In:
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science (PLoS), Vol. 16, No. 3 ( 2021-3-11), p. e0248132-
Abstract:
COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. Methods and findings We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I 2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I 2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I 2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I 2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I 2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I 2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I 2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I 2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p 〈 0.00; I 2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses. Conclusions No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020178787 .
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1932-6203
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.g001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.g002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.g003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.g004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.g005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s008
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s009
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s010
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s011
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s012
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s013
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s014
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s015
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s016
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s017
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s018
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s019
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s020
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s021
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s022
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s023
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s024
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s025
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s026
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s027
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s028
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s029
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s030
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s031
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s032
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s033
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s034
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s035
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s036
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s037
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s038
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s039
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s040
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s041
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s042
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s043
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s044
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s045
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s046
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s047
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s048
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s049
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s050
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s051
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s052
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s053
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s054
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s055
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s056
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s057
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s058
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s059
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s060
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s061
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s062
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s063
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s064
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s065
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s066
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s067
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s068
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s069
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s070
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s071
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s072
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s073
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s074
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s075
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s076
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s077
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s078
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s079
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s080
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s081
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s082
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s083
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s084
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s085
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s086
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s087
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s088
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s089
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s090
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s091
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s092
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s093
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s094
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s095
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s096
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s097
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s098
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s099
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s100
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s101
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s102
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s103
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s104
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s105
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s106
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s107
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s108
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s109
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s110
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s111
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s112
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s113
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s114
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s115
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s116
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s117
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s118
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s119
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s120
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s121
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s122
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s123
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s124
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s125
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s126
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s127
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s128
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s129
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0248132.s130
Language:
English
Publisher:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publication Date:
2021
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2267670-3
Permalink