ABSTRACT
Background and Objective Despite the pervasive vaccination program against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), people who got fully vaccinated are still contaminated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, making an effective and safe therapeutic intervention a crucial need for the patients' survival. The purpose of the present study is to seek available evidence for the efficacy and safety of three promising medications artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab against COVID‐19. Methods A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, medRxive, and Google Scholar, and the relevant articles published up to January 2022 were found. Furthermore, the clinical trial databases were screened for finding more citations. Data analysis was carried out applying The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle–Ottawa scale to assess the included studies. Meta‐analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1. Results Five published studies were identified as eligible. Meta‐analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the infliximab and control groups in terms of mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]: 0.65;confidence interval [CI] 95%: 0.40–1.07;p = .09). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups for the hospital discharge (RR: 1.37;CI 95%: 1.04–1.80;p = .03). No remarkable clinical benefit was observed for using imatinib in COVID‐19 patients. Artesunate showed significant improvement in patients with COVID‐19. Conclusion In the present, limited evidence exists for the efficacy and safety of artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in patients with COVID‐19. The findings of WHO's Solidarity international trial will provide further information regarding these therapeutic interventions. Our purpose was to review the available evidence of these three drugs in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Our findings showed little evidence for the efficacy and safety of artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in patients with COVID‐19.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite the pervasive vaccination program against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), fully vaccinated people are still being infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, making an effective and safe therapeutic intervention a crucial need for the patients' survival. The purpose of the present study is to seek available evidence for the efficacy and safety of three promising medications artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab against COVID-19. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, medRxive, and Google Scholar up to January 2022. Furthermore, the clinical trial databases were screened to find more citations. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1. RESULTS: Five published studies were identified as eligible. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the infliximab and control groups in terms of mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-1.07; p = 0.09). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups for the hospital discharge (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.04-1.80; p = 0.03). No remarkable clinical benefit was observed in favor of using imatinib for COVID-19 patients. Artesunate showed significant improvement in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In the present, limited evidence exists for the efficacy and safety of artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in patients with COVID-19. The findings of WHO's Solidarity international trial will provide further information regarding these therapeutic interventions.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Artesunate/therapeutic use , Humans , Imatinib Mesylate , Infliximab/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To provide the latest evidence for the efficacy and safety of arbidol (umifenovir) in COVID-19 treatment. METHODS: A literature systematic search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and medRxiv up to May 2021. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was observed between arbidol and non-antiviral treatment groups neither for primary outcomes, including the negative rate of PCR (NR-PCR) on Day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.14) and Day 14 (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96-1.25), and PCR negative conversion time (PCR-NCT; mean difference [MD]: 0.74; 95% CI: -0.87 to 2.34), nor secondary outcomes (p > .05). However, arbidol was associated with higher adverse events (RR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.06-4.73). Compared with lopinavir/ritonavir, arbidol showed better efficacy for primary outcomes (p < .05). Adding arbidol to lopinavir/ritonavir also led to better efficacy in terms of NR-PCR on Day 7 and PCR-NCT (p < .05). There was no significant difference between arbidol and chloroquine in primary outcomes (p > .05). No remarkable therapeutic effect was observed between arbidol and other agents (p > .05). CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis showed no significant benefit of using arbidol compared with non-antiviral treatment or other therapeutic agents against COVID-19 disease. High-quality studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of arbidol for COVID-19.