Efficacy of different mouthwashes against COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sbricoli L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10579871 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Efficacy of different mouthwashes against COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Sbricoli Luca L Schiavon Lucia L Brunello Giulia G Brun Paola P Becker Kathrin K Sivolella Stefano S
The Japanese dental science review 20231011
To evaluate the effectiveness of antiseptic mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 load clinically and in vitro. A systematic electronic search (MEDLINE/Scopus/Cochrane) was conducted to identify prospective clinical and in vitro studies published between 2019 included and 16 June 2023 assessing the effectiveness of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 load in saliva or surrogates. Data were summarized in tables and a network meta-analysis was performed for clinical trials. Thirty-five studies (14 RCT ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:UpdatesThis is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022.Study selectionRandomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation—risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence.ConclusionsMuch of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.FundingThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).
| S-EPMC8073806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As no reported randomized control trials (RCTs) directly compare the three administration doses of anticoagulants (prophylactic dose, treatment dose, and no treatment), the most recommended dose to be administered to patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of anticoagulant doses administered to patients with COVID-19, using a network meta-analysis (NMA) including high-quality studies. All eligible trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Clinicaltrials.gov were included. We included RCTs and observational studies adjusted for covariates for patients aged ≥ 18 years and hospitalized due to objectively confirmed COVID-19. The main study outcome was mortality. In patients with moderate COVID-19, the prophylactic (relative risk (RR) 0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.80]) and treatment dose (RR 0.57 [95% CI 0.45-0.72] were associated with a lower risk of short-term mortality than that with no anticoagulant treatment. However, the prophylactic and treatment dose groups were not significantly different. The hierarchy for efficacy in reducing short-term mortality was treatment dose (P score 92.4) > prophylactic dose (57.6) > no treatment (0.0). In patients with severe COVID-19, due to the absence of trials with the no-treatment group, NMA could not be conducted. However, pairwise comparison did not show a significant difference between the prophylactic and treatment dose groups. Treatment and prophylactic doses of anticoagulants showed similar effects on mortality; however, the treatment dose is preferred over the prophylactic dose for patients with both moderate and severe COVID-19. PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021245308, 05/21/2021).
| S-EPMC8966866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:New Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are available to prevent the ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. We compared the efficacy of new COVID-19 vaccines to prevent symptomatic and severe disease in the adult population and to prevent symptomatic COVID-19 among the elderly. Leading medical databases were searched until August 30, 2021. Published phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated efficacy of the vaccine to prevent symptomatic and sever COVID-19 in adults were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated the literature search results and independently extracted summary data. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) according to PRISMA-NMA 2015 to pool indirect comparisons between different vaccines regarding their relative efficacy. The primary outcomes were the efficacy of the vaccine against symptomatic COVID-19 in adults (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021235364). Above 200,000 adult participants from eight phase 3 RCTs were included in NMA, of whom 52% received the intervention (active COVID-19 vaccine). While each of nine vaccines was tested in the unique clinical trial as compared to control, based on indirect comparison, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were ranked with the highest probability of efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 (P-scores 0.952 and 0.843, respectively), followed by Gam-COVID-Vac (P-score 0.782), NVX-CoV23730 (P-score 0.700), CoronaVac (P-score 0.570), BN02 (P-score 0.428), WIV04 (P-score 0.327), and Ad26.COV2.S (P-score 0.198). No statistically significant difference was seen in the ability of the vaccines to prevent symptomatic disease in the elderly population. No vaccine was statistically significantly associated with a decreased risk for severe COVID-19 than other vaccines, although mRNA-1273 and Gam-COVID-Vac have the highest P-scores (0.899 and 0.816, respectively), indicating greater protection against severe disease than other vaccines. In our indirect comparison, the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, which use mRNA technology, were associated with the highest efficacy to prevent symptomatic COVID-19 compared to other vaccines. This finding may have importance when deciding which vaccine to use, together with other important factors as availability of the vaccines, costs, logistics, side effects, and patient acceptability.
| S-EPMC8611039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While the efficacy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has been evaluated in numerous trials, comprehensive evidence on how protection by different vaccines has varied over time remains limited. We aimed to compare protective effects of different vaccines against different viral variants. To achieve this, we searched Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Forest plots using Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects models were generated showing risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs by vaccines and variants. We included 36 studies with 90 variant-specific primary outcomes. We found a RR of 0.26 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.31) against all variants overall, with the highest protective effects against the wild-type (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18), followed by Alpha (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.36), Gamma (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55), Delta (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.56) and Beta (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62) variants. Nucleic acid vaccines showed the highest protection levels against all variants (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15), followed by protein subunit, inactivated virus and viral vector. In conclusion, we found high but heterogenous levels of protection for most COVID-19 vaccines, with decreasing protective effects for vaccines based on traditional technologies as SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged over time. Novel nucleic acid-based vaccines offered substantially higher and more consistent protection.
| S-EPMC11697103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Beneficial off-target effects of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination might offer general protection from respiratory tract infections. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to ascertain BCG vaccination effectiveness against COVID-19. We looked up English RCTs from 1 January 2019 to 15 November 2022 in Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine RCTs, including 7963 participants, were included. The infection rate of COVID-19 was not decreased in people who were vaccinated with BCG (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.82-1.13; I2 = 4%), and the BCG vaccination group did not have decreased COVID-19 related-hospitalization (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.37-1.18; I2 = 42%), admission to the ICU (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.05-1.18; I2 = 0%), and mortality (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.17-2.44; I2 = 0%) compared with the control group. There is not sufficient evidence to support the use of BCG vaccination in the prevention of COVID-19 infection and severe COVID-19 and avoid overstating the role of BCG vaccination leading to its misuse.
| S-EPMC9917948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive ventilation, and improve the prognosis of patients. However, optimal regimen and dosages of glucocorticoid remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in treating COVID-19 at regimens.MethodsThis meta-analysis retrieved randomized controlled trials from the earliest records to December 30, 2022, published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI Database and Wanfang Database, which compared glucocorticoids with placebos for their efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19, Effects of different treatment regimens, types and dosages (high-dose methylprednisolone, very high-dose methylprednisolone, Pulse therapy methylprednisolone, medium-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose dexamethasone, very high-dose dexamethasone and placebo) on 28-day all-caused hospitalization mortality, hospitalization duration, mechanical ventilation requirement, ICU admission and safety outcome were compared.ResultsIn this network meta-analysis, a total of 10,544 patients from 19 randomized controlled trials were finally included, involving a total of 9 glucocorticoid treatment regimens of different types and dosages. According to the analysis results, the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was the lowest in the treatment with pulse therapy methylprednisolone (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.42), but the use of high-dose methylprednisolone (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59, 1.22), very high-dose dexamethasone (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67, 1.35), high-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.34, 1.22), medium-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49, 1.31) showed no benefit in prolonging the 28-day survival of patient. Compared with placebo, the treatment with very high-dose methylprednisolone (MD = -3.09;95%CI: -4.10, -2.08) had the shortest length of hospital stay, while high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.55;95%CI: -3.13,0.03) and very high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.06;95%CI: -2.78,0.67) did not benefit patients in terms of length of stay.ConclusionsConsidering the available evidence, this network meta‑analysis suggests that the prognostic impact of glucocorticoids in patients with COVID-19 may depend on the regimens of glucocorticoids. It is suggested that pulse therapy methylprednisolone is associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality, very high-dose methylprednisolone had the shortest length of hospital stay in patients with COVID-19.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022350407 (22/08/2022).
| S-EPMC10734118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several vaccines have been approved for the prevention of COVID-19. However, no head-to-head trials comparing their clinical efficacy have been performed. This network meta-analysis aims to identify those, among the competing existing vaccines, conferring the maximum protection against COVID-19. A literature search was done in Medline (via PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library databases for phase 3 randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of different COVID-19 vaccines. Search results were screened and eligible studies were included to perform a network meta-analysis in software 'R' version 4.1.2 using a random effect model. Cochrane's 'Risk of Bias tool (RoB2)' was used for quality assessment. Raw data from the included studies was used for network meta-analysis. Assessment of inconsistency was not possible as no study compared two or more vaccines directly. A forest plot for indirect comparison of various COVID-19 vaccines was obtained. Rankogram and 'P' scores were obtained to rank the vaccines based on the indirect evidence of their comparative efficacy. A total of 17 randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of 16 COVID-19 vaccines, were included in the network meta-analysis. A total of 361,386 participants was included in this network meta-analysis. Overall risk of bias among included studies was of 'some concern'. All the COVID-19 vaccines had a statistically significant reduction of risk for contracting symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to the placebo, however, the maximum protection (RR 0.05) was with BNT126b2. The indirect comparison also revealed BNT126b2 vaccine confers the highest protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to all others included, with a 'P' score of 0.9771 followed by mRNA-1273, rAD26 & rAD5 and NVX-CoV2373. The evidence generated from this network meta-analysis indicates the good efficacy of all the included vaccines in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 as compared to placebo. The BNT126b2 vaccine was found to provide the highest protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 among all included followed by mRNA-1273, rAD26 & rAD5, NVX-CoV2373 and others.
| S-EPMC9640819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective To evaluate efficacies of anthelmintic drugs against soil transmitted helminths in terms of cure rates and egg reduction rates.Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data Sources PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Embase, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and the World Health Organization library database from 1960 until 31 December 2016.Study selection Randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of a single dose regimen of albendazole, mebendazole, levamisole, and pyrantel pamoate against Ascaris lumbricoides, hookworm (Necator americanus and Ancylostoma duodenale) and Trichuris trichiura. The primary outcomes included cure rates analysed by network meta-analysis with mixed logistic regression models and egg reduction rates with mixed linear models.Results 55 and 46 randomised controlled trials were included in the analysis of cure rates and egg reduction rates, respectively. All drugs were highly efficacious against A lumbricoides Albendazole showed the highest efficacy against hookworm infections with a cure rate of 79.5% (95% confidence interval 71.5% to 85.6%) and an egg reduction rate of 89.6% (81.9% to 97.3%). All drugs had low efficacy against T trichiura, with mebendazole showing the highest cure rate of 42.1% (25.9% to 60.2%) and egg reduction rate of 66.0% (54.6% to 77.3%). Estimates for the years 1995 and 2015 showed significant reductions in efficacy of albendazole against T trichiura: by 2015 the egg reduction rates fell from 72.6% (53.7% to 91.5%) to 43.4% (23.5% to 63.3%; P=0.049) and the cure rates fell from 38.6% (26.2% to 52.7%) to 16.4 (7.7% to 31.3%; P=0.027).Conclusions All four currently recommended drugs show limitations in their efficacy profile. While only albendazole showed good efficacy against hookworm infection, all drugs had low efficacy against T trichiura The decrease in efficacy of albendazole against T trichiura over the past two decades is of concern. The findings indicate the need for strengthening efforts to develop new drug treatments, with a particular focus on drugs against T trichiura.
| S-EPMC5611648 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccines according to vaccine platform and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection severity. Articles published between 24 January 2020 and 30 May 2021 were retrieved via a PubMed and EMBASE search. A total of 12 reports on phase-3 clinical trials and observational studies of COVID-19 vaccines were included in the review. In terms of vaccine safety, mRNA vaccines showed more relevance to serious adverse events than viral vector and inactivated vaccines, but no solid evidence indicated that COVID-19 vaccines directly caused serious adverse events. Serious metabolic, musculoskeletal, immune-system, and renal disorders were more common among inactivated vaccine recipients, and serious gastrointestinal complications and infections were more common among viral vector and inactivated vaccine recipients. The occurrence of serious vessel disorders was more frequent in mRNA vaccines. In terms of efficacy, two mRNA vaccine doses conferred a lesser risk of SARS-COV-2 infection (odds ratio: 0.05; 95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.13) than did vaccination with viral vector and inactivated vaccines. All vaccines protected more against symptomatic than asymptomatic cases (risk ratio, 0.11 vs. 0.34), but reduced the risk of severe SARS-COV-2 infection. The COVID-19 vaccines assessed in this study are sufficiently safe and effective. The results indicate that two mRNA vaccine doses prevent SARS-COV-2 infection most effectively, but further research is needed due to the high degree of heterogeneity among studies in this sample. Interventions should be implemented continuously to reduce the risks of infection after one vaccine dose and asymptomatic infection.
| S-EPMC8473448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.Results463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).ConclusionCorticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.
| S-EPMC7390912 | biostudies-literature