雷米替韦对 COVID-19 患者死亡率和机械通气需求的影响:按疾病严重程度分层的系统性回顾。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Korean Journal of Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-28 DOI:10.3904/kjim.2023.357
Seungeun Ryoo, Miyoung Choi, Su-Yeon Yu, Young Kyung Yoon, Kyungmin Huh, Eun-Jeong Joo
{"title":"雷米替韦对 COVID-19 患者死亡率和机械通气需求的影响:按疾病严重程度分层的系统性回顾。","authors":"Seungeun Ryoo, Miyoung Choi, Su-Yeon Yu, Young Kyung Yoon, Kyungmin Huh, Eun-Jeong Joo","doi":"10.3904/kjim.2023.357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other data resources to find RCTs published prior to April 10, 2023. The selection of studies, assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need to initiate MV.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5,068 articles were screened, from eight RCTs comprising 11,945 patients. The meta-analysis found that, compared to standard care or placebo, remdesivir treatment provided no significant all-cause mortality benefit (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.02; 8 studies; high certainty evidence), while subgroup analyses revealed a trend towards reduced mortality among patients requiring oxygen but not MV (pooled RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; 6 studies; I2 = 4%). The need to initiate MV (pooled RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94; 7 studies; moderate certainty evidence) in remdesivir-treated patients was also reduced compared to controls. Remdesivir significantly increased clinical improvement and discharge and significantly reduced serious adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, it was found that remdesivir treatment did not show a substantial decrease in the risk of mortality. However, it was linked to a reduction in the necessity for additional ventilatory support, suggesting remdesivir could be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, particularly those who are not on MV.</p>","PeriodicalId":48785,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"160-171"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10790052/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effects of remdesivir on mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review stratified by disease severity.\",\"authors\":\"Seungeun Ryoo, Miyoung Choi, Su-Yeon Yu, Young Kyung Yoon, Kyungmin Huh, Eun-Jeong Joo\",\"doi\":\"10.3904/kjim.2023.357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other data resources to find RCTs published prior to April 10, 2023. The selection of studies, assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need to initiate MV.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5,068 articles were screened, from eight RCTs comprising 11,945 patients. The meta-analysis found that, compared to standard care or placebo, remdesivir treatment provided no significant all-cause mortality benefit (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.02; 8 studies; high certainty evidence), while subgroup analyses revealed a trend towards reduced mortality among patients requiring oxygen but not MV (pooled RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; 6 studies; I2 = 4%). The need to initiate MV (pooled RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94; 7 studies; moderate certainty evidence) in remdesivir-treated patients was also reduced compared to controls. Remdesivir significantly increased clinical improvement and discharge and significantly reduced serious adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, it was found that remdesivir treatment did not show a substantial decrease in the risk of mortality. However, it was linked to a reduction in the necessity for additional ventilatory support, suggesting remdesivir could be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, particularly those who are not on MV.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48785,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"160-171\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10790052/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2023.357\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2023.357","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:雷米替韦治疗在降低死亡率和机械通气(MV)需求方面的效果仍不确定,因为随机对照试验(RCT)得出的结果相互矛盾:我们检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 和其他数据资源,以查找 2023 年 4 月 10 日之前发表的 RCT。研究筛选、偏倚风险评估和荟萃分析均按照 PRISMA 指南进行。主要结果为全因死亡率和启动 MV 的必要性:共筛选出 5,068 篇文章,来自 8 项 RCT,包括 11,945 名患者。荟萃分析发现,与标准护理或安慰剂相比,雷米替韦治疗对全因死亡率无明显益处(汇总风险比[RR],0.93;95% 置信区间[CI],0.85-1.02;8 项研究;高确定性证据),而亚组分析显示,需要吸氧但不需要 MV 的患者死亡率有降低趋势(汇总 RR,0.88;95% 置信区间[CI],0.77-1.00;6 项研究;I2 = 4%)。与对照组相比,接受雷米替韦治疗的患者启动 MV 的需求也有所减少(汇总 RR,0.74;95% CI,0.59-0.94;7 项研究;中度确定性证据)。雷米替韦能明显促进临床改善和出院,并显著减少严重不良事件的发生:在这项对研究性临床试验进行的系统回顾和荟萃分析中发现,雷米替韦治疗并未显著降低死亡风险。然而,雷米替韦治疗与减少额外通气支持的必要性有关,这表明雷米替韦可能对COVID-19患者有益,尤其是那些没有使用MV的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The effects of remdesivir on mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review stratified by disease severity.

Background/aims: The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other data resources to find RCTs published prior to April 10, 2023. The selection of studies, assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need to initiate MV.

Results: A total of 5,068 articles were screened, from eight RCTs comprising 11,945 patients. The meta-analysis found that, compared to standard care or placebo, remdesivir treatment provided no significant all-cause mortality benefit (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.02; 8 studies; high certainty evidence), while subgroup analyses revealed a trend towards reduced mortality among patients requiring oxygen but not MV (pooled RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; 6 studies; I2 = 4%). The need to initiate MV (pooled RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94; 7 studies; moderate certainty evidence) in remdesivir-treated patients was also reduced compared to controls. Remdesivir significantly increased clinical improvement and discharge and significantly reduced serious adverse events.

Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, it was found that remdesivir treatment did not show a substantial decrease in the risk of mortality. However, it was linked to a reduction in the necessity for additional ventilatory support, suggesting remdesivir could be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, particularly those who are not on MV.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Korean Journal of Internal Medicine
Korean Journal of Internal Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
129
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine is an international medical journal published in English by the Korean Association of Internal Medicine. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, reviews, and editorials on all aspects of medicine, including clinical investigations and basic research. Both human and experimental animal studies are welcome, as are new findings on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. Case reports will be published only in exceptional circumstances, when they illustrate a rare occurrence of clinical importance. Letters to the editor are encouraged for specific comments on published articles and general viewpoints.
期刊最新文献
A link between systemic low-grade inflammation and frailty in older adults: clinical evidence from a nationwide population-based study. Systemic venous air embolism after percutaneous lung biopsy. Adverse drug reactions following treatment of latent tuberculosis infection: a linked national tuberculosis surveillance with claims database. Association between oral health and hyperuricemia in Korean adults: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2016-2019. Effective control of a severely progressive recurrent respiratory papillomatosis with repetitive cryotherapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1