Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 14 de 14
Filter
1.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 2022 Mar 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1757506

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Several specialized collections of COVID-19 literature have been developed during the global health emergency. These include the WHO COVID-19 Global Literature Database, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, CAMRADES COVID-19 SOLES, Epistemonikos' COVID-19 L-OVE and LitCovid. Our objective was to evaluate the completeness of these collections and to measure the time from when COVID-19 articles are posted to when they appear in the collections. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We tested each selected collection for the presence of 440 included studies from 25 COVID-19 systematic reviews. We sampled 112 journals and prospectively monitored their websites until a new COVID-19 article appeared. We then monitored for two weeks to see when the new articles appeared in each collection. PubMed served as a comparator. RESULTS: Every collection provided at least one record not found in PubMed. Four records (1%) were not in any of the sources studied. Collections contained between 83% and 93% of the primary studies with the WHO database being most complete. By two weeks, between 60% and 78% of tracked articles had appeared. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of the best performing Covid-19 collections by systematic reviews to replace paywalled databases.

2.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 11(1): e33989, 2022 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1573631

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe infections are characterized by inflammation and oxidative damage. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) administration may attenuate oxidative damage and, in turn, reduce vascular endothelial injury in pulmonary and systemic vasculature. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe a protocol for a living systematic review that will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of parenteral vitamin C administration in adults with severe infections, including those with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 30, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating parenteral vitamin C versus no parenteral vitamin C in hospitalized adults with severe infection. Eligible studies will include at least 1 arm involving any dose of parenteral vitamin C alone or in combination with other cointerventions and at least 1 arm not involving parenteral vitamin C. The primary outcomes of interest will include in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation via a modified Risk of Bias 2.0 tool will be conducted independently and in pairs. We will perform random effects modeling for meta-analyses, in which study weights will be generated by using the inverse variance method. We will assess certainty in effect estimates by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Meta-analyses will be updated iteratively as new trial evidence becomes available. RESULTS: Among the 1386 citations identified as of March 30, 2021, a total of 17 eligible randomized controlled trials have been identified as of September 2021. We are in the process of updating the search strategy and associated data analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The results will be of importance to critical care physicians and hospitalists who manage severe infection and COVID-19 in daily practice, and they may directly inform international clinical guidance. Although our systematic review will incorporate the most recent trial evidence, ongoing trials may change our confidence in the estimates of effects, thereby necessitating iterative updates in the form of a living review. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020209187; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=209187. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/33989.

3.
Can J Anaesth ; 67(9): 1217-1248, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1536371

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products. SOURCE: Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density. CONCLUSIONS: High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.


RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons réalisé deux comptes rendus sur commande de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé pour guider l'utilisation de canules nasales à haut débit (CNHD) chez les patients ayant contracté le coronavirus (COVID-19). Nous avons synthétisé les données probantes concernant leur efficacité et leur innocuité (compte rendu 1), ainsi que les risques de dispersion des gouttelettes, de génération d'aérosols, et de transmission associée d'éléments viraux (compte rendu 2). SOURCE: Des recherches de littérature ont été réalisées dans les bases de données Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ainsi que dans les bases de données chinoises et medRxiv. Compte rendu 1 : nous avons synthétisé les résultats d'études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) comparant les CNHD à une oxygénothérapie conventionnelle chez des patients en état critique atteints d'insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique aiguë. Compte rendu 2 : nous avons résumé sous forme narrative les constatations d'études évaluant la dispersion de gouttelettes, la génération d'aérosols ou la transmission infectieuse associées aux CNHD. Pour les deux comptes rendus, des réviseurs appariés ont réalisé la sélection des études, l'extraction des données et l'évaluation du risque de biais de manière indépendante. Nous avons évalué la certitude des données probantes en nous fondant sur la méthodologie GRADE. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Aucune étude éligible n'incluait de patients atteints de COVID-19. Compte rendu 1 : 12 ERC (n = 1989 patients) ont fourni des données probantes de certitude faible selon lesquelles les CNHD réduiraient la ventilation invasive (risque relatif [RR], 0,85; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 0,74 à 0,99) et l'intensification de l'oxygénothérapie (RR, 0,71; IC 95 %, 0,51 à 0,98) chez les patients atteints d'insuffisance respiratoire. Les résultats n'ont pas démontré de différences en matière de mortalité (certitude modérée), ni de durée du séjour hospitalier ou à l'unité des soins intensifs (certitude modérée et faible, respectivement). Compte rendu 2 : quatre études évaluant la dispersion de gouttelettes et trois évaluant la génération et la dispersion d'aérosols ont fourni des données probantes de très faible certitude. Deux études de simulation et une étude croisée ont donné des résultats mitigés quant à l'effet des CNHD sur la dispersion des gouttelettes. Bien que deux études de simulation n'aient rapporté aucune augmentation associée concernant la dispersion d'aérosols, l'une a rapporté que des taux de débit plus élevés étaient associés à des régions à densité d'aérosols élevée plus grandes. CONCLUSION: Les canules nasales à haut débit pourraient réduire la nécessité de recourir à la ventilation invasive et l'escalade des traitements par rapport à l'oxygénothérapie conventionnelle chez les patients atteints de COVID-19 souffrant d'insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique aiguë. Cet avantage doit être soupesé contre le risque inconnu de transmission atmosphérique.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aerosols , COVID-19 , Cannula , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology
4.
BMJ ; 374: n2231, 2021 09 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438073

