A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis for COVID-19 Treatments
Abstract Background Numerous interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been investigated by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) aim to provide a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for COVID-19.Methods We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database, PubMed, PubMed Central, LitCovid, Proquest Central and Ovid up to December 19, 2020. RCTs for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients were included, regardless of publication status or demographic characteristics. Bayesian NMA with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs), while that with random effects was carried out as well for sensitivity analysis. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by their drug classifications.Results We identified 96 eligible RCTs with a total of 51187 patients. Compared with the standard of care (SOC), this NMA showed that dexamethasone led to lower risk of mortality with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.85 (95% CrI [0.76, 0.95]; moderate certainty) and lower risk of mechanical ventilation (MV) with an OR of 0.68 (95% CrI [0.56, 0.83]; low certainty). For hospital discharge, remdesivir (OR 1.37, 95% CrI [1.15, 1.64]; moderate certainty), dexamethasone (OR 1.20, 95% CrI [1.08, 1.34]; low certainty), interferon beta (OR 2.15, 95% CrI [1.26, 3.74]; moderate certainty), tocilizumab (OR 1.40, 95% CrI [1.05, 1.89]; moderate certainty) and baricitinib plus remdesivir (OR 1.75, 95% CrI [1.28, 2.39]; moderate certainty) could all increase the discharge rate respectively. Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor indicated lower risk of MV (OR 0.20, 95% CrI [0.10, 0.40]; moderate certainty); and patients receiving convalescent plasma resulted in better viral clearance (OR 2.28, 95% CrI [1.57, 3.34]; low certainty). About two-thirds of the studies included in this NMA were rated as high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was either low or very low for most of the comparisons.Conclusion The Bayesian NMA identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over SOC in terms of mortality, requirement of MV, hospital discharge and viral clearance. These results provide a comprehensive comparison of current COVID-19 treatments and shed new light on further research and discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments..
| Medienart: |
|
|---|
Preprint| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2020 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2020 |
| Enthalten in: |
bioRxiv.org - (2020) vom: 26. Dez. Zur Gesamtaufnahme - year:2020 |
|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Zhang, Chenyang [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
Volltext [kostenfrei] |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1101/2020.12.21.20248621 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
XBI019586450 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | XBI019586450 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230429095945.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201229s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1101/2020.12.21.20248621 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)XBI019586450 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)biorXiv10.1101/2020.12.21.20248621 | ||
| 035 | |a (biorXiv)10.1101/2020.12.21.20248621 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 570 |q DE-84 | |
| 100 | 1 | |a Zhang, Chenyang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis for COVID-19 Treatments |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2020 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Background Numerous interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been investigated by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) aim to provide a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for COVID-19.Methods We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database, PubMed, PubMed Central, LitCovid, Proquest Central and Ovid up to December 19, 2020. RCTs for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients were included, regardless of publication status or demographic characteristics. Bayesian NMA with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs), while that with random effects was carried out as well for sensitivity analysis. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by their drug classifications.Results We identified 96 eligible RCTs with a total of 51187 patients. Compared with the standard of care (SOC), this NMA showed that dexamethasone led to lower risk of mortality with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.85 (95% CrI [0.76, 0.95]; moderate certainty) and lower risk of mechanical ventilation (MV) with an OR of 0.68 (95% CrI [0.56, 0.83]; low certainty). For hospital discharge, remdesivir (OR 1.37, 95% CrI [1.15, 1.64]; moderate certainty), dexamethasone (OR 1.20, 95% CrI [1.08, 1.34]; low certainty), interferon beta (OR 2.15, 95% CrI [1.26, 3.74]; moderate certainty), tocilizumab (OR 1.40, 95% CrI [1.05, 1.89]; moderate certainty) and baricitinib plus remdesivir (OR 1.75, 95% CrI [1.28, 2.39]; moderate certainty) could all increase the discharge rate respectively. Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor indicated lower risk of MV (OR 0.20, 95% CrI [0.10, 0.40]; moderate certainty); and patients receiving convalescent plasma resulted in better viral clearance (OR 2.28, 95% CrI [1.57, 3.34]; low certainty). About two-thirds of the studies included in this NMA were rated as high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was either low or very low for most of the comparisons.Conclusion The Bayesian NMA identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over SOC in terms of mortality, requirement of MV, hospital discharge and viral clearance. These results provide a comprehensive comparison of current COVID-19 treatments and shed new light on further research and discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments. | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Jin, Huaqing |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wen, Yifeng |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yin, Guosheng |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t bioRxiv.org |g (2020) vom: 26. Dez. |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g year:2020 |g day:26 |g month:12 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.21.20248621 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_XBI | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |j 2020 |b 26 |c 12 | ||
| 953 | |2 045F |a 570 | ||