经批准的雷米替韦方案治疗 COVID-19 的最新疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾、荟萃分析和试验序列分析。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-19 DOI:10.1080/03007995.2024.2366443
George N Okoli, Viraj K Reddy, Otto Lt Lam, Nicole Askin, Rasheda Rabbani
{"title":"经批准的雷米替韦方案治疗 COVID-19 的最新疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾、荟萃分析和试验序列分析。","authors":"George N Okoli, Viraj K Reddy, Otto Lt Lam, Nicole Askin, Rasheda Rabbani","doi":"10.1080/03007995.2024.2366443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efficacy of remdesivir for COVID-19 remains unclear. We updated our published systematic review to better inform on the use of remdesivir for COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Meta-analysis was conducted using an inverse variance, random-effects model, presenting relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was calculated using the <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> statistic. In addition, we conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA). Outcomes with additional data were clinical progression, hospitalization days, and all-cause mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included nine RCTs (12,876 individuals). Three trials each were of a low, unclear, and a high risk of bias. Compared with no treatment/placebo, remdesivir (100 mg daily, over 10 days) significantly improved clinical progression (RR 1.06, CI 1.02-1.11), but did not significantly reduce hospitalization days (MD -0.48, CI -2.18-1.21) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.92, CI 0.84-1.01). TSA suggested that further information is not required to conclude on the efficacy of remdesivir in improving clinical progression, and that, while more information is required for hospitalization days and all-cause mortality, further RCTs to prove fewer hospitalization days may be futile, as efficacy of remdesivir for this outcome is unlikely.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Remdesivir appeared promising for COVID-19, but there is insufficient evidence of its efficacy. High quality RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence base.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Update on efficacy of the approved remdesivir regimen for treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"George N Okoli, Viraj K Reddy, Otto Lt Lam, Nicole Askin, Rasheda Rabbani\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03007995.2024.2366443\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efficacy of remdesivir for COVID-19 remains unclear. We updated our published systematic review to better inform on the use of remdesivir for COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Meta-analysis was conducted using an inverse variance, random-effects model, presenting relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was calculated using the <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> statistic. In addition, we conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA). Outcomes with additional data were clinical progression, hospitalization days, and all-cause mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included nine RCTs (12,876 individuals). Three trials each were of a low, unclear, and a high risk of bias. Compared with no treatment/placebo, remdesivir (100 mg daily, over 10 days) significantly improved clinical progression (RR 1.06, CI 1.02-1.11), but did not significantly reduce hospitalization days (MD -0.48, CI -2.18-1.21) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.92, CI 0.84-1.01). TSA suggested that further information is not required to conclude on the efficacy of remdesivir in improving clinical progression, and that, while more information is required for hospitalization days and all-cause mortality, further RCTs to prove fewer hospitalization days may be futile, as efficacy of remdesivir for this outcome is unlikely.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Remdesivir appeared promising for COVID-19, but there is insufficient evidence of its efficacy. High quality RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence base.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2024.2366443\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2024.2366443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:雷米替韦治疗COVID-19的疗效仍不明确。我们更新了已发表的系统综述,以更好地为COVID-19使用雷米替韦提供信息:我们在住院的 COVID-19 患者中搜索了随机对照试验 (RCT)。采用反方差随机效应模型进行元分析,得出相对风险(RR)或平均差(MD)及其相关的 95% 置信区间(CI)。统计异质性采用 I2 统计量计算。此外,我们还进行了试验序列分析(TSA)。附加数据的结果包括临床进展、住院天数和全因死亡率:我们纳入了九项 RCT(12,876 人)。其中三项试验的偏倚风险分别为低、不明确和高。与无治疗/安慰剂相比,雷米替韦(每天 100 毫克,10 天以上)能显著改善临床进展(RR 1.06,CI 1.02-1.11),但不能显著减少住院天数(MD -0.48,CI -2.18-1.21)和全因死亡率(RR 0.92,CI 0.84-1.01)。TSA建议,不需要更多信息就能得出雷米替韦在改善临床进展方面的疗效结论,虽然需要更多关于住院天数和全因死亡率的信息,但进一步进行RCT以证明住院天数减少可能是徒劳的,因为雷米替韦对这一结果的疗效不太可能:结论:雷米地韦似乎有望用于COVID-19,但其疗效证据不足。需要进行高质量的 RCT 研究,以加强证据基础。
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
Update on efficacy of the approved remdesivir regimen for treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Efficacy of remdesivir for COVID-19 remains unclear. We updated our published systematic review to better inform on the use of remdesivir for COVID-19.

Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Meta-analysis was conducted using an inverse variance, random-effects model, presenting relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was calculated using the I2 statistic. In addition, we conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA). Outcomes with additional data were clinical progression, hospitalization days, and all-cause mortality.

Results: We included nine RCTs (12,876 individuals). Three trials each were of a low, unclear, and a high risk of bias. Compared with no treatment/placebo, remdesivir (100 mg daily, over 10 days) significantly improved clinical progression (RR 1.06, CI 1.02-1.11), but did not significantly reduce hospitalization days (MD -0.48, CI -2.18-1.21) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.92, CI 0.84-1.01). TSA suggested that further information is not required to conclude on the efficacy of remdesivir in improving clinical progression, and that, while more information is required for hospitalization days and all-cause mortality, further RCTs to prove fewer hospitalization days may be futile, as efficacy of remdesivir for this outcome is unlikely.

Conclusions: Remdesivir appeared promising for COVID-19, but there is insufficient evidence of its efficacy. High quality RCTs are needed for a stronger evidence base.

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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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