Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations: A Systematic Review

Background Hundreds of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements have been developed and published since the outbreak of the epidemic. However, these CPGs are of widely variable quality. So, this review is aimed at systematically evaluating the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs, exploring factors that may influence their quality, and analyzing the change of recommendations in CPGs with evidence published. Methods We searched five electronic databases and five websites from 1 January to 31 December 2020 to retrieve all COVID-19 CPGs. The assessment of the methodological and reporting qualities of CPGs was performed using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist. Recommendations and evidence used to make recommendations in the CPGs regarding some treatments for COVID-19 (remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir) were also systematically assessed. And the statistical inference was performed to identify factors associated with the quality of CPGs. Results We included a total of 92 COVID-19 CPGs developed by 19 countries. Overall, the RIGHT checklist reporting rate of COVID-19 CPGs was 33.0%, and the AGREE II domain score was 30.4%. The overall methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs gradually improved during the year 2020. Factors associated with high methodological and reporting qualities included the evidence-based development process, management of conflicts of interest, and use of established rating systems to assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The recommendations of only seven (7.6%) CPGs were informed by a systematic review of evidence, and these seven CPGs have relatively high methodological and reporting qualities, in which six of them fully meet the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of guidelines. Besides, a rapid advice CPG developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the seven CPGs got the highest overall scores in methodological (72.8%) and reporting qualities (83.8%). Many CPGs covered the same clinical questions (it refers to the clinical questions on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients) and were published by different countries or organizations. Although randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interferon, and lopinavir-ritonavir for patients with COVID-19 have been published, the recommendations on those treatments still varied greatly across COVID-19 CPGs published in different countries or regions, which may suggest that the CPGs do not make sufficient use of the latest evidence. Conclusions Both the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs increased over time, but there is still room for further improvement. The lack of effective use of available evidence and management of conflicts of interest were the main reasons for the low quality of the CPGs. The use of formal rating systems for the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations may help to improve the quality of CPGs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, we suggest developing a living guideline of which recommendations are supported by a systematic review for it can facilitate the timely translation of the latest research findings to clinical practice. We also suggest that CPG developers should register the guidelines in a registration platform at the beginning for it can reduce duplication development of guidelines on the same clinical question, increase the transparency of the development process, and promote cooperation among guideline developers all over the world. Since the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform has been created, developers could register guidelines prospectively and internationally on this platform.

Did patients with COVID-19 receive timely treatment in the early epidemic?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed a significant difference in case fatality rate between different regions at the early stage of the epidemic. In addition to the well-known factors such as age structure, detection efficiency, and race, there was also a possibility that medical resource shortage caused the increase of the case fatality rate in some regions. METHODS: Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang of identified articles were searched through 29 June 2020. Cohort studies and case series with duration information on COVID-19 patients were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data using a standardized data collection form and assessed the risk of bias. Data were synthesized through description and analysis methods including a meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 109 articles were retrieved. The time interval from onset to the first medical visit of COVID-19 patients in China was 3.38±1.55 days (corresponding intervals in Hubei province, non-Hubei provinces, Wuhan, Hubei provinces without Wuhan were 4.22±1.13, 3.10±1.57, 4.20±0.97, and 4.34±1.72 days, respectively). The time interval from onset to the hospitalization of COVID-19 patients in China was 8.35±6.83 days (same corresponding intervals were 12.94±7.43, 4.17±1.45, 14.86±7.12, and 5.36±1.19 days, respectively), and when it was outside China, this interval was 5.27±1.19 days. DISCUSSION: In the early stage of the COVID-19 epidemic, patients with COVID-19 did not receive timely treatment, resulting in a higher case fatality rate in Hubei province, partly due to the relatively insufficient and unequal medical resources. This research suggested that additional deaths caused by the out-of-control epidemic can be avoided if prevention and control work is carried out at the early stage of the epidemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020195606.

Mortality and Clinical Interventions in Critically ill Patient With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the current existing evidence on the outcome of critically ill patients with COVID-19 as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions. Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, the China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data from their inception to May 15, 2021. The search strings consisted of various search terms related to the concepts of mortality of critically ill patients and clinical interventions. Study Selection: After eliminating duplicates, two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts first, and then the full texts of potentially relevant articles were reviewed to identify cohort studies and case series that focus on the mortality of critically ill patients and clinical interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mortality of critically ill patients with COVID-19. The secondary outcomes included all sorts of supportive care. Results: There were 27 cohort studies and six case series involving 42,219 participants that met our inclusion criteria. All-cause mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) was 35% and mortality in hospital was 32% in critically ill patients with COVID-19 for the year 2020, with very high between-study heterogeneity (I 2 = 97%; p < 0.01). In a subgroup analysis, the mortality during ICU hospitalization in China was 39%, in Asia-except for China-it was 48%, in Europe it was 34%, in America it was 15%, and in the Middle East it was 39%. Non-surviving patients who had an older age [-8.10, 95% CI (-9.31 to -6.90)], a higher APACHE II score [-4.90, 95% CI (-6.54 to -3.27)], a higher SOFA score [-2.27, 95% CI (-2.95 to -1.59)], and a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio [34.77, 95% CI (14.68 to 54.85)] than those who survived. Among clinical interventions, invasive mechanical ventilation [risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% CI (0.39-0.61)], kidney replacement therapy [RR 0.34, 95% CI (0.26-0.43)], and vasopressor [RR 0.54, 95% CI (0.34-0.88)] were used more in surviving patients. Conclusions: Mortality was high in critically ill patients with COVID-19 based on low-quality evidence and regional difference that existed. The early identification of critical characteristics and the use of support care help to indicate the outcome of critically ill patients.

Effectiveness and safety of glucocorticoids to treat COVID-19: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids are widely used in the treatment of various pulmonary inflammatory diseases, but they are also often accompanied by significant adverse reactions. Published guidelines point out that low dose and short duration systemic glucocorticoid therapy may be considered for patients with rapidly progressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) while the evidence is still limited. METHODS: We comprehensively searched electronic databases and supplemented the screening by conducting a manual search. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of glucocorticoids in children and adults with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and conducted meta-analyses of the main indicators that were identified in the studies. RESULTS: Our search retrieved 23 studies, including one RCT and 22 cohort studies, with a total of 13,815 patients. In adults with COVID-19, the use of systemic glucocorticoid did not reduce mortality [risk ratio (RR) =2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69 to 5.75, I2=90.9%] or the duration of lung inflammation [weighted mean difference (WMD) =-1 days, 95% CI: -2.91 to 0.91], while a significant reduction was found in the duration of fever (WMD =-3.23 days, 95% CI: -3.56 to -2.90). In patients with SARS, glucocorticoids also did not reduce the mortality (RR =1.52, 95% CI: 0.89 to 2.60, I2=84.6%), duration of fever (WMD =0.82 days, 95% CI: -2.88 to 4.52, I2=97.9%) or duration of lung inflammation absorption (WMD =0.95 days, 95% CI: -7.57 to 9.48, I2=94.6%). The use of systemic glucocorticoid therapy prolonged the duration of hospital stay in all patients (COVID-19, SARS and MERS). CONCLUSIONS: Glucocorticoid therapy was found to reduce the duration of fever, but not mortality, duration of hospitalization or lung inflammation absorption. Long-term use of high-dose glucocorticoids increased the risk of adverse reactions such as coinfections, so routine use of systemic glucocorticoids for patients with COVID-19 cannot be recommend.

Potential effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents in children with coronavirus disease 2019: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak presents a new, life-threatening disease. Our aim was to assess the potential effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for COVID-19 in children. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane library, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang Data) from their inception to March 31, 2020 were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical controlled trials and cohort studies of interventions with antiviral agents for children (less than 18 years of age) with COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies with 6,008 patients were included. There was no direct evidence and all of evidence were indirect. The risks of bias in all studies were moderate to high in general. The effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for children with COVID-19 is uncertain: For adults with COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir had no effect on mortality [risk ratio (RR) =0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45 to 1.30]. Arbidol and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had no benefit on probability of negative PCR test (RR =1.27; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.73; RR =0.93; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.18) respectively. For adults with SARS, interferon was associated with reduced corticosteroid dose [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.14 g; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.07] but had no effect on mortality (RR =0.72; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.88); ribavirin did not reduce mortality (RR =0.68; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.06) and was associated with high risk of severe adverse reactions; and oseltamivir had no effect on mortality (RR =0.87; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.38). Ribavirin combined with interferon was also not effective in adults with MERS and associated with adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence showing the effectiveness of antiviral agents for children with COVID-19, and the clinical efficacy of existing antiviral agents is still uncertain. We do not suggest clinical routine use of antivirals for COVID-19 in children, with the exception of clinical trials.

Nosocomial infections among patients with COVID-19, SARS and MERS: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, has now spread to most countries and regions of the world. As patients potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2 need to visit hospitals, the incidence of nosocomial infection can be expected to be high. Therefore, a comprehensive and objective understanding of nosocomial infection is needed to guide the prevention and control of the epidemic. METHODS: We searched major international and Chinese databases: Medicine, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CBM (China Biology Medicine disc), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang database for case series or case reports on nosocomial infections of COVID-19, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndromes) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) from their inception to March 31st, 2020. We conducted a meta-analysis of the proportion of nosocomial infection patients in the diagnosed patients, occupational distribution of nosocomial infection medical staff. RESULTS: We included 40 studies. Among the confirmed patients, the proportions of nosocomial infections with early outbreaks of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS were 44.0%, 36.0%, and 56.0%, respectively. Of the confirmed patients, the medical staff and other hospital-acquired infections accounted for 33.0% and 2.0% of COVID-19 cases, 37.0% and 24.0% of SARS cases, and 19.0% and 36.0% of MERS cases, respectively. Nurses and doctors were the most affected among the infected medical staff. The mean numbers of secondary cases caused by one index patient were 29.3 and 6.3 for SARS and MERS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of nosocomial infection in patients with COVID-19 was 44% in the early outbreak. Patients attending hospitals should take personal protection. Medical staff should be awareness of the disease to protect themselves and the patients.

Application of telemedicine during the coronavirus disease epidemics: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As COVID-19 has become a global pandemic, early prevention and control of the epidemic is extremely important. Telemedicine, which includes medical advice given over telephone, Internet, mobile phone applications or other similar ways, may be an efficient way to reduce transmission and pressure on medical institutions. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang databases for literature on the use of telemedicine for COVID-19, SARS and MERS from their inception to March 31st, 2020. We included studies about the content of the consultation (such as symptoms, therapy and prevention, policy, public service), screening of suspected cases, the provision of advice given to those people who may have symptoms or contact history. We conducted meta-analyses on the main outcomes of the studies. RESULTS: A total of 2,041 articles were identified after removing duplicates. After reading the full texts, we finally included nine studies. People were most concerned about symptoms (64.2%), epidemic situation and public problems (14.5%), and psychological problems (10.3%) during COVID-19 epidemic. During the SARS epidemic, the proportions of people asking for consultation for symptoms, prevention and therapy, and psychological problems were 35.0%, 22.0%, and 23.0%, respectively. Two studies demonstrated that telemedicine can be used to screen the suspected patients and give advice. One study emphasized the limited possibilities to follow up people calling hotlines and difficulties in identifying all suspect cases. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine services should focus on the issues that the public is most concerned about, such as the symptoms, prevention and treatment of the disease, and provide reasonable advice to patients with symptoms or people with epidemic history.

Clinical characteristics of children with COVID-19: a rapid review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most guidelines on COVID-19 published so far include recommendations for patients regardless of age. Clinicians need a more accurate understanding of the clinical characteristics of children with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched studies reporting clinical characteristics in children with COVID-19 published until March 31, 2020. We screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias and quality of evidence of the included studies. We combined some of the outcomes (symptoms) in a single-arm meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Our search retrieved 49 studies, including 25 case reports, 23 case series and one cohort study, with a total of 1,667 patients. Our meta-analysis showed that most children with COVID-19 have mild symptoms. Eighty-three percent of the children were within family clusters of cases, and 19% had no symptoms. At least 7% with digestive symptoms. The main symptoms of children were fever [48%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 39%, 56%] and cough (39%, 95% CI: 30%, 48%). The lymphocyte count was below normal level in only 15% (95% CI: 8%, 22%) of children which is different from adult patients. 66% (95% CI: 55%, 77%) of children had abnormal findings in CT imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Most children with COVID-19 have only mild symptoms, and many children are asymptomatic. Fever and cough are the most common symptoms in children. Vomiting and diarrhea were not common in children. The lymphocyte count is usually within the normal range in children.

A quality evaluation of guidelines on five different viruses causing public health emergencies of international concern.

This project aims to evaluate the methods and reporting quality of practice guidelines of five different viruses that have caused Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC) over 20 past years: the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Ebola virus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), Zika virus and the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We systematically searched databases, guideline websites and government health agency websites from their inception to February 02, 2020 to extract practice guidelines for SARS-CoV, Ebola virus, MERS-CoV, Zika virus, SARS-CoV-2 and the diseases they caused. The literature was screened independently by four researchers. Then, fifteen researchers evaluated the quality of included guidelines using the AGREE-II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II, for methodological quality) instrument and RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare, for reporting quality) statement. Finally, a total of 81 guidelines were included, including 21 SARS-CoV guidelines, 11 Ebola virus (EBOV) guidelines, 9 MERS-CoV guidelines, 10 Zika Virus guidelines and 30 SARS-CoV-2 guidelines. The evaluation of the methodological quality indicated that the mean scores of each domain for guidelines of each virus were all below 60%, the scores for guidelines in the domains of "clarity of presentation" being the highest and in the "editorial independence" lowest. The mean reporting rate of each domain for guidelines of each virus was also less than 60%: the reporting rates for the domain "background" were highest, and for the domain "funding and interests" lowest. The methodological and reporting quality of the practice guidelines for SARS-CoV, Ebola virus, MERS-CoV, Zika virus and SARS-CoV-2 guidelines tend to be low. We recommend to follow evidence-based methodology and the RIGHT statement on reporting when developing guidelines.