Dataset Information

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

Design

Living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources

WHO 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 selection

Randomised 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.

Methods

After 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.

Results

463 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).

Conclusion

Corticosteroids, 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 registration

This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.

Readers' note

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Siemieniuk RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7390912 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

Siemieniuk Reed Ac RA Bartoszko Jessica J JJ Zeraatkar Dena D Kum Elena E Qasim Anila A Martinez Juan Pablo Díaz JPD Izcovich Ariel A Lamontagne Francois F Lamontagne Francois F Han Mi Ah MA Agarwal Arnav A Agoritsas Thomas T Azab Maria M Bravo Gonzalo G Chu Derek K DK Couban Rachel R Couban Rachel R Devji Tahira T Escamilla Zaira Z Foroutan Farid F Gao Ya Y Ge Long L Ghadimi Maryam M Heels-Ansdell Diane D Honarmand Kimia K Hou Liangying L Ibrahim Quazi Q Khamis Assem A Lam Bonnie B Mansilla Christian C Mansilla Christian C Loeb Mark M Miroshnychenko Anna A Marcucci Maura M McLeod Shelley L SL McLeod Shelley L SL Motaghi Sharhzad S Murthy Srinivas S Mustafa Reem A RA Pardo-Hernandez Hector H Rada Gabriel G Rizwan Yamna Y Saadat Pakeezah P Switzer Charlotte C Thabane Lehana L Tomlinson George G Vandvik Per O PO Vernooij Robin Wm RW Vernooij Robin Wm RW Viteri-García Andrés A Wang Ying Y Yao Liang L Zhao Yunli Y Guyatt Gordon H GH Brignardello-Petersen Romina R

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20200730

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).<h4>Design</h4>Living systematic review and network meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>WHO 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.<h4>Study selection</h4>Randomised clinical trials in which people with su ...[more]

PMID: 32732190

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).

Project description:ImportanceThere are multiple approved systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis. Lebrikizumab is a newly licensed biologic medication that has been compared to placebo in clinical trials but not to other systemic treatments.ObjectiveTo compare reported measures of efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab to other systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, the Global Resource of Eczema Trials database, and trial registries were searched from inception through November 3, 2023.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials evaluating 8 or more weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate.Data extraction and synthesisData were abstracted in duplicate and random-effects bayesian network meta-analyses were performed. Minimal important differences were used to define important differences between medications. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). The updated analysis was completed from December 13, 2023, to February 20, 2024.Main outcome measuresEfficacy outcomes were the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scales (PP-NRS) and were compared using mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Safety outcomes were serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. Other outcomes included the proportion of participants with 50%, 75%, and 90% improvement in EASI (EASI-50, -75, -90) and the proportion with success on the Investigator Global Assessment compared using odds ratios with 95% CrI.ResultsThe study sample included 97 eligible trials, with a total of 24 679 patients. Lebrikizumab was associated with no important difference in change in EASI (MD, -2.0; 95% CrI, -4.5 to 0.3; moderate certainty), POEM (MD, -1.1; 95% CrI -2.5 to 0.2; moderate certainty), DLQI (MD, -0.2; 95% CrI -2.1 to 1.6; moderate certainty), or PP-NRS (MD, 0.1; 95% CrI -0.4, 0.6; high certainty) compared to dupilumab among adults with atopic dermatitis who were treated for up to 16 weeks. Dupilumab was associated with higher odds of efficacy in binary outcomes compared with lebrikizumab. The relative efficacy of other approved systemic medications was similar to that found by previous updates of this living study, with high-dose upadacitinib and abrocitinib demonstrating numerically highest relative efficacy. For safety outcomes, low event rates limited useful comparisons.Conclusions and relevanceIn this living systematic review and network meta-analysis, lebrikizumab was similarly effective to dupilumab for the short-term treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults. Clinicians and patients can use these comparative data to inform treatment decisions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of heterologous and homologous covid-19 vaccine regimens with and without boosting in preventing covid-19 related infection, hospital admission, and death.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 databases, including 38 sources of published studies and preprints.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies.Methods38 WHO covid-19 databases were searched on a weekly basis from 8 March 2022 to 31 July 2022. Studies that assessed the effectiveness of heterologous and homologous covid-19 vaccine regimens with or without a booster were identified. Studies were eligible when they reported the number of documented, symptomatic, severe covid-19 infections, covid-19 related hospital admissions, or covid-19 related deaths among populations that were vaccinated and unvaccinated. The primary measure was vaccine effectiveness calculated as 1−odds ratio. Secondary measures were surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores and the relative effects for pairwise comparisons. The risk of bias was evaluated by using the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for all cohort and case-control studies. The Cochrane risk of bias tool (version 2; ROB-2) was used to assess randomised controlled trials.ResultsThe second iteration of the analysis comprised 63 studies. 25 combinations of covid-19 vaccine regimens were identified, of which three doses of mRNA vaccine were found to be 93% (95% credible interval 70% to 98%) effective against asymptomatic or symptomatic covid-19 infections for non-delta or non-omicron related infections. Heterologous boosting using two dose adenovirus vector vaccines with one dose mRNA vaccine showed a vaccine effectiveness of 94% (72% to 99%) against non-delta or non-omicron related asymptomatic or symptomatic infections. Three doses of mRNA vaccine were found to be the most effective in reducing non-delta or non-omicron related hospital admission (96%, 82% to 99%). The vaccine effectiveness against death in people who received three doses of mRNA vaccine remains uncertain owing to confounders. The estimate for a four dose mRNA vaccine regimen was of low certainty, as only one study on the effectiveness of four doses could be included in this update. More evidence on four dose regimens will be needed to accurately assess the effectiveness of a fourth vaccine dose. For people with delta or omicron related infection, a two dose regimen of an adenovirus vector vaccine with one dose of mRNA booster was 77% (42% to 91%) effective against asymptomatic or symptomatic covid-19 infections, and a three dose regimen of a mRNA vaccine was 93% (76% to 98%) effective against covid-19 related hospital admission.ConclusionAn mRNA booster is recommended to supplement any primary vaccine course. Heterologous and homologous three dose regimens work comparably well in preventing covid-19 infections, even against different variants. The effectiveness of three dose vaccine regimens against covid-19 related death remains uncertain.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol is included in the supplementary document.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 version is update 1 of the original article published on 31 May 2022 (BMJ 2022;377:e069989), and previous versions can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj-2022-069989/related). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).Study selectionTrials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.ResultsAs of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.ConclusionIn patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.FundingThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

Project description:ImportanceSystemic treatments for atopic dermatitis are being evaluated primarily in placebo-controlled trials; network meta-analysis can provide relative efficacy and safety estimates for treatments that have not been compared head to head.ObjectiveTo compare reported measures of efficacy and assessments of safety in clinical trials of systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, Global Resource of EczemA Trials database, and trial registries were searched through June 15, 2021.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials examining 8 or more weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis were included after screening titles, abstracts, and papers in duplicate.Data extraction and synthesisData were abstracted in duplicate. Bayesian network meta-analyses and assessed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence were performed. The updated analysis was completed from June to December 2021.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes include change in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scales (PP-NRS).ResultsSince October 2019, 21 new studies were added, for a total of 60 trials with 16 579 patients. Up to 16 weeks of treatment in adults, abrocitinib, 200 mg daily (mean difference [MD], 2.2; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.2-4.0; high certainty) and upadacitinib, 30 mg daily (MD, 2.7; 95% CrI, 0.6-4.7; high certainty) were associated with reduced EASI slightly more than dupilumab, 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks. Abrocitinib, 100 mg daily (MD, -2.1; 95% CrI, -4.1 to -0.3; high certainty), baricitinib, 4 mg daily (MD, -3.2; 95% CrI, -5.7 to -0.8; high certainty), baricitinib, 2 mg daily (MD, -5.2; 95% CrI, -7.5 to -2.9; high certainty) and tralokinumab, 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks (MD, -3.5; 95% CrI, -5.8 to -1.3; high certainty) were associated with reduced EASI slightly less than dupilumab. There was little or no difference between upadacitinib, 15 mg daily, and dupilumab (MD, 0.2; 95% CrI, -1.9 to 2.2; high certainty). The pattern of results was similar for POEM, DLQI, and PP-NRS.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, abrocitinib, 200 mg; and upadacitinib, 30 mg daily, were associated with slightly better scores than dupilumab, and upadacitinib, 15 mg daily, was associated with similar scores to dupilumab. Abrocitinib, 100 mg daily, baricitinib, 4 mg and 2 mg daily, and tralokinumab, 300 mg, every 2 weeks were associated with slightly worse scores.

