scholarly journals Macrolides for the treatment of COVID-19: a living, systematic review

Medwave ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. e8073-e8073
Author(s):  
Catalina Verdejo ◽  
Laura Vergara-Merino ◽  
Nicolás Meza ◽  
Javier Pérez-Bracchiglione ◽  
Natalia Carvajal-Juliá ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Registration Number

Objective This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for treating patients with COVID-19. Design A living, systematic review. Database We conducted searches in the centralized repository L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. Today it is maintained through regular searches in 39 databases. Methods We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of macrolides — as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomized trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 were searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized trials. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Measures included all-cause mortality; the need for invasive mechanical ventilation; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, respiratory failure, serious adverse events, time to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negativity. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. Results The search in the L·OVE platform retrieved 424 references. We considered 260 as potentially eligible and were reviewed in full texts. We included one randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine compared to hydroxychloroquine alone in hospitalized patients with COVID 19. The estimates for all outcomes evaluated resulted in insufficient power to draw conclusions. The quality of the evidence for the main outcomes was low to very low. Conclusions Macrolides in the management of patients with COVID 19 showed no beneficial effects compared to standard of care. The evidence for all outcomes is inconclusive. Larger trials are needed to determine the effects of macrolides on pulmonary and other outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Systematic review registration PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020181032 Protocol preprint DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/rvp59

scholarly journals Cell-based therapies for COVID-19: A living, systematic review

Medwave ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. e8078-e8078
Author(s):  
Gabriel Rada ◽  
Javiera Corbalán ◽  
Patricio Rojas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Near Future

Objective This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the available evidence on the role of cell-based therapies in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Data sources We conducted searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. All the searches covered the period until 23 April 2020 (one day before submission). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We searched for randomized trials evaluating the effectiveness and safety of cell-based therapies versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Anticipating the lack of randomized trials directly addressing this question, we also searched for trials evaluating other coronavirus infections, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and nonrandomized studies in COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit this review to a peer-reviewed journal every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. Results We screened 1 043 records, but no study was considered eligible. We identified 61 ongoing studies, including 39 randomized trials evaluating different types of cell-based therapies in COVID-19. Conclusions We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria, and hence there is no evidence to support or refute the use of cell-based therapies for treating patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies should provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers in the near future. PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020179711

scholarly journals Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽  
Maria Paz Acuna ◽  
Ivan Sola ◽  
Gabriel Rada
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 Methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. Eligible studies were randomised trials evaluating the effect of remdesivir versus placebo or no treatment. We conducted searches in the LOVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that maps PICO questions to a repository maintained through regular searches in electronic databases, preprint servers, trial registries and other resources relevant to COVID-19. All the searches covered the period until 25 August 2020. No date or language restrictions were applied. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias, using a predesigned, standardised form. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models and assessed overall certainty in evidence using the GRADE approach. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. Results Our search strategy yielded 574 references. Finally, we included 3 randomised trials evaluating remdesivir in addition to standard care versus standard care alone. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of remdesivir on mortality (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; very low certainty evidence) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.24; very low certainty evidence). On the other hand, remdesivir likely results in a large reduction in the incidence of adverse effects in patients with COVID-19 (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.84; moderate certainty evidence). Conclusions The evidence is insufficient for the outcomes critical for making decisions about the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19, so it is not possible to balance the potential benefits, if any, with the adverse effects and costs. PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020183384 Keywords COVID-19, Coronavirus disease, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Coronavirus Infections, Systematic Review, Remdesivir, Antivirals

scholarly journals Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review

Medwave ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. e8080-e8080
Author(s):  
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽  
María Paz Acuña ◽  
Iván Solá ◽  
Gabriel Rada
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective Provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Methods Eligible studies were randomized trials evaluating the effect of remdesivir versus placebo or no treatment. We conducted searches in the special L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs regular searches in databases, trial registries, preprint servers and websites relevant to COVID-19. All the searches covered the period until 25 August 2020. No date or language restrictions were applied. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias, using a predesigned, standardized form. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models and assessed overall certainty in evidence using the GRADE approach. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Our search strategy yielded 574 references. Finally, we included threerandomized trials evaluating remdesivir in addition to standard care versus standard care alone. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of remdesivir on mortality (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05; very low certainty evidence) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.24; very low certainty evidence). On the other hand, remdesivir likely results in a large increase in the incidence of adverse effects in patients with COVID-19 (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.84; moderate certainty evidence). Conclusions The evidence is insufficient for the outcomes critical for making decisions on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19, so it is impossible to balance potential benefits, if there are any, with the adverse effects and costs. PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020183384.

scholarly journals Percutaneous Versus Surgical Interventions for Hepatic Cystic Echinococcosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. L. E. Mönnink ◽  
C. Stijnis ◽  
O. M. van Delden ◽  
R. Spijker ◽  
M. P. Grobusch
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Percutaneous Treatment ◽  
Invasive Treatment ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Percutaneous Therapy ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Hepatic Echinococcosis

Abstract Purpose This systematic review and meta-analysis summarises the current literature on invasive treatment options of cystic hepatic echinococcosis (CE), comparing percutaneous radiological interventions to surgery, still the cornerstone of treatment in many countries. Methods A literature search was conducted in Medline and EMBASE databases (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019126150). The primary outcome was recurrence of cysts after treatment. Secondary outcomes were complications, duration of hospitalisation, mortality and treatment conversion. Results The number of eligible prospective studies, in particular RCTs, was limited. In the four included studies, only conventional surgery is compared directly to percutaneous techniques. From the available data, in terms of recurrence, percutaneous treatment of hydatid cysts is non-inferior to open surgery. With regard to complications and length of hospital stay, outcomes favour percutaneous therapy. Conclusion Although evidence from prospective research is small, percutaneous treatment in CE is an effective, safe and less invasive alternative to surgery.

