伊维菌素治疗非住院COVID-19患者的疗效和安全性:对12项随机对照试验、7035名参与者的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents Pub Date : 2024-06-20 DOI:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2024.107248
Adrian V. Hernandez , Anna Liu , Yuani M. Roman , Paula Alejandra Burela , Vinay Pasupuleti , Priyaleela Thota , Cesar O. Carranza-Tamayo , Manuel Retamozo-Palacios , Vicente A. Benites-Zapata , Alejandro Piscoya , Jose E. Vidal
{"title":"伊维菌素治疗非住院COVID-19患者的疗效和安全性:对12项随机对照试验、7035名参与者的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Adrian V. Hernandez ,&nbsp;Anna Liu ,&nbsp;Yuani M. Roman ,&nbsp;Paula Alejandra Burela ,&nbsp;Vinay Pasupuleti ,&nbsp;Priyaleela Thota ,&nbsp;Cesar O. Carranza-Tamayo ,&nbsp;Manuel Retamozo-Palacios ,&nbsp;Vicente A. Benites-Zapata ,&nbsp;Alejandro Piscoya ,&nbsp;Jose E. Vidal","doi":"10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2024.107248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin in non-hospitalized patients with early COVID-19.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Five databases were searched until October 17, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with COVID-19 treated with ivermectin against standard of care (SoC), placebo, or active drug. Primary outcomes were hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV), clinical improvement, clinical worsening, viral clearance, and severe adverse events (SAEs). Random effects meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. Pre-specified subgroup analyses (ivermectin dose, control type, risk of bias, follow-up, and country income) and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twelve RCTs (<em>n</em> = 7,035) were included. The controls were placebo in nine RCTs, SoC in two RCTs, and placebo or active drug in one RCT. Ivermectin did not reduce hospitalization (relative risk [RR], 0.81, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.64–1.03; 8 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73–1.33; 9 RCTs, low QoE), or AEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75–1.07; 9 RCTs, very low QoE) vs. controls. Ivermectin did not reduce MV, clinical worsening, or SAEs and did not increase clinical improvement and viral clearance vs. controls (very low QoE for secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with main analyses, and TSA-adjusted risk for hospitalization was similar to main analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, ivermectin did not have effect on clinical, non-clinical or safety outcomes versus controls. Ivermectin should not be recommended as treatment in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":13818,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment of non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials with 7,035 participants\",\"authors\":\"Adrian V. Hernandez ,&nbsp;Anna Liu ,&nbsp;Yuani M. Roman ,&nbsp;Paula Alejandra Burela ,&nbsp;Vinay Pasupuleti ,&nbsp;Priyaleela Thota ,&nbsp;Cesar O. Carranza-Tamayo ,&nbsp;Manuel Retamozo-Palacios ,&nbsp;Vicente A. Benites-Zapata ,&nbsp;Alejandro Piscoya ,&nbsp;Jose E. Vidal\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2024.107248\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin in non-hospitalized patients with early COVID-19.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Five databases were searched until October 17, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with COVID-19 treated with ivermectin against standard of care (SoC), placebo, or active drug. Primary outcomes were hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV), clinical improvement, clinical worsening, viral clearance, and severe adverse events (SAEs). Random effects meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. Pre-specified subgroup analyses (ivermectin dose, control type, risk of bias, follow-up, and country income) and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twelve RCTs (<em>n</em> = 7,035) were included. The controls were placebo in nine RCTs, SoC in two RCTs, and placebo or active drug in one RCT. Ivermectin did not reduce hospitalization (relative risk [RR], 0.81, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.64–1.03; 8 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73–1.33; 9 RCTs, low QoE), or AEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75–1.07; 9 RCTs, very low QoE) vs. controls. Ivermectin did not reduce MV, clinical worsening, or SAEs and did not increase clinical improvement and viral clearance vs. controls (very low QoE for secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with main analyses, and TSA-adjusted risk for hospitalization was similar to main analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, ivermectin did not have effect on clinical, non-clinical or safety outcomes versus controls. Ivermectin should not be recommended as treatment in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857924001663\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857924001663","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介我们对早期COVID-19非住院患者使用伊维菌素的益处和危害进行了系统评估:截至2023年10月17日,我们在五个数据库中检索了伊维菌素与标准护理(SoC)、安慰剂或活性药物治疗COVID-19成年患者的随机对照试验(RCT)。主要结果包括住院率、全因死亡率和不良事件(AE)。次要结果包括机械通气(MV)、临床改善、临床恶化、病毒清除和严重不良事件(SAE)。研究人员进行了随机效应荟萃分析,并采用 GRADE 方法评估了证据质量(QoE)。进行了预先指定的亚组分析(伊维菌素剂量、对照类型、偏倚风险、随访和国家收入)和试验序列分析(TSA):共纳入了 12 项研究性试验(样本数:7035)。9项研究的对照组为安慰剂,2项研究的对照组为SoC,1项研究的对照组为安慰剂或活性药物。与对照组相比,伊维菌素未降低住院率(相对风险 [RR],0.81,95% 置信区间 [95%CI],0.64-1.03;8 项 RCT,低 QoE)、全因死亡率(RR,0.98,95%CI,0.73-1.33;9 项 RCT,低 QoE)或 AEs(RR,0.89,95%CI,0.75-1.07;9 项 RCT,极低 QoE)。与对照组相比,伊维菌素没有减少MV、临床恶化或SAE,也没有增加临床改善和病毒清除率(次要结果的QoE很低)。亚组分析与主要分析基本一致,TSA调整后的住院风险与主要分析相似:在未住院的COVID-19患者中,与对照组相比,伊维菌素对临床、非临床或安全性结果均无影响。不应推荐伊维菌素作为非住院COVID-19患者的治疗药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment of non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials with 7,035 participants

Introduction

We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin in non-hospitalized patients with early COVID-19.

Methods

Five databases were searched until October 17, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with COVID-19 treated with ivermectin against standard of care (SoC), placebo, or active drug. Primary outcomes were hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV), clinical improvement, clinical worsening, viral clearance, and severe adverse events (SAEs). Random effects meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. Pre-specified subgroup analyses (ivermectin dose, control type, risk of bias, follow-up, and country income) and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.

Results

Twelve RCTs (n = 7,035) were included. The controls were placebo in nine RCTs, SoC in two RCTs, and placebo or active drug in one RCT. Ivermectin did not reduce hospitalization (relative risk [RR], 0.81, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.64–1.03; 8 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73–1.33; 9 RCTs, low QoE), or AEs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75–1.07; 9 RCTs, very low QoE) vs. controls. Ivermectin did not reduce MV, clinical worsening, or SAEs and did not increase clinical improvement and viral clearance vs. controls (very low QoE for secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with main analyses, and TSA-adjusted risk for hospitalization was similar to main analysis.

Conclusions

In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, ivermectin did not have effect on clinical, non-clinical or safety outcomes versus controls. Ivermectin should not be recommended as treatment in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

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
CiteScore
21.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
176
审稿时长
36 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents is a peer-reviewed publication offering comprehensive and current reference information on the physical, pharmacological, in vitro, and clinical properties of individual antimicrobial agents, covering antiviral, antiparasitic, antibacterial, and antifungal agents. The journal not only communicates new trends and developments through authoritative review articles but also addresses the critical issue of antimicrobial resistance, both in hospital and community settings. Published content includes solicited reviews by leading experts and high-quality original research papers in the specified fields.
期刊最新文献
Access to phage therapy at Hospices Civils de Lyon in 2022: Implementation of the PHAGEinLYON Clinic program. Title Page & Editorial Board Hypervirulent Carbapenem-Susceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae ST412/K57 with Strong Biofilm Formation: association with gas gangrene and sepsis. Isoniazid Prophylaxis Based on Tuberculosis Risk Factors in Living Kidney Transplantation Recipients: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Machine Learning Accelerates the Discovery of Epitope-based Dual-bioactive Peptides Against Skin Infections.
×
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