Efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cheema HA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9558771 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Cheema Huzaifa Ahmad HA Jafar Uzair U Elrashedy Asmaa Ahmed AA Shahid Abia A Awan Rehmat Ullah RU Ehsan Muhammad M Ayyan Muhammad M Sahra Syeda S
The Journal of infection 20221013 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFluvoxamine may be beneficial for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) because of its effect on the sigma-1 receptor. Available evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) has shown conflicting results.ObjectiveThis study sought to analyze the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine as an outpatient treatment for Covid-19.MethodsUsing specific keywords, we comprehensively go through the potential articles on PubMed, Scopus, Europe PMC, and ClinicalTrials.gov sources until February 1, 2023. We collected all published clinical trials on fluvoxamine and Covid-19. We were using Review Manager 5.4 to conduct statistical analysis.ResultsWe include a total of 6 trials. Our pooled analysis revealed that fluvoxamine did not offer any significant benefit when compared with placebo in reducing the risk of clinical deterioration (risk ratio [RR] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.65-1.06, P = 0.14, I2 = 29%), and hospitalization (RR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.62-1.04, P = 0.09, I2 = 0%) of Covid-19 outpatients. The serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.Conclusions and relevanceThis study indicates that although safe, fluvoxamine was not effective for outpatient treatment of Covid-19. Until more evidence can be obtained from larger RCTs, our study did not encourage the use of fluvoxamine as routine management for patients with Covid-19.
| S-EPMC10067701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is a type of pneumonia caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection that was identified in December 2019. Corticosteroid therapy was empirically used for clinical treatment in the early stage of the disease outbreak; however, data regarding its efficacy and safety are controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid therapy in patients with COVID-19.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and China Science and Technology Journal (VIP) databases were searched for studies. Data on clinical improvement, mortality, virus clearance time, adverse events (AEs), utilization of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization, and hospital stay were extracted by two authors independently. Study quality was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (cohort studies). The pooled data were meta-analyzed using a random effects model, and the quality of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach.ResultsEleven cohort studies (corticosteroid group vs control group), two retrospective cohort studies (without control group), and seven case studies were identified. A total of 2840 patients were included. Compared with the control treatments, corticosteroid therapy was associated with clinical recovery (RR = 1.30, 95% CI [0.98, 1.72]) and a significantly shortened length of ICU hospitalization (RR = -6.50; 95% CI [-7.63 to -5.37]), but it did not affect the mortality ((RR = 1.59; 95% CI [0.69-3.66], I2 = 93.5%), utilization of mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.35; 95% CI [0.10, 1.18]), duration of symptoms (WMD = 1.69; 95% CI [-0.24 to 3.62]) or virus clearance time (RR = 1.01; 95% CI [-0.91 to 2.92], I2 = 57%) in COVID-19 patients. Treatment with corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 may cause mild adverse outcomes. The quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes.ConclusionThe findings of our study indicate that corticosteroid therapy is not highly effective, but it appears to improve prognosis and promote clinical recovery in patients with severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7510504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis meta-analysis investigated the use of fluvoxamine for the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, Ovid medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies published before June 25, 2022. Only clinical studies that compared the efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine with other alternatives or placebos in the treatment of nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included.ResultsFour studies with 1814 patients, of whom 912 received fluvoxamine, were included in this study. Compared with the control group receiving placebo or no therapy, the study group receiving fluvoxamine demonstrated a lower risk of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95 % CI, 0.44-0.79; I2 = 26 %). In addition, the rate of hospitalization remained significantly lower in patients who received fluvoxamine than in the control group (OR, 0.69; 95 % CI, 0.51-0.94; I2 = 36 %). Although the study group demonstrated a lower risk of requirement of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit admission, and mortality than the control group, these differences were nonsignificant. Finally, fluvoxamine use was associated with a similar risk of adverse events as that observed in the control group.ConclusionFluvoxamine can be safely used in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 and can reduce the hospitalization rate or ED visits in these patients.
| S-EPMC9556767 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIvermectin became a popular choice for COVID-19 treatment among clinicians and the public following encouraging results from pre-print trials and in vitro studies. Early reviews recommended the use of ivermectin based largely on non-peer-reviewed evidence, which may not be robust. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treating COVID-19 based on peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs).MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were searched from 1 January 2020 to 1 September 2021 for relevant studies. Outcomes included time to viral clearance, duration of hospitalization, mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation and incidence of adverse events. RoB2 and ROBINS-I were used to assess risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. GRADE was used to evaluate quality of evidence.ResultsThree OSs and 14 RCTs were included in the review. Most RCTs were rated as having some concerns in regards to risk of bias, while OSs were mainly rated as having a moderate risk of bias. Based on meta-analysis of RCTs, the use of ivermectin was not associated with reduction in time to viral clearance, duration of hospitalization, incidence of mortality and incidence of mechanical ventilation. Ivermectin did not significantly increase incidence of adverse events. Meta-analysis of OSs agrees with findings from RCT studies.ConclusionsBased on very low to moderate quality of evidence, ivermectin was not efficacious at managing COVID-19. Its safety profile permits its use in trial settings to further clarify its role in COVID-19 treatment.Protocol registrationThe review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021275302).