Project description:The goal of nonrestorative or non- and microinvasive caries treatment (fluoride- and nonfluoride-based interventions) is to manage the caries disease process at a lesion level and minimize the loss of sound tooth structure. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence on nonrestorative treatments for the outcomes of 1) arrest or reversal of noncavitated and cavitated carious lesions on primary and permanent teeth and 2) adverse events. We included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials where patients were followed for any length of time. Studies were identified with MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessments, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data were synthesized with a random effects model and a frequentist approach. Forty-four trials (48 reports) were eligible, which included 7,378 participants and assessed the effect of 22 interventions in arresting or reversing noncavitated or cavitated carious lesions. Four network meta-analyses suggested that sealants + 5% sodium fluoride (NaF) varnish, resin infiltration + 5% NaF varnish, and 5,000-ppm F (1.1% NaF) toothpaste or gel were the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated occlusal, approximal, and noncavitated and cavitated root carious lesions on primary and/or permanent teeth, respectively (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Study-level data indicated that 5% NaF varnish was the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated facial/lingual carious lesions (low certainty) and that 38% silver diamine fluoride solution applied biannually was the most effective for arresting advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (moderate to high certainty). Preventing the onset of caries is the ultimate goal of a caries management plan. However, if the disease is present, there is a variety of effective interventions to treat carious lesions nonrestoratively.

Project description:BackgroundUp to 15% of survivors of COVID-19 infection experience long-term health effects, including fatigue, myalgia and impaired cognitive function, termed post-COVID-19 condition or long COVID. Several trials that study the benefits and harms of various interventions to manage long COVID have been published and hundreds more are planned or are ongoing. Trustworthy systematic reviews that clarify the benefits and harms of interventions are critical to promote evidence-based practice.ObjectiveTo create and maintain a living systematic review and network meta-analysis addressing the benefits and harms of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID.MethodsEligible trials will randomise adults with long COVID to pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions, placebo, sham or usual care. We will identify eligible studies by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED and CENTRAL from inception, without language restrictions.Reviewers will work independently and in duplicate to screen search records, collect data from eligible trials, including trial and patient characteristics and outcomes of interest and assess risk of bias. Our outcomes of interest will include patient-reported fatigue, pain, postexertional malaise, changes in education or employment status, cognitive function, mental health, dyspnoea, quality of life, physical function, recovery and serious adverse events.For each outcome, when possible, we will perform a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. When there are compelling reasons to suspect that certain interventions are only applicable or effective for a subtype of long COVID, we will perform separate network meta-analyses. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach will guide our assessment of the certainty of evidence.We will update our living review biannually, on the publication of a seminal trial, or when new evidence emerges that may change clinical practice.ConclusionThis living systematic review and network meta-analysis will provide comprehensive, trustworthy and up-to-date summaries of the evidence addressing the benefits and harms of interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID. We will make our findings available publicly and work with guideline-producing organisations to inform their recommendations.Ethics and disseminationThe study describes the protocol for a systematic review that uses data from published trial reports. Therefore, the study is exempt from ethics review. We intend to deposit all data in a public repository and publish each iteration of the living review online.

Dataset Information

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

Design

Data sources

Study selection

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Systematic review registration

Readers' note

Publications

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets