ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Owing to their inherent vulnerabilities, the burden of COVID-19 and particularly of its control measures on migrants has been magnified. A thorough assessment of the value of the interventions for COVID-19 tailored to migrants is essential for improving their health outcomes as well as promoting an effective control of the pandemic. In this study, based on evidence from primary biomedical research, we aimed to systematically identify health interventions for COVID-19 targeting migrants and to assess and compare their effectiveness. The review will be conducted within a programme aimed at defining and implementing interventions to control the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and conducted by a consortium of Italian regional health authorities. METHODS AND ANALYSES: Data sources will include the bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Embase, LOVE Platform COVID-19 Evidence, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies must evaluate health interventions for COVID-19 in migrants. Two independent reviewers will screen articles for inclusion using predefined eligibility criteria, extract data of retained articles and assess methodological quality by applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Disagreements will be resolved through consensus or arbitrated by a third reviewer if necessary. In synthesising the evidence, we will structure results by interventions, outcomes and quality. Where studies are sufficiently homogenous, trial data will be pooled and meta-analyses will be performed. Data will be reported according to methodological guidelines for systematic review provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a review of existing literature, and ethics approval is not required. We will submit results for peer-review publication and present at relevant conferences. The review findings will be included in future efforts to develop evidence-informed recommendations, policies or programmatic actions at the national and regional levels and address future high-quality research in public health.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Transients and Migrants , Humans , Pandemics , Research Design , Review Literature as Topic , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Background: Standard of Care (SoC) has been used with different significance across Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) on the treatment of Covid-19. In the context of a living systematic review on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19, we assessed the characteristics of the SoC adopted in the published RCTs. Methods: We performed a systematic review searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to April 10, 2021. We included all RCTs comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo, or SoC. All trials selected have been classified as studies with SoC including treatments under investigation for COVID-19 (SoC+); studies with SoC without specifications regarding the potential therapies allowed (SoC-); studies including as control groups Placebo (P) or active controls (A+). Results: We included in our analysis 144 RCTs, comprising 78,319 patients. Most of these trials included SoC (108; 75.0%); some in all arms of the study (69.7%) or just as independent comparators (30.3%). Treatments under investigation for COVID-19 in other trials were included in the SoC (SoC+) in 67 cases (62.0%), Thirty-one different therapeutic agents (alone or in combination) were counted within the studies with SoC+: mostly hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (28), lopinavir/ritonavir (20) or azithromycin (16). No specification was given regarding treatment allowed in the control groups (SoC-) in 41 studies (38.0%). Conclusion: Our analysis shows that the findings emerging from several clinical trials regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological intervention for COVID-19 might be jeopardized by the quality of control arms.
ABSTRACT
Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus that causes a disease which can leads to a severe form of fatal pneumonia. At december 2020 in Italy, more than 2 million people have contracted the virus and 78,755 people have died. The scientific community is studying and testing numerous compounds that can be effective and safe for treating people with covid-19. AIM: To synthesize and evaluate the quality of evidence of efficacy and safety for the treatment. The available evidence is summarized in a living systematic review, a review that is constantly updated on the basis of the results of the new clinical studies. METHODS: A bibliographic search is launched weekly on the electronic databases and on the main clinical trial registers. Two researchers independently select the articles and assess the quality of the studies using the criteria developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, the certainty of the overall quality of the evidence is assessed using the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: At 31/12/2020, 101 randomized controlled studies were included that consider 72 different comparisons and include a total of 55,281 patients. 37 drugs are tested with respect to the standard treatment, 6 are evaluated against placebo and finally 29 compare different drugs with each other. By selecting studies that evaluate the efficacy and safety of a drug compared to standard treatment, which include at least 2 studies and which have low to high certainty of evidence, results show that corticosteroids, remdesivir, favipiravir, immunoglobulins, colchicine, and umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell infusion could reduce overall mortality. No differences for the risk of any adverse events are observed between convalescent plasma and remdesivir compared to standard treatment. Remdesivir probably reduces the risk of serious adverse events; a similar effect, although less strong, is also noted for tocilizumab and the lopinavir-ritonavir combination. In contrast, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids and convalescent plasma transfusion are associated with safety concerns with respect to the risk of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The 101 studies included consider 72 comparisons and numerous outcomes, the results often coming from single studies and of small dimensions, and for 61% with a very low certainty of evidence, are difficult to summarize and the final result is to increase the uncertainty rather than providing useful information to the clinic and research. From all the work carried out it seems to us that the pandemic has highlighted the many shadows of scientific literature as tool to improve knowledge.