tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
J Infect Dev Ctries
. 2022 Sep 30;16(9):1406-1412.
doi: 10.3855/jidc.16083.
A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparative safety assessment of favipiravir interventions in hospitalized COVID-19 patients
Kai Yang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jun Zeng[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Wenjing Dai[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Meifeng Chen[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Fan Yang[SUP] 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Introduction: COVID-19 is a coronavirus-based infectious illness that was first detected at the end of 2019 in Wuhan, China. The novel virus induces severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and has spread globally, resulting in an ongoing pandemic. There is still a lack of evidence for direct comparison of favipiravir therapy. Network meta-analysis (NMA), may incorporate direct and indirect comparisons in a pooled computation while depending on strong assumptions and premises. This study provides evidence-based recommendations on the safety of currently used clinical pharmacological treatments compared to favipiravir for COVID-19 patients.
Methodology: We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian NMA. We searched the primary databases and clinical trials center for reports of short-term, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of favipiravir for COVID-19 treatment. The primary endpoints here considered were any adverse events observed or reported during the treatment cycle with estimates of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), until November 6, 2021.
Results: Between January 2020 and July 2021, 908 individuals were randomly assigned to one of the seven active prescription medication regimens or placebo in this study, generating seven direct comparisons on 12 data points. The safety of favipiravir over the four clinically efficacious monotherapies or combinations including tocilizumab, arbidol, lopinavir + ritonavir, and chloroquine remained unknown due to the lack of a significant difference and the limited sample size.
Conclusions: Overall, comparative rankings could assist doctors and guideline developers in decision-making. We have also concluded that the safety of favipiravir requires further attention.
Keywords: COVID-19; adverse events; favipiravir; network meta-analysis; safety.
. 2022 Sep 30;16(9):1406-1412.
doi: 10.3855/jidc.16083.
A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparative safety assessment of favipiravir interventions in hospitalized COVID-19 patients
Kai Yang[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jun Zeng[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Wenjing Dai[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Meifeng Chen[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Fan Yang[SUP] 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 36223614
- DOI: 10.3855/jidc.16083
Abstract
Introduction: COVID-19 is a coronavirus-based infectious illness that was first detected at the end of 2019 in Wuhan, China. The novel virus induces severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and has spread globally, resulting in an ongoing pandemic. There is still a lack of evidence for direct comparison of favipiravir therapy. Network meta-analysis (NMA), may incorporate direct and indirect comparisons in a pooled computation while depending on strong assumptions and premises. This study provides evidence-based recommendations on the safety of currently used clinical pharmacological treatments compared to favipiravir for COVID-19 patients.
Methodology: We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian NMA. We searched the primary databases and clinical trials center for reports of short-term, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of favipiravir for COVID-19 treatment. The primary endpoints here considered were any adverse events observed or reported during the treatment cycle with estimates of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), until November 6, 2021.
Results: Between January 2020 and July 2021, 908 individuals were randomly assigned to one of the seven active prescription medication regimens or placebo in this study, generating seven direct comparisons on 12 data points. The safety of favipiravir over the four clinically efficacious monotherapies or combinations including tocilizumab, arbidol, lopinavir + ritonavir, and chloroquine remained unknown due to the lack of a significant difference and the limited sample size.
Conclusions: Overall, comparative rankings could assist doctors and guideline developers in decision-making. We have also concluded that the safety of favipiravir requires further attention.
Keywords: COVID-19; adverse events; favipiravir; network meta-analysis; safety.