A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of remdesivir to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalized patients: have the guidelines evolved with the evidence?
Michele Bartoletti, Essy Mozaffari, Alpesh N Amin, Yohei Doi, Paul Loubet, Christina G Rivera, Michael Roshon, Aaditya Rawal, Emily Kaiser, Maria Vutcovici Nicolae, Shuai Fu, Thomas F Oppelt, Mel Chiang, Paul E Sax, Andre C Kalil
{"title":"A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of remdesivir to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalized patients: have the guidelines evolved with the evidence?","authors":"Michele Bartoletti, Essy Mozaffari, Alpesh N Amin, Yohei Doi, Paul Loubet, Christina G Rivera, Michael Roshon, Aaditya Rawal, Emily Kaiser, Maria Vutcovici Nicolae, Shuai Fu, Thomas F Oppelt, Mel Chiang, Paul E Sax, Andre C Kalil","doi":"10.1093/cid/ciaf111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background With progressive accumulation of knowledge on SARS-CoV-2 infection clinical management, treatment guidelines recommended several options including remdesivir (RDV), a broad-spectrum antiviral. Given the evolving nature of COVID-19, capturing the totality of scientific evidence from clinical trials and observational studies is critical to inform clinical decision making. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) with meta-analysis (MA) to summarize RDV effectiveness among hospitalized adults. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases for interventional and observational studies examining RDV efficacy. A rigorous double-reviewer approach was used for source identification, screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. A hierarchical random-effects model MA was used, with subgroup analyses for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and real-world (RW) studies. Results From January 2019 to December 2023 over 18,000 sources were screened and 122 unique studies were identified, reporting on 25,174 participants in RCTs and 1,279,859 in RW studies. Remdesivir significantly increased survival in the overall population [OR: 0.69 (0.55-0.86); p=0.001] across SARS-CoV-2 variants and disease severity levels: no supplemental oxygen [OR: 0.81 (0.75-0.88)], low-flow oxygen [OR: 0.71 (0.64-0.79)], high-flow oxygen [OR: 0.87 (0.83-0.91)] and invasive mechanical ventilation [OR: 0.78 (0.68-0.90)]. Rehospitalization risk was significantly reduced in patients receiving remdesivir [OR: 0.72 (0.64-0.81)]. Conclusion Our comprehensive SLR, capturing the totality of evidence, showed a significant survival benefit among patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection receiving RDV across all disease severity levels. To assure that healthcare providers are aware of and deploy evidence-based optimal care, recommendations should rely on both RCT and RW data.","PeriodicalId":10463,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaf111","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background With progressive accumulation of knowledge on SARS-CoV-2 infection clinical management, treatment guidelines recommended several options including remdesivir (RDV), a broad-spectrum antiviral. Given the evolving nature of COVID-19, capturing the totality of scientific evidence from clinical trials and observational studies is critical to inform clinical decision making. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) with meta-analysis (MA) to summarize RDV effectiveness among hospitalized adults. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases for interventional and observational studies examining RDV efficacy. A rigorous double-reviewer approach was used for source identification, screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. A hierarchical random-effects model MA was used, with subgroup analyses for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and real-world (RW) studies. Results From January 2019 to December 2023 over 18,000 sources were screened and 122 unique studies were identified, reporting on 25,174 participants in RCTs and 1,279,859 in RW studies. Remdesivir significantly increased survival in the overall population [OR: 0.69 (0.55-0.86); p=0.001] across SARS-CoV-2 variants and disease severity levels: no supplemental oxygen [OR: 0.81 (0.75-0.88)], low-flow oxygen [OR: 0.71 (0.64-0.79)], high-flow oxygen [OR: 0.87 (0.83-0.91)] and invasive mechanical ventilation [OR: 0.78 (0.68-0.90)]. Rehospitalization risk was significantly reduced in patients receiving remdesivir [OR: 0.72 (0.64-0.81)]. Conclusion Our comprehensive SLR, capturing the totality of evidence, showed a significant survival benefit among patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection receiving RDV across all disease severity levels. To assure that healthcare providers are aware of and deploy evidence-based optimal care, recommendations should rely on both RCT and RW data.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) is dedicated to publishing original research, reviews, guidelines, and perspectives with the potential to reshape clinical practice, providing clinicians with valuable insights for patient care. CID comprehensively addresses the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of a wide spectrum of infectious diseases. The journal places a high priority on the assessment of current and innovative treatments, microbiology, immunology, and policies, ensuring relevance to patient care in its commitment to advancing the field of infectious diseases.