ABSTRACT

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).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/immunology , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Network Meta-Analysis , Treatment Outcome
5.
BMJ ; 373: n949, 2021 04 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1203960

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Carrageenan/pharmacology , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Hydroxychloroquine/pharmacology , Ivermectin/pharmacology , Anti-Infective Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Chemoprevention/methods , Chemoprevention/statistics & numerical data , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Uncertainty
6.
BMJ Open ; 11(3): e040616, 2021 03 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1140331

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: SARS-CoV-2-related disease, referred to as COVID-19, has emerged as a global pandemic since December 2019. While there is growing recognition regarding possible airborne transmission, particularly in the setting of aerosol-generating procedures and treatments, whether nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 generate aerosols remains unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 3 November 2020. We also searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Medical Journal Network, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 29 March 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All comparative and non-comparative studies that evaluated dispersion or aerosolisation of viable airborne organisms, or transmission of infection associated with nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab testing. RESULTS: Of 7702 citations, only one study was deemed eligible. Using a dedicated sampling room with negative pressure isolation room, personal protective equipment including N95 or higher masks, strict sterilisation protocols, structured training with standardised collection methods and a structured collection and delivery system, a tertiary care hospital proved a 0% healthcare worker infection rate among eight nurses conducting over 11 000 nasopharyngeal swabs. No studies examining transmissibility with other safety protocols, nor any studies quantifying the risk of aerosol generation with nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2, were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited to no published data regarding aerosol generation and risk of transmission with nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Field experiments to quantify this risk are warranted. Vigilance in adhering to current standards for infection control is suggested.


Subject(s)
Aerosols , COVID-19 Testing/instrumentation , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Infection Control , Nasopharynx/virology , Oropharynx/virology , Pandemics
7.
CMAJ ; 192(47): E1585-E1596, 2020 Nov 23.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-941709

ABSTRACT

CONTEXTE: On donne de façon empirique des agents antiviraux à certains patients atteints de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Dans le but d'appuyer la rédaction de lignes directrices sur la prise en charge de la COVID-19, nous avons réalisé une revue systématique des bénéfices et des préjudices associés à 7 traitements antiviraux contre cette infection. MÉTHODES: Nous avons effectué des recherches dans MEDLINE, Embase, le Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed et 3 bases de données chinoises (CNKI, Wanfang Data et SinoMed) jusqu'au 19 avril 2020, dans medRxiv et ChinaXiv jusqu'au 27 avril 2020, ainsi que dans Chongqing VIP jusqu'au 30 avril 2020. Nous avons sélectionné des études sur la ribavirine, la chloroquine, l'hydroxychloroquine, l'umifénovir (Arbidol), le favipiravir, l'interféron et le lopinavir/ritonavir. Lorsqu'il n'y avait pas de données directes d'études sur la COVID-19, nous avons retenu des données indirectes d'études sur le syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS) et le syndrome respiratoire du Moyen-Orient (SRMO) pour l'analyse de l'efficacité, et d'études sur d'autres infections respiratoires virales aiguës pour l'analyse de l'innocuité. RÉSULTATS: Le taux de décès chez les patients atteints d'une forme sans signe clinique de gravité de COVID-19 était extrêmement bas, ce qui ne permet pas de conclure à un effet important sur la mortalité. Nous n'avons obtenu que des données de très faible qualité indiquant que la plupart des traitements avaient peu ou pas de bénéfices sur les paramètres à l'étude, quelle que soit la gravité de la COVID-19. Seule exception : le traitement au lopinavir/ritonavir, pour lequel nous avons obtenu des données de faible qualité faisant état d'une réduction de la durée du séjour en unité de soins intensifs (différence des risques [DR] 5 jours de moins, intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 0 à 9 jours) et de la durée d'hospitalisation (DR 1 jour de moins, IC de 95 % 0 à 2 jours). En ce qui concerne l'innocuité, les données étaient de faible ou de très faible qualité, sauf pour le traitement au lopinavir/ritonavir, où des données de qualité moyenne laissaient supposer une augmentation probable de la diarrhée, des nausées et des vomissements. INTERPRÉTATION: À l'heure actuelle, rien ne prouve de façon convaincante que les traitements antiviraux apportent des bénéfices importants dans la lutte contre la COVID-19, bien que les données propres à chaque traitement n'excluent pas cette possibilité. D'autres essais randomisés et contrôlés menés auprès de patients atteints de la COVID-19 sont nécessaires avant de pouvoir recourir à ces traitements en toute confiance.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Treatment Outcome
8.
CMAJ ; 192(47): E1571-E1584, 2020 Nov 23.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-941708

ABSTRACT

CONTEXTE: Il existe très peu de données directes sur l'administration de corticostéroïdes aux patients atteints de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Les données indirectes sur des maladies associées devront donc guider les conclusions quant aux bénéfices et aux préjudices associés à cette pratique. Dans le but d'appuyer la rédaction d'une ligne directrice sur la prise en charge de la COVID-19, nous avons réalisé des revues systématiques sur les effets des corticostéroïdes dans le traitement de la COVID-19 et de maladies respiratoires aiguës sévères associées. MÉTHODES: Dans des bases de données biomédicales chinoises et internationales et des sources de prépublications, nous avons cherché les essais randomisés et contrôlés (ERC) et les études d'observation comparant des patients atteints de la COVID-19, du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS) ou du syndrome respiratoire du Moyen-Orient (SRMO) ayant reçu des corticostéroïdes à des patients semblables n'ayant pas reçu ce type de médicaments. Pour le syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë (SDRA), l'influenza et la pneumonie extrahospitalière (PEH), nous avons mis à jour les revues systématiques rigoureuses les plus récentes. Nous avons réalisé des méta-analyses à effets aléatoires pour cerner les risques relatifs, puis nous avons utilisé le risque de référence des patients atteints de la COVID-19 pour calculer les effets absolus. RÉSULTATS: Pour le SDRA, selon 1 petite étude de cohorte sur des patients atteints de la COVID-19 et 7 ERC sur des patients atteints d'une autre maladie (risque relatif : 0,72, intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 0,55­0,93, différence entre les moyennes [DM] 17,3 % plus faible, données de faible qualité), les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité. Chez les patients atteints d'une forme grave de COVID-19 sans SDRA, 2 études d'observation ont généré des données directes de très faible qualité montrant une augmentation du risque de mortalité avec l'administration de corticostéroïdes (rapport de risques 2,30, IC de 95 % 1,00­5,29, DM 11,9 % plus élevé). C'est aussi le cas de données observationnelles sur l'influenza. Des données observationnelles de très faible qualité sur le SRAS et le SRMO montrent peu ou pas de réduction dans le risque de mortalité. Des essais randomisés et contrôlés sur la PEH suggèrent que les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité (risque relatif 0,70, IC de 95 % 0,50­0,98, DM 3,1 % plus faible, données de très faible qualité), et augmenter le risque d'hyperglycémie. INTERPRÉTATION: Les corticostéroïdes pourraient réduire le risque de mortalité pour les patients atteints de la COVID-19 avec SDRA. Pour les patients atteints d'une forme grave de COVID-19 sans SDRA, les données sur les bénéfices provenant de différentes sources sont incohérentes et de très faible qualité.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Outpatients , Pandemics , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Treatment Outcome
9.
CMAJ ; 192(47): E1559-E1570, 2020 Nov 23.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-941707

