ABSTRACT: To examine the reproducibility of COVID-19 research, we create a dataset of pre-prints posted to arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv between 28 January 2020 and 30 June 2021 that are related to COVID-19. We extract the text from these pre-prints and parse them looking for keyword markers signaling the availability of the data and code underpinning the pre-print. For the pre-prints that are in our sample, we are unable to find markers of either open data or open code for 75% of those on arXiv, 67% of those on bioRxiv, and 79% of those on medRxiv.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) has been diffusely employed outside the intensive care unit (ICU) to face the high request of ventilatory support due to the massive influx of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) caused by coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19). We sought to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in COVID-19 patients supported by NIV outside the ICU.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PUBMED®, EMBASE®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register, along with medRxiv and bioRxiv repositories for pre-prints, for observational studies and randomized controlled trials, from inception to the end of February 2021. Two authors independently selected the investigations according to the following criteria: (1) observational study or randomized clinical trials enrolling ≥ 50 hospitalized patients undergoing NIRS outside the ICU, (2) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and (3) at least the intra-hospital mortality reported. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines were followed. Data extraction was independently performed by two authors to assess: investigation features, demographics and clinical characteristics, treatments employed, NIRS regulations, and clinical outcomes. Methodological index for nonrandomized studies tool was applied to determine the quality of the enrolled studies. The primary outcome was to assess the overall intra-hospital mortality of patients under NIRS outside the ICU. The secondary outcomes included the proportions intra-hospital mortalities of patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation following NIRS failure and of those with 'do-not-intubate' (DNI) orders.<h4>Results</h4>Seventeen investigations (14 peer-reviewed and 3 pre-prints) were included with a low risk of bias and a high heterogeneity, for a total of 3377 patients. The overall intra-hospital mortality of patients receiving NIRS outside the ICU was 36% [30-41%]. 26% [21-30%] of the patients failed NIRS and required intubation, with an intra-hospital mortality rising to 45% [36-54%]. 23% [15-32%] of the patients received DNI orders with an intra-hospital mortality of 72% [65-78%]. Oxygenation on admission was the main source of between-study heterogeneity.<h4>Conclusions</h4>During COVID-19 outbreak, delivering NIRS outside the ICU revealed as a feasible strategy to cope with the massive demand of ventilatory assistance.<h4>Registration</h4>PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , CRD42020224788, December 11, 2020.
Project description:<b>Background:</b> 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. <b>Methods and Findings:</b> 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. <b>Conclusion:</b> 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:The outbreak of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in Wuhan, China in December 2019 has now become a pandemic with no approved therapeutic agent. At the moment, the genomic structure, characteristics, and pathogenic mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 have been reported. Based upon this information, several drugs including the directly acting antivirals have been proposed to treat people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This rapid review aims to describe the directly acting antivirals that have been examined for use in the management of COVID-19. Searches were conducted in three electronic databases, supplemented with a search on arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, ChinaXiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry for studies examining the use of antivirals in COVID-19 to identify for case reports, case series, observational studies, and randomized controlled studies describing the use of antivirals in COVID-19. Data were extracted independently and presented narratively. A total of 98 studies were included, comprising of 38 published studies and 60 registered clinical trials. These drugs include the broad spectrum antivirals such as umifenovir, protease inhibitors such as lopinavir/ritonavir as well as the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitors, remdesivir, and favipiravir. Other drugs that have been used include the nucleosidase inhibitors and polymerase acidic endonuclease inhibitors which are currently approved for prevention of influenza infections. While some of the drugs appear promising in small case series and reports, more clinical trials currently in progress are required to provide higher quality evidence.
Project description:<h4>Object</h4>Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which leads to acute respiratory infection symptoms. SARS-CoV-2 infection is not always limited to the respiratory tract, and renal infection and dysfunction have been shown to be specific risk factors for death. In addition, COVID-19 has a higher incidence, severity and mortality in men than women. This disparity is due to biological rather than comorbid or behavioral sex differences. Because the male reproductive system is unique, the function of sex hormones in COVID-19 infection may explain the differences between males and females. Understanding these factors will provide appropriate prevention measures and adequate triage strategies and guide the drug discovery process.<h4>Methods</h4>An