Effects of therapies for Ebola virus disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Specific treatments targeting Ebola virus are crucial in managing Ebola virus disease. To support the development of clinical practice guidelines on medications for Ebola virus disease, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of therapies for patients with Ebola virus disease. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Global Health, African Index Medicus, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, Epistemonikos, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and SSRN without language restrictions for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between database inception and Jan 1, 2022, comparing at least one therapeutic agent for Ebola virus disease against standard care or another therapeutic agent for Ebola virus disease. Two reviewers assessed study eligibility and extracted summary data independently using a standardised form. Our outcomes of interest were mortality, adverse maternal outcomes, risk of onward transmission, duration of admission to a health-care facility, functional status after Ebola virus disease, serious adverse events from medication, adverse perinatal outcomes, time to symptom resolution, and time to viral clearance. We did frequentist network meta-analyses to estimate the effect of all interventions and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. We registered the protocol with PROSPERO, CRD42022296539. FINDINGS: We identified 7840 records through database searches, of which two RCTs with a total of 753 patients proved eligible. Only data on mortality, the duration of admission, serious adverse events, and time to viral clearance were available for meta-analysis. Compared with standard care, REGN-EB3 (relative risk [RR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·18 to 0·89; moderate certainty) and mAb114 (0·42, 0·19 to 0·93; moderate certainty) probably reduce mortality. Whether ZMapp (0·60, 0·28 to 1·26; very low certainty) and remdesivir (0·64, 0·29 to 1·39; very low certainty) reduce mortality compared with standard care is uncertain. With high certainty, REGN-EB3 reduces mortality compared with ZMapp (0·67, 0·52 to 0·88) and remdesivir (0·63, 0·49 to 0·82). With high certainty, mAb114 also reduces mortality compared with ZMapp (0·71, 0·55 to 0·91) and remdesivir (0·66, 0·52 to 0·84). Compared with standard care, REGN-EB3, mAb114, ZMapp, and remdesivir might have little or no effect on the time to viral clearance (mean difference ranged from -0·25 days to -1·14 days; low certainty). ZMapp might reduce the duration of admission compared with standard care (mean difference -2·02 days, 95% CI -4·05 to 0·01; low certainty). Findings for all comparisons suggested that there might be little or no difference in the prevalence of serious adverse events, but certainty was low or very low in all comparisons but one. INTERPRETATION: REGN-EB3 and mAb114 separately reduce mortality compared with ZMapp, remdesivir, or standard care in patients with Ebola virus disease. These findings suggest that health-care workers should prioritise the use of REGN-EB3 and mAb114 for patients with Ebola virus disease during future outbreaks. FUNDING: WHO.

Use of traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients: An evidence mapping study.

Background: The potential effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) against "epidemic diseases" has highlighted the knowledge gaps associated with TCM in COVID-19 management. This study aimed to map the matrix for rigorously assessing, organizing, and presenting evidence relevant to TCM in COVID-19 management. Methods: In this study, we used the methodology of evidence mapping (EM). Nine electronic databases, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, gray literature, reference lists of articles, and relevant Chinese conference proceedings, were searched for articles published until 23 March 2022. The EndNote X9, Rayyan, EPPI, and R software were used for data entry and management. Results: In all, 126 studies, including 76 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 50 systematic reviews (SRs), met our inclusion criteria. Of these, only nine studies (7.14%) were designated as high quality: four RCTs were assessed as "low risk of bias" and five SRs as "high quality." Based on the research objectives of these studies, the included studies were classified into treatment (53 RCTs and 50 SRs, 81.75%), rehabilitation (20 RCTs, 15.87%), and prevention (3 RCTs, 2.38%) groups. A total of 76 RCTs included 59 intervention categories and 57 efficacy outcomes. All relevant trials consistently demonstrated that TCM significantly improved 22 outcomes (i.e., consistent positive outcomes) without significantly affecting four (i.e., consistent negative outcomes). Further, 50 SRs included nine intervention categories and 27 efficacy outcomes, two of which reported consistent positive outcomes and two reported consistent negative outcomes. Moreover, 45 RCTs and 38 SRs investigated adverse events; 39 RCTs and 30 SRs showed no serious adverse events or significant differences between groups. Conclusion: This study provides evidence matrix mapping of TCM against COVID-19, demonstrating the potential efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients, and also addresses evidence gaps. Given the limited number and poor quality of available studies and potential concerns regarding the applicability of the current clinical evaluation standards to TCM, the effect of specific interventions on individual outcomes needs further evaluation.

Use of traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients: An evidence mapping study

Background: The potential effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) against "epidemic diseases” has highlighted the knowledge gaps associated with TCM in COVID-19 management. This study aimed to map the matrix for rigorously assessing, organizing, and presenting evidence relevant to TCM in COVID-19 management. Methods: In this study, we used the methodology of evidence mapping (EM). Nine electronic databases, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, gray literature, reference lists of articles, and relevant Chinese conference proceedings, were searched for articles published until 23 March 2022. The EndNote X9, Rayyan, EPPI, and R software were used for data entry and management. Results: In all, 126 studies, including 76 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 50 systematic reviews (SRs), met our inclusion criteria. Of these, only nine studies (7.14%) were designated as high quality: four RCTs were assessed as "low risk of bias” and five SRs as "high quality.” Based on the research objectives of these studies, the included studies were classified into treatment (53 RCTs and 50 SRs, 81.75%), rehabilitation (20 RCTs, 15.87%), and prevention (3 RCTs, 2.38%) groups. A total of 76 RCTs included 59 intervention categories and 57 efficacy outcomes. All relevant trials consistently demonstrated that TCM significantly improved 22 outcomes (i.e., consistent positive outcomes) without significantly affecting four (i.e., consistent negative outcomes). Further, 50 SRs included nine intervention categories and 27 efficacy outcomes, two of which reported consistent positive outcomes and two reported consistent negative outcomes. Moreover, 45 RCTs and 38 SRs investigated adverse events;39 RCTs and 30 SRs showed no serious adverse events or significant differences between groups. Conclusion: This study provides evidence matrix mapping of TCM against COVID-19, demonstrating the potential efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients, and also addresses evidence gaps. Given the limited number and poor quality of available studies and potential concerns regarding the applicability of the current clinical evaluation standards to TCM, the effect of specific interventions on individual outcomes needs further evaluation.

A hnRNPA2B1 agonist effectively inhibits HBV and SARS-CoV-2 omicron in vivo.

The twenty-first century has already recorded more than ten major epidemics or pandemics of viral disease, including the devastating COVID-19. Novel effective antivirals with broad-spectrum coverage are urgently needed. Herein, we reported a novel broad-spectrum antiviral compound PAC5. Oral administration of PAC5 eliminated HBV cccDNA and reduced the large antigen load in distinct mouse models of HBV infection. Strikingly, oral administration of PAC5 in a hamster model of SARS-CoV-2 omicron (BA.1) infection significantly decreases viral loads and attenuates lung inflammation. Mechanistically, PAC5 binds to a pocket near Asp49 in the RNA recognition motif of hnRNPA2B1. PAC5-bound hnRNPA2B1 is extensively activated and translocated to the cytoplasm where it initiates the TBK1-IRF3 pathway, leading to the production of type I IFNs with antiviral activity. Our results indicate that PAC5 is a novel small-molecule agonist of hnRNPA2B1, which may have a role in dealing with emerging infectious diseases now and in the future.

Efficacy and safety of chinese herbal medicine for treating mild or moderate COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a pandemic globally, about 80% of patients infected with COVID-19 were mild and moderate. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has played a positive role in the treatment of COVID-19, with a certain number of primary studies focused on CHM in managing COVID-19 published. This study aims to systematically review the currently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs), and summarize the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched 9 databases up to 19 March 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For overall effect, we calculated the absolute risk difference (ARD) of weighted averages of different estimates, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Results: We included 35 RCTs and 24 OBs enrolling 16,580 mild/moderate patients. The certainty of evidence was very low to low. Compared with usual supportive treatments, most effect estimates of CHM treatments were consistent in direction. CHMs presented significant benefits in reducing rate of conversion to severe cases (ARD = 99 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and 131 less per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.52%) and mortality (ARD = 3 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and OBs, baseline risk: 0.40%); shortening time to symptom resolution (3.35 days in RCTs and 2.94 days in OBs), length of hospital stay (2.36 days in RCTs and 2.12 days in OBs) and time to viral clearance (2.64 days in RCTs and 4.46 days in OBs); increasing rate of nucleic acid conversion (ARD = 73 more per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.30%). No serious adverse reactions were found and the differences between CHM and usual supportive care were insignificant. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence showed that CHMs were beneficial in treating mild or moderate patients. CHMs have been proved to possess a safety profile that is comparable to that of usual supportive treatment alone. More rigorously designed clinical trials and mechanism studies are still warranted to further confirm the present findings.

Risk of incident diabetes after COVID-19 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 might be a risk factor for various chronic diseases. However, the association between COVID-19 and the risk of incident diabetes remains unclear. We aimed to meta-analyze evidence on the relative risk of incident diabetes in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases were searched from December 2019 to June 8, 2022. We included cohort studies that provided data on the number, proportion, or relative risk of diabetes after confirming the COVID-19 diagnosis. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool the relative risk with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals. Prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the potential influencing factors. We converted the relative risk to the absolute risk difference to present the evidence. This study was registered in advance (PROSPERO CRD42022337841). MAIN FINDINGS: Ten articles involving 11 retrospective cohorts with a total of 47.1 million participants proved eligible. We found a 64 % greater risk (RR = 1.64, 95%CI: 1.51 to 1.79) of diabetes in patients with COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19 controls, which could increase the number of diabetes events by 701 (558 more to 865 more) per 10,000 persons. We detected significant subgroup effects for type of diabetes and sex. Type 2 diabetes has a higher relative risk than type 1. Moreover, men may be at a higher risk of overall diabetes than women. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. No evidence was found for publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 is strongly associated with the risk of incident diabetes, including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We should be aware of the risk of developing diabetes after COVID-19 and prepare for the associated health problems, given the large and growing number of people infected with COVID-19. However, the body of evidence still needs to be strengthened.

Efficacy and safety of chinese herbal medicine for treating mild or moderate COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a pandemic globally, about 80% of patients infected with COVID-19 were mild and moderate. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has played a positive role in the treatment of COVID-19, with a certain number of primary studies focused on CHM in managing COVID-19 published. This study aims to systematically review the currently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs), and summarize the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched 9 databases up to 19 March 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For overall effect, we calculated the absolute risk difference (ARD) of weighted averages of different estimates, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Results: We included 35 RCTs and 24 OBs enrolling 16,580 mild/moderate patients. The certainty of evidence was very low to low. Compared with usual supportive treatments, most effect estimates of CHM treatments were consistent in direction. CHMs presented significant benefits in reducing rate of conversion to severe cases (ARD = 99 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and 131 less per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.52%) and mortality (ARD = 3 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and OBs, baseline risk: 0.40%);shortening time to symptom resolution (3.35 days in RCTs and 2.94 days in OBs), length of hospital stay (2.36 days in RCTs and 2.12 days in OBs) and time to viral clearance (2.64 days in RCTs and 4.46 days in OBs);increasing rate of nucleic acid conversion (ARD = 73 more per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.30%). No serious adverse reactions were found and the differences between CHM and usual supportive care were insignificant. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence showed that CHMs were beneficial in treating mild or moderate patients. CHMs have been proved to possess a safety profile that is comparable to that of usual supportive treatment alone. More rigorously designed clinical trials and mechanism studies are still warranted to further confirm the present findings.

Role of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Treating Severe or Critical COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread globally. Due to the higher risk of mortality, the treatment of severe or critical patients is a top priority. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment has played an extremely important role in the fight against COVID-19 in China; a timely evidence summary on TCM in managing COVID-19 is crucial to update the knowledge of healthcare for better clinical management of COVID-19. This study aimed to assess the effects and safety of TCM treatments for severe/critical COVID-19 patients by systematically collecting and synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (e.g., cohort). Methods: We searched nine databases up to 19th March 2022 and the reference lists of relevant publications. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. We performed qualitative systematic analysis with visual presentation of results and compared the direction and distribution of effect estimates for each patient's important outcome. We performed sensitivity analyses to observe the robustness of results by restricting analysis to studies with low risk of bias. Results: The search yielded 217,761 records, and 21 studies (6 RCTs and 15 observational studies) proved eligible. A total of 21 studies enrolled 12,981 severe/critical COVID-19 patients with a mean age of 57.21 years and a mean proportion of men of 47.91%. Compared with usual supportive treatments, the effect estimates of TCM treatments were consistent in direction, illustrating that TCM treatments could reduce the risk of mortality, rate of conversion to critical cases, and mechanical ventilation, and showed significant advantages in shortening the length of hospital stay, time to viral clearance, and symptom resolution. The results were similar when we restricted analyses to low-risk-bias studies. No serious adverse events were reported with TCM treatments, and no significant differences were observed between groups. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence suggests that TCM presents substantial advantages in treating severe/critical COVID-19 patients. TCM has a safety profile that is comparable to that of conventional treatment alone. TCMs have played an important role in China's prevention and treatment of COVID-19, which sets an example of using traditional medicine in preventing and treating COVID-19 worldwide.

The Effect of Delayed Oncology Surgery on Survival Outcomes for Patients With Gastric Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence-Based Strategies.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of delay in gastrectomy on gastric cancer patients' survival outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Databases including PubMed, MEDLINE (using the Ovid platform), Embase, the Cochrane Library, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset Challenge, COVID-19 Research Database (WHO), ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for studies of any design and in any setting that included patients with gastric cancer from their inception to July 31, 2021. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of research endpoints in each study were calculated. Statistical analyses were performed with Stata 12.0. Results: A total of 8 studies involving 4,052 gastric cancer patients were eligible and included in the present meta-analysis. The result of the meta-analysis was shown that delaying surgery for less than 8 weeks may not decrease OS (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.80~1.04, p = 0.167) and DFS (HR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.62~1.50, p = 0.872) in gastric cancer. Our meta-analysis also illustrated that delay in surgery for more than 4 weeks (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.56~1.27, p = 0.421), 6 weeks (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61~1.27, p = 0.490), and 8 weeks (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.80~1.07, p = 0.314) was also not associated with a decreased OS. Conclusion: A delay in surgery of less than 8 weeks is not associated with worse overall survival for patients with gastric cancer.

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach. RESULTS: We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo. DISCUSSION: Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

[Proposal of Living Evidence-based Guideline for Combination of Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine for Treatment of COVID-19].

In order to standardize the clinical diagnosis and treatment decision-making with traditional Chinese medicine for pa-tients of coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) and put the latest clinical study evidence into clinical practice, the international trust-worthy traditional Chinese medicine recommendations( TCM Recs) working group started the compilation of Living Evidence-based Guideline for Combination of Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine for Treatment of COVID-19 on the basis of the standards and re-quirements of WHO handbook, GRADE and RIGHT. This proposal mainly introduces the formulation methods and processes of the living guidelines in details, such as the composition of the working group, the collection and identification of clinical issues and out-comes, the production of the living systematic review and the consensus of recommendations. The guidelines will continue to monitor the clinical study evidences of TCM in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, and conduct regular evidence updating, retrieval and screening. When there is new study evidence, the steering committee will evaluate the possibility of the evidence to change clinical practice or previous recommendations, so as to decide whether the recommendations for the guidelines shall be implemented or upda-ted. The main criteria considered in the guideline updating are as follows:(1) There are new high-quality randomized controlled trial(RCT) evidences for TCM uninvolved in the previous edition of the guidelines;(2) as for the TCM involved in the guidelines, living sys-tematic review shows that new evidence may change the direction or strength of the existing recommendations. The specific implementation of the living evidence-based guidelines will take this proposal as the study basis and framework, in order to ensure the standardization of the formulation process and methods. This will be the first exploration of the methodology for living guidelines in the field of TCM.

Clinical trials in COVID-19 management & prevention: A meta-epidemiological study examining methodological quality.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect. RESULTS: We included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled <50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: There is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs. REGISTRATION: CRD42020192095.

Integrating Chinese and western medicine for COVID-19: A living evidence-based guideline (version 1).

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has turned into a pandemic and resulted in huge death tolls and burdens. Integrating Chinese and western medicine has played an important role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a living evidence-based guideline of integrating Chinese and western medicine for COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: Living evidence-based guideline. METHODS: This living guideline was developed using internationally recognized and accepted guideline standards, dynamically monitoring the release of new clinical evidence, and quickly updating the linked living systematic review, evidence summary tables, and recommendations. Modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus for all recommendations. The certainty of the evidence, resources, and other factors were fully considered, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. RESULTS: The first version of this living guidance focuses on patients who are mild or moderate COVID-19. A multidisciplinary guideline development panel was established. Ten clinical questions were identified based on the status of evidence and a face-to-face experts' consensus. Finally, nine recommendations were reached consensus, and were formulated from systematic reviews of the benefits and harms, certainty of evidence, public accessibility, policy supports, feedback on proposed recommendations from multidisciplinary experts, and consensus meetings. CONCLUSION: This guideline panel made nine recommendations, which covered five traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) prescription granules/decoction (MXXFJD, QFPD, XFBD, TJQW, and JWDY), three Chinese patent medicines (LHQW granules/capsule, JHQG granules, and LHQK granules), and one Chinese herbal injection (XBJ injection). Of them, two were strongly recommended (LHQW granules/capsule and QFPD decoction), and five were weakly recommended (MXXFJD decoction, XFBD decoction, JHQG granules, TJQW granules, and JWDY decoction) for the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19; two were weakly recommended against (XBJ injection and LHQK granules) the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19. The users of this living guideline are most likely to be clinicians, patients, governments, ministries, and health administrators.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS: As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

Efficacy and Safety of Qingfei Paidu Decoction for Treating COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Qingfei Paidu decoction (QFPD) has been widely used in treating COVID-19 in China. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive and systematic evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of QFPD. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of QFPD in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched seven databases up to 5 March 2021. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias of cohort and non-randomized trials. The "Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies With No Control Group" was adopted for controlled pre-post studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We carried out a random effect meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. For outcomes that could not be meta-analyzed, we performed a descriptive analysis. Results: We identified 16 studies with 11,237 patients, including one RCT, six non-randomized trials, two cohort studies, and seven pre-post studies. The certainty of evidence was low to very low because of the observational study design. QFPD combined with conventional treatment might decrease the time for nucleic acid conversion (MD = -4.78 days, 95% CI: -5.79 to -3.77), shorten the length of hospital stay (MD = -7.95 days, 95% CI: -14.66 to -1.24), shorten the duration of symptoms recovery of fever (MD = -1.51 days, 95% CI: -1.92 to -1.09), cough (MD = -1.64 days, 95% CI: -1.91 to -1.36) and chest CT (MD = -2.23 days, 95% CI: -2.46 to -2.00), improve the overall traditional Chinese medicine symptom scores (MD = 41.58 scores, 95% CI: 32.67 to 50.49), and change the laboratory indexes, such as WBC, AST, and CRP. Conclusion: QFPD combined with conventional treatment might be effective for patients with COVID-19. No serious adverse reactions related to QFPD were observed. Further high-quality studies are still needed in the future.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: Random effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Coronavirus disease (COVID 2019): protocol for a living overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to grow worldwide, and systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) on COVID-19 can efficiently guide evidence-based clinical practice. However, SRs/MAs with weaknesses can mislead clinical practice and pose harm to patients, and too many useless SRs/MAs could pose confusion and waste sources. A "living" overview of SRs/MAs aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarizing the highest-level evidence of COVID-19, that can help evidence-users to quickly identify trusted evidence to guide the practice. This study aims to systematically give an overview SRs/MAs of COVID-19, assess their quality, and identify the best synthesis of evidence. METHODS: Databases including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine (CBM) and WanFang were systematically searched on May 1, 2020 using relevant terms for identify SRs/MAs related to COVID-19. The study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed by independent reviewers, and results will be crosschecked. The authoritative tools (AMSTAR-2, PRISMA and its extensions) will be used to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs, and potential influence factors will be explored. The consistency of conclusions will be compared among reviews and the best evidence will be summarized. In addition, we will conduct exploratory meta-analyses (MAs) of individual studies when applicable. Data will be reported as number with (or) percentage, risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the specific results. R3.6.1 and Microsoft Excel 2016 will be used to analyze and manage data. RESULTS: The results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. DISCUSSION: In this study, we will present for the first time, an overview of SRs/MAs, which provides a comprehensive, dynamic evidence landscape on prevalence, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of COVID-19.

A Systematic Review of COVID-19 and Kidney Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Kidney transplant recipients are at increased susceptibility to many viral infections leading to justifiable anxiety about the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We performed literature searches from multiple resources in April and August 2020 for relevant English and Chinese literature. Abstracts were screened, followed by full-text review with data extraction of reports that included at least 20 kidney transplant recipients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and completed outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty studies had sufficient data, which we have summarized. Studies were predominantly descriptive and came from France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States. Quality assessment demonstrated limitations in selection of comparison groups and controlling for additional factors. Mortality rates from published studies were variable. Based on early data early from Spain, 46% of patients who developed COVID-19 within 60 days of transplantation died. Acute kidney injury was common, and mycophenolate was discontinued in most patients. CONCLUSION: Given the rapid global spread of COVID-19, reliable evidence is needed to inform public health policies. Hospitalized kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 are at a high risk of death in early reports but interpretation of these data requires caution, as studies were susceptible to period effects. Reassuringly, the quality of observational data is improving. Detailed and comprehensive data collection through linked registries will be necessary to conduct accurate analyses of risk factors for adverse outcomes, not least given the risks of stopping imunosuppression. This report highlights the early mortality excess in transplant recipients but medium- and longer-term outcomes remain uncertain and merit careful investigation.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Remdesivir for severe covid-19: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of remdesivir in the treatment of severe covid-19? This guideline was triggered by the ACTT-1 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 22 May 2020. CURRENT PRACTICE: Remdesivir has received worldwide attention as a potentially effective treatment for severe covid-19. After rapid market approval in the US, remdesivir is already being used in clinical practice. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for the use of remdesivir in severe covid-19 while recommending continuation of active enrolment of patients into ongoing randomised controlled trials examining remdesivir. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international panel of patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. The panel considered an individual patient perspective and allowed contextual factors (such as resources) to be taken into account for countries and healthcare systems. THE EVIDENCE: The linked systematic review (published 31 Jul 2020) identified two randomised trials with 1300 participants, showing low certainty evidence that remdesivir may be effective in reducing time to clinical improvement and may decrease mortality in patients with severe covid-19. Remdesivir probably has no important effect on need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on hospital length of stay. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: Most patients with severe covid-19 would likely choose treatment with remdesivir given the potential reduction in time to clinical improvement. However, given the low certainty evidence for critical outcomes and the fact that different perspectives, values, and preferences may alter decisions regarding remdesivir, the panel issued a weak recommendation with strong support for continued recruitment in randomised trials.