Back

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis for COVID-19 Treatments

Zhang, C.; Jin, H.; Wen, Y.; Yin, G.

2020-12-22 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.12.21.20248621 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundNumerous interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been investigated by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) aim to provide a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for COVID-19. MethodsWe searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database, PubMed, PubMed Central, LitCovid, Proquest Central and Ovid up to December 19, 2020. RCTs for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients were included, regardless of publication status or demographic characteristics. Bayesian NMA with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs), while that with random effects was carried out as well for sensitivity analysis. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by their drug classifications. ResultsWe identified 96 eligible RCTs with a total of 51187 patients. Compared with the standard of care (SOC), this NMA showed that dexamethasone led to lower risk of mortality with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.85 (95% CrI [0.76, 0.95]; moderate certainty) and lower risk of mechanical ventilation (MV) with an OR of 0.68 (95% CrI [0.56, 0.83]; low certainty). For hospital discharge, remdesivir (OR 1.37, 95% CrI [1.15, 1.64]; moderate certainty), dexamethasone (OR 1.20, 95% CrI [1.08, 1.34]; low certainty), interferon beta (OR 2.15, 95% CrI [1.26, 3.74]; moderate certainty), tocilizumab (OR 1.40, 95% CrI [1.05, 1.89]; moderate certainty) and baricitinib plus remdesivir (OR 1.75, 95% CrI [1.28, 2.39]; moderate certainty) could all increase the discharge rate respectively. Recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor indicated lower risk of MV (OR 0.20, 95% CrI [0.10, 0.40]; moderate certainty); and patients receiving convalescent plasma resulted in better viral clearance (OR 2.28, 95% CrI [1.57, 3.34]; low certainty). About two-thirds of the studies included in this NMA were rated as high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was either low or very low for most of the comparisons. ConclusionThe Bayesian NMA identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over SOC in terms of mortality, requirement of MV, hospital discharge and viral clearance. These results provide a comprehensive comparison of current COVID-19 treatments and shed new light on further research and discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.9%
2
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.3%
4
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.9%
5
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.9%
6
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.3%
8
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.8%
10
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
11
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
Journal of Infection and Public Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.9%
14
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
15
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
16
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
18
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
19
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
20
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
21
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
22
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
23
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
24
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
25
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
26
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
27
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
28
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.8%
29
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
30
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%