| S-EPMC8500108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAzivudine has undergone a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as of late. This study aimed to assess the COVID-19 treatment with azvudine's efficacy and safety.MethodsThrough January 20, 2023, systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and MedRxiv were conducted to find the RCTs. The included studies' bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 (PROSPERO Code: CRD42023395022).ResultsA total of five RCTs with 1142 COVID-19 patients, 575 of whom received azvudine, were included. Additionally, seven RCTs are currently being conducted. In terms of clinical improvement and PT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) negativity, the azvudine group had a greater patient percentage than the usual treatment or placebo group. It also took less time for the PT-PCR to become negative. In comparison to the placebo or standard treatment groups, the frequency of adverse events was reduced in the azvudine group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80 to 0.99) and major adverse events (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.79) groups.ConclusionsWithout the burden of side effects, azvudine can hasten the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 patients and PT-PCR negative. It will take more extensive research to confirm these conclusions.
| S-EPMC10559905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients were searched until 2nd of December 2020. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, need of mechanical ventilation, need of non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission and oxygen support at 14 and 30 days. Secondary outcomes were clinical recovery and worsening, discharge, radiological progression of pneumonia, virologic clearance, serious adverse events (SAE) and adverse events. Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. Thirteen RCTs (n=18,540) were included. Hydroxychloroquine total doses ranged between 2000 and 12,400 mg; treatment durations were from 5 to 16 days and follow up times between 5 and 30 days. Compared to controls, hydroxychloroquine non-significantly increased mortality at 14 days (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.92-1.25) or 30 days (RR 1.08, 95%CI 1.00-1.16). Hydroxychloroquine did not affect other primary or secondary outcomes, except SAEs that were significantly higher than the control (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.05-1.46). Eleven RCTs had high or some concerns of bias. Subgroup analyses were consistent with main analyses. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients and caused more severe adverse events. Hydroxychloroquine should not be recommended as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8201261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCytokine release syndrome with elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels is associated with multiorgan damage and death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to perform a living systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy and toxicity of the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.MethodsData sources were Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus up, preprint servers and Google up to October 8, 2020. Study eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies at low or moderate risk of bias. Participants were hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Interventions included tocilizumab versus placebo or standard of care. We pooled crude risk ratios (RRs) of RCTs and adjusted RRs from cohorts, separately. We evaluated inconsistency between studies with I2. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsOf 1156 citations, 24 studies were eligible (five RCTs and 19 cohorts). Five RCTs at low risk of bias, with 1325 patients, examined the effect of tocilizumab on short-term mortality; pooled RR was 1.09 (95%CI 0.80-1.49, I2 = 0%). Four RCTs with 771 patients examined the effect of tocilizumab on risk of mechanical ventilation; pooled RR was 0.71 (95%CI 0.52-0.96, I2 = 0%), with a corresponding number needed to treat of 17 (95%CI 9-100). Among 18 cohorts at moderate risk of bias with 9850 patients, the pooled adjusted RR for mortality was 0.58 (95%CI 0.51-0.66, I2 = 2.5%). This association was observed over all degrees of COVID-19 severity. Data from the RCTs did not show a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab: pooled RR 0.63 (95%CI 0.38-1.06, five RCTs) and 0.83 (95%CI 0.55-1.24, five RCTs), respectively.ConclusionsCumulative moderate-certainty evidence shows that tocilizumab reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. While RCTs showed that tocilizumab did not reduce short-term mortality, low-certainty evidence from cohort studies suggests an association between tocilizumab and lower mortality. We did not observe a higher risk of infections or adverse events with tocilizumab use. This review will continuously evaluate the role of tocilizumab in COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC7644182 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis review was aimed to synthesise the best available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir in the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19.MethodRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir were searched via databases and other sources from December 2019 to December 2020. Two independent reviewers performed literature screening, data extraction and assessment of risk bias. Seven studies involving 3686 patients were included.ResultsTreatment with remdesivir was associated with an increase in clinical recovery rate by 21% (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.08-1.35) on day 7 and 29% (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.22-1.37) on day 14. The likelihoods of requiring high-flow supplemental oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation in the remdesivir group were lower than in the placebo group by 27% (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.54-0.99) and 47% (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.39-0.72), respectively. Remdesivir-treated patients showed a 39% (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.79) reduction in the risk of mortality on day 14 compared to the control group; however, there was no significant difference on day 28. Serious adverse effects (SAEs) were significantly less common in patients treated with remdesivir, with an absolute risk difference of 6% (RD -0.06; 95% CI -0.09 to -0.03).ConclusionDespite conditional recommendation against its use, remdesivir could still be effective in early clinical improvement; reduction of early mortality and avoiding high-flow supplemental oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation among hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Remdesivir was also well tolerated without significant SAEs compared to placebo, yet available evidence from clinical studies support the need to conduct close monitoring.
| S-EPMC8325414 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8604568 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsDatabases were searched for studies that compared the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of baricitinib with standard therapy for the treatment of severe COVID-19 and clearly reported relevant outcomes published until December 31, 2022. The corresponding data were extracted from these studies. A fixed-effects model was used to calculate the pooled estimates. The study protocol can be accessed at PROSPERO (CRD42023394173).ResultsThe baricitinib group had a significantly lower mortality rate and proportion of patients who received mechanical ventilation than the control group (OR = 0.61, 0.57; P = .008, 0.02; 95% CI 0.42-0.88; 0.35-0.92; I2 = 71% and 86%, respectively). The length of hospital stay and rates of severe adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups.ConclusionBaricitinib reduces mortality and mechanical ventilation requirements in patients with severe COVID-19. Therefore, we developed a comprehensive understanding of the role of baricitinib in patients with severe COVID-19.
| S-EPMC10695502 | biostudies-literature