ABSTRACT

CONTEXTE: On ne connaît pas encore avec certitude l'innocuité et l'efficacité du plasma de convalescent comme traitement de la forme grave de la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-2019). Afin d'appuyer la conception de lignes directrices sur la prise en charge de la COVID-19, nous avons effectué une revue systématique et une méta-analyse sur l'utilisation du plasma de convalescent pour le traitement de cette maladie et d'autres formes graves d'infections respiratoires virales. MÉTHODES: En mars 2020, nous avons effectué des recherches dans des bases de données biomédicales internationales et chinoises, des registres d'essais cliniques et des sources prépubliées afin de recenser des essais randomisés et contrôlés (ERC) et des études non randomisées comparant les issues de patients ayant reçu du plasma de convalescent à celles de patients n'en ayant pas reçu. Ont été inclus les patients ayant une infection aiguë attribuable à un coronavirus, au virus de l'influenza ou au virus Ebola. Nous avons également réalisé une méta-analyse à l'aide d'un modèle à effets aléatoires et évalué la qualité des données probantes au moyen de l'approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). RÉSULTATS: Sur les 1099 études uniques initialement repérées, 6 étaient admissibles, et aucune d'entre elles ne portait sur des patients atteints de la COVID-19. Une étude non randomisée (n = 40) sur l'administration de plasma de convalescent à des patients atteints du coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS-CoV) a fourni des données peu concluantes sur le taux de mortalité (risque relatif [RR] 0,10; intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 0,01 à 1,70). Des estimations regroupées provenant de 4 ERC sur l'influenza (n = 572) n'ont pas montré d'effet manifeste sur le taux de mortalité (4 ERC; RR 0,94; IC de 95 % 0,49 à 1,81), le rétablissement complet (2 ERC; rapports de cotes [RC] 1,04; IC de 95 % 0,69 à 1,64) et la durée d'hospitalisation (3 ERC; différence moyenne [DM] −1,62; IC de 95 % −3,82 à 0,58 jours). La qualité des données était très faible pour tous les paramètres relatifs à l'efficacité. Dans les ERC sur l'influenza, aucun ou peu d'événements indésirables graves ont été associés au plasma de convalescent (RR 0,85; IC de 95 % 0,56 à 1,29; données de faible qualité). INTERPRÉTATION: Les études portant sur des formes graves d'infections respiratoires virales autres que la COVID-19 ont fourni des données indirectes de très faible qualité semblant indiquer que le plasma de convalescent n'offre aucun bénéfice ou offre des bénéfices minimes pour le traitement de la COVID-19, de même que des données de faible qualité montrant qu'il n'entraîne pas d'événements indésirables graves.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Pandemics , Plasma , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome
10.
BMJ ; 370: m2980, 2020 07 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-691120

ABSTRACT

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 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 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: 196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. 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 fourth 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.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./statistics & numerical data , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Databases, Factual/statistics & numerical data , Drug Combinations , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Network Meta-Analysis , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Standard of Care , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
11.
CMAJ ; 192(27): E734-E744, 2020 07 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-661875

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management guideline, we conducted a systematic review that addressed the benefits and harms of 7 antiviral treatments for COVID-19. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and 3 Chinese databases (CNKI, WANFANG and SinoMed) through Apr. 19, medRxiv and Chinaxiv through Apr. 27, and Chongqing VIP through Apr. 30, 2020. We included studies of ribavirin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, umifenovir (arbidol), favipravir, interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir. If direct evidence from COVID-19 studies was not available, we included indirect evidence from studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) for efficacy outcomes and other acute respiratory viral infections for safety outcomes. RESULTS: In patients with nonsevere COVID-19 illness, the death rate was extremely low, precluding an important effect on mortality. We found only very low-quality evidence with little or no suggestion of benefit for most treatments and outcomes in both nonsevere and severe COVID-19. An exception was treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, for which we found low-quality evidence for a decrease in length of stay in the intensive care unit (risk difference 5 d shorter, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 9 d) and hospital stay (risk difference 1 d shorter, 95% CI 0 to 2 d). For safety outcomes, evidence was of low or very low quality, with the exception of treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir for which moderate-quality evidence suggested likely increases in diarrhea, nausea and vomiting. INTERPRETATION: To date, persuasive evidence of important benefit in COVID-19 does not exist for any antiviral treatments, although for each treatment evidence has not excluded important benefit. Additional randomized controlled trials involving patients with COVID-19 will be needed before such treatments can be administered with confidence.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Influenza, Human/drug therapy , Lopinavir/pharmacology , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Amides , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19 , Chloroquine , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , Indoles , Observational Studies as Topic , Pandemics , Pyrazines , Ribavirin , Ritonavir , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia ; 2020.
Article | WHO COVID | ID: covidwho-608089

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products. SOURCE: Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71;95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density. CONCLUSIONS: High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.

13.
CMAJ ; 192(27): E745-E755, 2020 07 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-343300

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. To support a guideline on COVID-19 management, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 and other severe respiratory viral infections. METHODS: In March 2020, we searched international and Chinese biomedical literature databases, clinical trial registries and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies comparing patients receiving and not receiving convalescent plasma. We included patients with acute coronavirus, influenza and Ebola virus infections. We conducted a meta-analysis using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Of 1099 unique records, 6 studies were eligible, and none of these included patients with COVID-19. One nonrandomized study (n = 40) on convalescent plasma in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) provided uninformative results regarding mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] CI 0.01 to 1.70). Pooled estimates from 4 RCTs on influenza (n = 572) showed no convincing effects on deaths (4 RCTs, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81), complete recovery (2 RCTs, odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.64) or length of stay (3 RCTs, mean difference -1.62, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.58, d). The quality of evidence was very low for all efficacy outcomes. Convalescent plasma caused few or no serious adverse events in influenza RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.29, low-quality evidence). INTERPRETATION: Studies of non-COVID-19 severe respiratory viral infections provide indirect, very low-quality evidence that raises the possibility that convalescent plasma has minimal or no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and low-quality evidence that it does not cause serious adverse events.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiratory Tract Infections/therapy , COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Influenza, Human/physiopathology , Influenza, Human/therapy , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Respiratory Tract Infections/physiopathology , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
14.
CMAJ ; 192(27): E756-E767, 2020 07 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-262616

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Very little direct evidence exists on use of corticosteroids in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Indirect evidence from related conditions must therefore inform inferences regarding benefits and harms. To support a guideline for managing COVID-19, we conducted systematic reviews examining the impact of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and related severe acute respiratory illnesses. METHODS: We searched standard international and Chinese biomedical literature databases and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). For acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), influenza and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), we updated the most recent rigorous systematic review. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool relative risks and then used baseline risk in patients with COVID-19 to generate absolute effects. RESULTS: In ARDS, according to 1 small cohort study in patients with COVID-19 and 7 RCTs in non-COVID-19 populations (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.93, mean difference 17.3% fewer; low-quality evidence), corticosteroids may reduce mortality. In patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, direct evidence from 2 observational studies provided very low-quality evidence of an increase in mortality with corticosteroids (hazard ratio [HR] 2.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.29, mean difference 11.9% more), as did observational data from influenza studies. Observational data from SARS and MERS studies provided very low-quality evidence of a small or no reduction in mortality. Randomized controlled trials in CAP suggest that corticosteroids may reduce mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98, 3.1% lower; very low-quality evidence), and may increase hyperglycemia. INTERPRETATION: Corticosteroids may reduce mortality for patients with COVID-19 and ARDS. For patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, evidence regarding benefit from different bodies of evidence is inconsistent and of very low quality.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Community-Acquired Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Influenza, Human/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , COVID-19 , Community-Acquired Infections/physiopathology , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Influenza, Human/physiopathology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL