primary and secondary outcomes. A total of four RCTs were included for the meta-analysis. Out of the four included clinical trials accepted for its methodological quality, three were of excellent quality and one study was of moderate quality. The pooled estimates of the three studies showed that Remdesivir had 24% lower risk of SAEs compared to placebo arm. However, the pooled estimates of two studies showed that 10 days of Remdesivir had 56% higher risk of SAEs compared to 5 days of Remdesivir regimen. Similarly, the 10 days of Remdesivir had two times higher risk of TDAEs compared to 5 days Remdesivir regimen. In conclusion, our meta-analysis demonstrated that Remdesivir is a safe therapeutic option. Our metanalysis revealed 5 days’ regimen have better safety profile than 10 days’ regimen of drug Remdesivir with respect to SAEs and TDAEs. For hospitalized patients, a 5-day course could be preferable with fewer safety concerns and lower drug costs.

scholarly journals Herbal Medicine (Sihogayonggolmoryeo-Tang or Chai-Hu-Jia-Long-Gu-Mu-Li-Tang) for Treating Hypertension:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Boram Lee ◽  
Chan-Young Kwon
Keyword(s):  
Herbal Medicine ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Consistent Difference ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Assessment Development

Introduction. For situations in which effective and safe natural-derived products to treat hypertension are needed, recent studies suggest that an herbal medicine, Sihogayonggolmoryeo-tang (SYM), can improve both hypertension and concurrent mood symptoms. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SYM in treating hypertension. Methods. Thirteen English, Korean, and Chinese databases were comprehensively searched from their inception to May 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using SYM as a monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for hypertension were evaluated. The primary outcome was the systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP). Descriptive analyses of the relevant data were conducted, and where appropriate data were available, a meta-analysis was performed, and the results were presented as a risk ratio or mean difference with 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results. Seven RCTs with 711 participants were included. Compared with placebo, SYM significantly lowered systolic and diastolic BP and concurrent depression. SYM significantly lowered systolic and diastolic BP compared with active controls; however, subgroup analysis revealed no differences between SYM and antihypertensives. In addition, SYM significantly decreased the level of concurrent depression compared with antidepressants. There was no consistent difference in BP reduction between SYM combined with antihypertensives and antihypertensives alone. No serious adverse events were reported following SYM administration. Most of the included studies had an unclear risk of bias, and the quality of evidence was generally rated “low.” Conclusion. Current evidence suggests that SYM may have the potential to lower hypertension and concurrent depressive symptoms without serious adverse events. Additional high-quality, placebo-controlled RCTs should be conducted to confirm the efficacy of SYM.

scholarly journals Acupuncture for post-stroke depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ran Liu ◽  
Kun Zhang ◽  
Qiu-yu Tong ◽  
Guang-wei Cui ◽  
Wen Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Stroke Depression ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Acupuncture for post-stroke depression (PSD) has been evolving, but uncertainty remains. To assess the existing evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for PSD, we sought to draw conclusions by synthesizing RCTs. Methods An exhaustive literature search was conducted in seven electronic databases from their inception dates to April 19, 2020, to identify systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) on this topic. The primary RCTs included in the SRs/MAs were identified. We also conducted a supplementary search for RCTs published from January 1, 2015, to May 12, 2020. Two reviewers extracted data separately and pooled data using RevMan 5.3 software. The quality of evidence was critically appraised with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results A total of 17 RCTs involving 1402 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that participants who received a combination of acupuncture and conventional treatments exhibited significantly lower scores on the HAM-D17, HAM-D24 and HAM-D (MD, − 5.08 [95% CI, − 6.48 to − 3.67], I2 = 0%), (MD, − 9.72 [95% CI, − 14.54 to − 4.91], I2 = 65%) and (MD, − 2.72 [95% CI, − 3.61 to − 1.82], respectively) than those who received conventional treatment. However, there was no significant difference in acupuncture versus antidepressants in terms of the 17-item, 24-item and HAM-D scales (MD, − 0.43 [95% CI, − 1.61 to 0.75], I2 = 51%), (MD, − 3.09 [95% CI, − 10.81 to 4.63], I2 = 90%) and (MD, − 1.55 [95% CI, − 4.36 to 1.26], I2 = 95%, respectively). For adverse events, acupuncture was associated with fewer adverse events than antidepressants (RR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.39], I2 = 35%), but there was no significant difference in the occurrence of adverse events between the combination of acupuncture and conventional treatments versus conventional treatments (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.21 to 1.83], I2 = 38%). The quality of evidence was low to very low due to the substantial heterogeneity among the included studies. Conclusions The current review indicates that acupuncture has greater effect on PSD and better safety profile than antidepressants, but high-quality evidence evaluating acupuncture for PSD is still needed.

scholarly journals Technology-assisted rehabilitation following total knee or hip replacement for people with osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xia Wang ◽  
David J. Hunter ◽  
Giovana Vesentini ◽  
Daniel Pozzobon ◽  
Manuela L. Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospital Readmissions ◽  
Functional Mobility ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Timed Up And Go ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Evaluation Approach

Abstract Background To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of technology-assisted rehabilitation following total hip/knee replacement (THR/TKR). Methods Six electronic databases were searched without language or time restrictions for relevant studies: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro); from inception to November 7th, 2018. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria to select eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effectiveness of technology-based interventions, compared with usual care or no intervention for people undergoing THR/TKR. Two reviewers independently extracted trial details (e.g. patients’ profile, intervention, outcomes, attrition and adverse events). Study methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results We identified 21 eligible studies assessing telerehabilitation, game- or web-based therapy. There were 17 studies (N = 2188) in post-TKR rehabilitation and 4 studies (N = 783) in post-THR rehabilitation. Compared to usual care, technology-based intervention was more effective in reducing pain (mean difference (MD): − 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): − 0.48, − 0.02; moderate evidence) and improving function measured with the timed up-and-go test (MD: -7.03; 95% CI: − 11.18, − 2.88) in people undergoing TKR. No between-group differences were observed in rates of hospital readmissions or treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in those studies. Conclusion There is moderate-quality of evidence showed technology-assisted rehabilitation, in particular, telerehabilitation, results in a statistically significant improvement in pain; and low-quality of evidence for the improvement in functional mobility in people undergoing TKR. The effects were however too small to be clinically significant. For THR, there is very limited low-quality evidence shows no significant effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document