Chemoradiotherapy in the Management of Locally Advanced Pancreatic Carcinoma: A Qualitative Systematic Review

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (13) ◽  
pp. 2269-2277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florence Huguet ◽  
Nicolas Girard ◽  
Clotilde Séblain-El Guerche ◽  
Christophe Hennequin ◽  
Françoise Mornex ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pancreatic Carcinoma ◽  
Induction Chemotherapy ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Qualitative Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Level

PurposePancreatic carcinoma is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality. At time of diagnosis, 30% of patients present with a locally advanced unresectable but nonmetastatic pancreatic carcinoma (LAPC). The French program Standards, Options, and Recommendations was promoted to conduct a qualitative systematic review to evaluate the role of radiotherapy in patients with LAPC.MethodsA search to identify eligible studies was undertaken using the MEDLINE database. All phase III randomized trials and systematic reviews evaluating the role of radiotherapy in LAPC were included, together with some noncontrolled studies if no phase III trials were retrieved. The quality and clinical relevance of the studies were evaluated using validated checklists, which allowed associating each result with a level of evidence.ResultsTwenty-one studies were included, as follows: two meta-analyses, 13 randomized trials, and six nonrandomized trials. Chemoradiotherapy increases overall survival when compared with best supportive care (level of evidence C) or with exclusive radiotherapy (level B1), but is more toxic (level B1). Chemoradiotherapy is not superior to chemotherapy in terms of survival (level B1) and increases toxicity (level A). Recent data favor limited irradiation to the tumor volume (level C). Fluorouracil is still the reference chemotherapy in association with radiotherapy (level B1). Induction chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy improves survival (level C).ConclusionNo standard treatment exists, but there are two options for treatment of LAPC; these are gemcitabine-based chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy. Induction chemotherapy followed by a chemoradiotherapy is a promising strategy for selection of patients without early metastatic/progressing disease.

scholarly journals Can musical intervention improve memory in Alzheimer’s patients? Evidence from a systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirlene Vianna Moreira ◽  
Francis Ricardo dos Reis Justi ◽  
Marcos Moreira
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Positive Outcome ◽  
Memory Deficit ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Randomized Controlled

ABSTRACT Treatment with music has shown effectiveness in the treatment of general behavioural and cognitive symptoms of patients with various types of dementia. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of treatment with music on the memory of patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Methods: A systematic search was performed on PubMed (Medline), Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Lilacs databases up to June 2017 and included all randomized controlled trials that assessed memory using musical interventions in patients with AD. Results: Forty-two studies were identified, and 24 studies were selected. After applying the exclusion criteria, four studies involving 179 patients were included. These studies showed the benefits of using music to treat memory deficit in patients with AD. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review focusing on randomized trials found in the literature that analysed the role of musical interventions specifically in the memory of patients with AD. Despite the positive outcome of this review, the available evidence remains inconsistent due to the small number of randomized controlled trials.

scholarly journals Great boast, small roast on effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: response to a critique of our systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 251-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiran Kumar Katakam ◽  
Naqash Javaid Sethi ◽  
Janus Christian Jakobsen ◽  
Christian Gluud
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Serotonin Reuptake ◽  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Selective Serotonin ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Post Hoc

Our systematic review inBMC Psychiatryconcluded that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo significantly increase the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in patients with major depression and the potential beneficial effects of SSRIs seem to be outweighed by the harms. Hieronymus et al. accused us of methodological inaccuracies and blatant errors. In theirpost-hocanalysis of our data, they reported that SSRIs only increase the risk of SAEs in elderly and seems safe for non-elderly patients. They also found our review misleading because our efficacy analyses were based on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; we included suboptimal SSRI doses; and we missed some ‘pivotal trials’. We do not agree with Hieronymus et al. regarding several of the ‘errors’ they claim that we have made. However, we acknowledge that they have identified minor errors and that we missed some trials. After rectifying the errors and inclusion of the missed trials by us and Hieronymus et al., we re-analysed the data. The updated analyses are even more robust and confirm our earlier conclusions. SSRIs significantly increase the risk of an SAE both in non-elderly (p=0.045) and elderly (p=0.01) patients [overall odds ratio 1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.73;p=0.002; I2=0%]. Moreover, SSRIs did not change noticeably the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the internationally accepted scale (mean difference −2.02 points; 95% CI −2.38 to −1.66;p<0.00001). We found no differential effect of dose (p=0.20).

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 Use of convalescent plasma in patients with coronavirus disease (Covid-19): Systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Tortosa ◽  
Gabriela Carrasco ◽  
Martin Ragusa ◽  
Pedro Haluska ◽  
Ariel Izcovich
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Study Selection

AbstractObjetivesTo assess the effects of convalescent plasma treatment in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19).Study designSystematic review and Meta-analysisData sourcesA systematic search was carried out on the L · OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19 until October 31, 2020Study selectionRandomized clinical trials in which people with probable or confirmed COVID-19 were randomized to drug treatment, standard care, or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsThe PRISMA guidelines were followed for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0, and the certainty of the evidence using the recommendation assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, the interventions were classified into groups, from most to least beneficial or harmful.ResultsWe identified 10 RCTs (randomized controlled trials) involving 11854 patients in which convalescent plasma was compared with standard of care or other treatments. The results of five RCTs that evaluated the use of convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19 did not show significant differences in the effect on mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation.ConclusionsCurrent evidence is insufficient to recommend the use of convalescent plasma in the treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19.Contribution of the authors

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document