Dataset Information

The efficacy and safety of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs.

Research design and methods

The PubMed, Embase, SCIE, Cochrane Library, and American Clinical trial Center databases were searched up to 1 April 2022 to identify. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy of remdesivir monotherapy and combination therapy with that of control drugs.

Results

Ten RCTs and 32 observational studies were included in the analysis. Regarding the primary outcome, remdesivir use reduced mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 (RR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.48,0.68)) and shortened the time to clinical improvement (MD = -2.51, 95% CI (-2.75, -2.28)). Regarding other clinical outcomes, remdesivir use was associated with improved clinical status (RR = 1.08, 95%CI (1.01, 1.17)). Regarding safety outcomes, remdesivir use did not cause liver or kidney damage (RR = 0.87, 95%CI (0.68, 1.11)) (RR = 0.88, 95%CI (0.70,1.10)). Compared with remdesivir alone, remdesivir combined with other drugs (e.g., steroids, favipiravir, and convalescent plasma) had no effect on mortality.

Conclusion

The use of remdesivir can help to reduce the mortality of patients with severe COVID-19 and shorten the time to clinical improvement. There was no benefit of remdesivir combination therapy for other clinical outcomes.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022322859.

SUBMITTER: Chen C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10563317 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The efficacy and safety of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chen Chuizhe C Fang Junde J Chen Shu S Rajaofera Mamy Jayne Nelly MJN Li Xuemiao X Wang Bo B Xia Qianfeng Q

BMC infectious diseases 20231009 1

<h4>Background</h4>Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>The PubMed, Embase, SCIE, Cochrane Library, and American Clinical trial Center databases were searched up to 1 April 2022 to identify. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy of remdesivi ...[more]

PMID: 37814214

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEvaluation of remdesivir, an RNA polymerase inhibitor, for effectiveness in adults with COVID-19.Data sourcesElectronic search for eligible articles of PubMed, Cochrane Central and clinicaltrials.gov was performed on 20 September 2020.Participants and study eligibility criteriaOnly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of remdesivir in COVID-19 were included for meta-analysis.InterventionsRemdesivir was compared with standard of care.Primary and secondary outcomesPrimary outcome was mortality and secondary outcomes were time to clinical improvement and safety outcomes like serious adverse events, respiratory failure.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsData synthesis was done with Cochrane review manager 5 (RevMan) V.5.3. Cochrane risk of bias V.2.0 tool was used for methodological quality assessment. The GRADE pro GDT was applied for overall quality of evidence.Results52 RCTs were screened and 4 studies were included in analysis, with total of 7324 patients. No mortality benefit was observed with remdesivir versus control group (OR=0.92 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.07), p=0.30, moderate quality evidence). Significantly higher rates of clinical improvement (OR=1.52 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.87), p<0.0001, low quality) and faster time to clinical improvement (HR=1.28 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.46), p=0.0002, very low quality) was observed with remdesivir versus control group. Significant decrease was found in the risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.75 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.90), p=0.0003, low quality); however, no difference was found in the risk of respiratory failure (RR=0.85 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.77), p=0.67, very low quality evidence) with remdesivir.ConclusionsAs per the evidence from current review, remdesivir has shown no mortality benefit (moderate quality evidence) in the treatment of COVID-19. From a cost-benefit perspective, it is our personal opinion that it should not be recommended for use, especially in low and lower middle income countries.Trial registration numberPROSPERO registration number: CRD42020189517.

Project description:BackgroundBeing protease inhibitors and owing to their efficacy in SARS-CoV, lopinavir + ritonavir (L/R) combination is being used in the management of COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we have evaluated the comparative safety and efficacy of L/R combination.Materials and methodsComparative, observational studies and controlled clinical trials comparing L/R combination to standard of care (SOC)/control or any other antiviral agent/combinations were included. A total of 10 databases were searched to identify 13 studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria.ResultsNo discernible beneficial effect was seen in the L/R group in comparison to SOC/control in terms of "progression to more severe state" (4 studies, odds ratio [OR]: 1.446 [0.722-2.895]), "mortality" (3 studies, OR: 1.208 [0.563-2.592]), and "virological cure on days 7-10" (3 studies, OR: 0.777 [0.371-1.630]), while the L/R combination arm performed better than the SOC/control arm in terms of "duration of hospital stay" (3 studies, mean difference (MD): -1.466 [-2.403 to - 0.529]) and "time to virological cure" (3 studies, MD: -3.272 [-6.090 to - 0.454]). No difference in efficacy was found between L/R versus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and L/R versus arbidol. However, in a single randomized controlled trail (open label), chloroquine (CQ) performed better than L/R. The combination L/R with arbidol may be beneficial (in terms of virological clearance and radiological improvement); however, we need more dedicated studies. Single studies report efficacy of L/R + interferon (IFN, either alpha or 1-beta) combination. We need more studies to delineate the proper effect size. Regarding adverse effects, except occurrence of diarrhea (higher in the L/R group), safety was comparable to SOC.ConclusionIn our study, no difference was seen between the L/R combination and the SOC arm in terms of "progression to more severe state," "mortality," and virological cure on days 7-10;" however, some benefits in terms of "duration of hospital stay" and "time to virological cure" were seen. No significant difference in efficacy was seen when L/R was compared to arbidol and HCQ monotherapy. Except for the occurrence of diarrhea, which was higher in the L/R group, safety profile of L/R is comparable to SOC. Compared to L/R combination, CQ, L/R + arbidol, L/R + IFN-α, and L/R + IFN-1β showed better efficacy, but the external validity of these findings is limited by limited number of studies (1 study each).

Project description:BackgroundEfficacy and safety of treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 are uncertain. We systematically reviewed efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.MethodsStudies 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThere 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.

Dataset Information

The efficacy and safety of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Research design and methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

The efficacy and safety of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets