• 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.

Clin Microbiol Infect . Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Microbiol Infect


. 2022 May 19;S1198-743X(22)00230-0.
doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.04.018. Online ahead of print.
Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis


Todd C Lee[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Srinivas Murthy[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Olivier Del Corpo[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Julien Senécal[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Guillaume Butler-Laporte[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Zahra N Sohani[SUP] 5 [/SUP], James M Brophy[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Emily G McDonald[SUP] 7 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: The benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with Covid-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization providing contradictory recommendations for and against use.
Objectives: To evaluate the role of remdesivir for hospitalized inpatients as a function of oxygen requirements.
Data sources: Beginning with our prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE using PubMed from January 15, 2021, through January 22, 2022.
Study eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials; all languages.
Participants: All hospitalized adults with Covid-19.
Interventions: Remdesivir, in comparison to either placebo, or standard of care.
Assessment of risk of bias: We used the ROB-2 criteria.
Methods of data synthesis: The primary outcome was mortality, stratified by oxygen use (none, supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, and mechanical ventilation). We conducted a frequentist random effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio (RR) scale and, to contextualize the probabilistic benefits, we also performed a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis on the risk difference scale. A ≥1% absolute risk reduction was considered clinically important.
Results: We identified 8 randomized trials, totaling 9157 participants. The RR for mortality comparing remdesivir versus control was 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-1.22) in the patients who did not require supplemental oxygen; 0.83 (95%CI 0.73-0.95) for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen; and 1.19 (95%CI 0.98-1.44) in the setting of mechanical ventilation. Using neutral priors, the probabilities that remdesivir reduces mortality were 74.7%, 96.9% and 8.9%, respectively. The probability that remdesivir reduced mortality by ≥1% was 88.1% for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen.
Conclusions: Based on this meta-analysis, there is a high probability that remdesivir reduces mortality for nonventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen therapy. Treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated.

Keywords: COVID-19; Coronavirus; Meta-analysis; Mortality; Remdesivir.
 
Back
Top Bottom