• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Br J Clin Pharmacol . Efficacy of pharmacological interventions in COVID-19: A network meta-analysis

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Br J Clin Pharmacol


. 2022 Mar 31.
doi: 10.1111/bcp.15338. Online ahead of print.
Efficacy of pharmacological interventions in COVID-19: A network meta-analysis


Sandhiya Selvarajan[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Annuja Anandaradje[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Santhosh Shivabasappa[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Deepthy Melepurakkal Sadanandan[SUP] 2 [/SUP], N Sreekumaran Nair[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Melvin George[SUP] 3 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Aim: To perform network meta-analysis for a head-to-head comparison of various interventions used in COVID - 19 on mortality, clinical recovery, time to clinical improvement and the occurrence of serious adverse events.
Methods: Systematic search was performed using online databases with suitable MeSH terms including coronavirus, COVID-19, Randomized Controlled Trial, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, tocilizumab, remdesivir, favipiravir, dexamethasone, and interferon-β. Data were independently extracted by two study investigators and analysed.
Results: Out of 1225 studies screened, 23 were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among the drugs studied, dexamethasone reduces mortality by 10%, with a relative risk (RR) of 0.90 (95% CI [0.82-0.97]) and increases clinical recovery by 6% (RR 1.06, 95% CI [1.02-1.10]) compared to standard of care. Similarly, remdesivir administered for 10 days increased clinical recovery by 10%, reduced time to clinical improvement by 4 days and lowered the occurrence of serious adverse events by 27% as compared to standard of care.
Conclusion: In comparison to standard of care, dexamethasone was found to increase clinical recovery and lower mortality; remdesivir was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality as compared to tocilizumab and higher clinical recovery and shorter time to clinical improvement as compared to HCQ and tocilizumab; remdesivir followed by tocilizumab were found to have lesser occurrence of serious adverse events in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Keywords: Clinical recovery; dexamethasone; hydroxychloroquine; mortality; remdesivir.
 
Back
Top Bottom