Dataset Information

Efficacy of pharmacological interventions in COVID-19: A network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To perform network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of various interventions used in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on mortality, clinical recovery, time to clinical improvement and the occurrence of serious adverse events.

Methods

Systematic search was performed using online databases with suitable MeSH terms including coronavirus, COVID-19, randomized controlled trial, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, tocilizumab, remdesivir, favipiravir, dexamethasone and interferon-β. Data were independently extracted by 2 study investigators and analysed.

Results

Out of 1225 studies screened, 23 were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among the drugs studied, dexamethasone reduces mortality by 10%, with a relative risk of 0.90 (95% confidence interval [0.82-0.97]) and increases clinical recovery by 6% (relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval [1.02-1.10]) compared to standard of care. Similarly, remdesivir administered for 10 days increased clinical recovery by 10%, reduced time to clinical improvement by 4 days and lowered the occurrence of serious adverse events by 27% as compared to standard of care.

Conclusion

In comparison to standard of care, dexamethasone was found to increase clinical recovery and lower mortality; remdesivir was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality as compared to tocilizumab and higher clinical recovery and shorter time to clinical improvement as compared to hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab; remdesivir followed by tocilizumab were found to have lesser occurrence of serious adverse events in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Selvarajan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9111227 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of pharmacological interventions in COVID-19: A network meta-analysis.

Selvarajan Sandhiya S Anandaradje Annuja A Shivabasappa Santhosh S Melepurakkal Sadanandan Deepthy D Nair N Sreekumaran NS George Melvin M

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20220413 9

<h4>Aims</h4>To perform network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of various interventions used in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on mortality, clinical recovery, time to clinical improvement and the occurrence of serious adverse events.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic search was performed using online databases with suitable MeSH terms including coronavirus, COVID-19, randomized controlled trial, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, tocilizumab, remdesivir, favipiravir, dexamethaso ...[more]

PMID: 35357033

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

Project description:Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -21.89, 95%CrI [-28.97, -14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -22.48 [-34.13, -10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: -20.63 [-33.97, -7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = -12.13, 95%CrI [-18.41, -5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: -13.21 [-.39, -3.04]; LED: -11.30 [-18.34, -4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.

Project description:Introduction Although several non-pharmacological interventions have been tested in the management of Fibromyalgia (FM), there is little consensus regarding the best options for the treatment of this health condition. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to investigate the comparative efficacy and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions for FM, in order to assist clinical decision making through a ranking of interventions in relation to the most important clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions endorsed in guidelines and systematic reviews. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases without language or date restrictions (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro). Our primary outcomes will be pain intensity, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), and acceptability of treatment will be our secondary outcome. Risk of bias of the included trials will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). For each pairwise comparison between the different interventions, we will present mean differences (MDs) for pain intensity and QoL outcomes and Relative Risks (RRs) for acceptability, both with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Initially, standard pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model for all comparisons with at least two trials and then we will perform a frequentist NMA using the methodology of multivariate meta-analysis assuming a common heterogeneity parameter, using the mvmeta command and network suite in STATA. In the NMA, two different types of control group, such as placebo/sham and no intervention/waiting list will be combined as one node called “Control”. The competing interventions will be ranked using the P-score, which is the frequentist analogue of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the outcomes of interest at immediate- (intervention duration of up to 2 weeks), short- (over 2 weeks up to 12 weeks) and long-terms (over 12 weeks). The confidence in the results from NMA will be assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta‐analysis (CINeMA) framework. Ethics and dissemination This work synthesises evidence from previously published studies and does not require ethics review or approval. A manuscript describing the findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Registration OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7MS25) and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020216374).

Project description:ObjectiveDespite the widespread application of non-pharmacological therapies in treating cancer-related insomnia, a comprehensive assessment of these methods is lacking. This study aims to compare the efficacy of 11 non-pharmacological interventions for cancer-related insomnia, providing a theoretical basis for clinicians in choosing treatment methods.MethodsWe searched five databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, Wiley Library, and Web of Science, for relevant randomized controlled trials. Included studies involved patients diagnosed with cancer-related insomnia, employed non-pharmacological treatments, and reported outcomes using the PSQI and ISI. Bayesian statistical methods were used for the network meta-analysis, and statistical processing was performed using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 14.0 software. The results were thoroughly analyzed and evaluated, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plot tests.ResultsOur study included 41 randomized controlled trials, comprising 11 different non-pharmacological interventions (3,541 participants), the network analysis identifying Electroacupuncture as the most effective, with a SUCRA value of 92.2% in ISI, this was followed by Professionally administered Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia(PCBT-I) and Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy(MBCT), with SUCRA values of 78.4 and 64.1%, respectively. Traditional Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia(CBT-I) and VCBT-I showed lower efficacy with SUCRA values of 55.9 and 55.2%, respectively. Exercise interventions and control groups had the lowest efficacy, with SUCRA values of 24.0 and 16.1%. Using PSQI as the outcome measure, Massage therapy ranked highest in improving sleep quality with a SUCRA value of 92.2%, followed by Professionally administered Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (PCBT-I) and Electroacupuncture. League tables indicated significant improvements in sleep outcomes for Electroacupuncture and MT compared to control groups, with Electroacupuncture (EA) showing an MD of -7.80 (95% CI: -14.45, -1.15) and MT an MD of -4.23 (CI: -8.00, -0.46).ConclusionConsidering both outcome indicators, Electroacupuncture was significantly effective in alleviating the severity of insomnia, while MT was most effective in improving sleep quality. Therefore, in the non-pharmacological interventions for cancer-related insomnia, Electroacupuncture and MT May be particularly effective choices. Future research should further explore the specific mechanisms of action of these interventions and their efficacy in different patient groups.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of pharmacological interventions in COVID-19: A network meta-analysis.

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Efficacy of pharmacological interventions in COVID-19: A network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets