Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of IVM on adult patients with COVID-19 were searched until 22 March 2021 in 5 engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs (SAEs). The risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n = 1173) were included. The controls were the standard of care in 5 RCTs and placebo in 5. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in 1, and mild and moderate in 1. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality rates compared with controls (relative risk [RR], 0.37 [95% confidence interval, .12-1.13]; very low QoE) or LOS compared with controls (mean difference, 0.72 days [95% confidence interval, -.86 to 2.29 days]; very low QoE). AEs, SAEs, and viral clearance were similar between IVM and control groups (low QoE for all outcomes). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality rates in 3 RCTs at high RoB were reduced with IVM. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.

Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculous meningitis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF to detect tuberculous meningitis (TBM). METHODS: PubMed and five other databases were systematically searched through March 2019. All studies evaluating diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were included. Reference standards were definitive or definite plus probable TBM. The quality of studies was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and calculated summary diagnostic statistics. RESULTS: We identified 30 studies (n = 3972 participants), including 5 cohort studies and 25 cross-sectional studies. Reference standards were definite TB (n = 28 studies) or definite plus probable TBM (n = 6 studies). The pooled Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity was 85% (95% CI, 70-93%), and specificity was 98% (95% CI, 97-99%) with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.04-0.27) for definite TBM. For probable TBM cases, pooled sensitivity was 81% (95% CI, 66-90%), and specificity was 99% (95% CI, 97-99%). For both reference standard types, meta-analyses showed a C-statistic area under the curve of 0.98. The QUADAS-2 tool revealed low risk of bias as well as low concerns regarding applicability. Methodological heterogeneity was high among studies. CONCLUSIONS: Xpert MTB/RIF showed high accuracy for TBM diagnosis, but a negative Xpert MTB/RIF test does not rule out TBM. Repeat Xpert testing may be necessary. In clinical practice, Xpert MTB/RIF adds speed and sensitivity when compared to classic TBM diagnostic methods or previous commercial nucleic acid amplification techniques. More studies and better strategies for rapidly confirming a diagnosis of TBM in children are urgently needed.

OBJECTIF: Cette revue systématique a évalué la précision diagnostique de Xpert MTB/RIF pour détecter la méningite tuberculeuse (MTB). MÉTHODES: PubMed et cinq autres bases de données ont fait l'objet d'une recherche systématique jusqu'en mars 2019. Toutes les études évaluant la précision du diagnostic de Xpert MTB/RIF sur des échantillons de liquide céphalo-rachidien (LCR) ont été incluses. Les étalons de référence étaient des MTB définitives ou définitives et probables. La qualité des études a été évaluée par l'outil QUADAS-2. Nous avons effectué une méta-analyse des effets aléatoires bivariés et calculé des statistiques de résumés diagnostiques. RÉSULTATS: Nous avons identifié 30 études (n = 3.972 participants), dont 5 études de cohorte et 25 études transversales. Les étalons de référence étaient la TB définitive (n = 28 études) ou la MTB définitive et probable (n = 6 études). La sensibilité poolée Xpert MTB/RIF était de 85% (IC95%: 70-93%) et la spécificité était de 98% (IC95%: 97-99%) avec un rapport de vraisemblance négatif de 0,15 (IC95%: 0,04-0,27) pour la MTB définitive. Pour les cas probables de la MTB, la sensibilité poolée était de 81% (IC95%: 66-90%) et la spécificité était de 99% (IC95%: 97-99%). Pour les deux types d'étalons de référence, les méta-analyses ont montré une aire statistique C sous la courbe de 0,98. L'outil QUADAS-2 a révélé un faible risque de biais ainsi que de faibles préoccupations concernant l'applicabilité. L'hétérogénéité méthodologique était élevée parmi les études. CONCLUSIONS: Xpert MTB/RIF a montré une grande précision pour le diagnostic de la MTB, mais un test Xpert MTB/RIF négatif n'exclut pas la MTB. La répétition du tests Xpert peut être nécessaire. Dans la pratique clinique, Xpert MTB/RIF ajoute vitesse et sensibilité par rapport aux méthodes de diagnostic classiques de la MTB ou aux précédentes techniques d'amplification d'acide nucléique commerciales. Des études supplémentaires et de meilleures stratégies pour confirmer rapidement un diagnostic de MTB chez les enfants sont nécessaires d'urgence.

Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine for Treatment or Prophylaxis of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have antiviral effects in vitro against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). PURPOSE: To summarize evidence about the benefits and harms of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the treatment or prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DATA SOURCES: PubMed (via MEDLINE), EMBASE (via Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, bioRxiv, Preprints, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry from 1 December 2019 until 8 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies in any language reporting efficacy or safety outcomes from hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine use in any setting in adults or children with suspected COVID-19 or at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent, dually performed data extraction and quality assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four randomized controlled trials, 10 cohort studies, and 9 case series assessed treatment effects of the medications, but no studies evaluated prophylaxis. Evidence was conflicting and insufficient regarding the effect of hydroxychloroquine on such outcomes as all-cause mortality, progression to severe disease, clinical symptoms, and upper respiratory virologic clearance with antigen testing. Several studies found that patients receiving hydroxychloroquine developed a QTc interval of 500 ms or greater, but the proportion of patients with this finding varied among the studies. Two studies assessed the efficacy of chloroquine; 1 trial, which compared higher-dose (600 mg twice daily for 10 days) with lower-dose (450 mg twice daily on day 1 and once daily for 4 days) therapy, was stopped owing to concern that the higher dose therapy increased lethality and QTc interval prolongation. An observational study that compared adults with COVID-19 receiving chloroquine phosphate, 500 mg once or twice daily, with patients not receiving chloroquine found minor fever resolution and virologic clearance benefits with chloroquine. LIMITATION: There were few controlled studies, and control for confounding was inadequate in observational studies. CONCLUSION: Evidence on the benefits and harms of using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to treat COVID-19 is very weak and conflicting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Developing Criteria and Associated Instructions for Consistent and Useful Quality Improvement Study Data Extraction for Health Systems.

BACKGROUND: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) could devote resources to collate and assess quality improvement studies to support learning health systems (LHS) but there is no reliable data on the consistency of data extraction for important criteria. METHODS: We identified quality improvement studies and evaluated the consistency of data extraction from two experienced independent reviewers at three time points: baseline, first revision (where explicit instructions for each criterion were created), and final revision (where the instructions were revised). Six investigators looked at the data extracted by the two systematic reviewers and determined the extent of similarity on a scale of 0 to 10 (where 0 represented no similarity and 10 perfect similarity). There were 42 assessments for baseline, 42 assessments for the first revision, and 42 assessments for the final revision. We asked two LHS participants to assess the relative value of our criteria. RESULTS: The consistency of extraction improved from 1.17 ± 1.85 at baseline to 6.07 ± 2.76 after revision 1 (P < 0.001) and to 6.81 ± 1.94 out of 10 for the final revision (P < 0.001). However, the final revision was not significantly improved over the first revision (P = 0.14). One key informant rated the difficulty in finding and using quality improvement studies a 6 (moderately difficult) while the other a 4 (moderately difficult). When asked how valuable it would be if AHRQ found and collated the demographic information about the health systems and the interventions used in published quality improvement studies, they rated it a 9 (highly valuable) and a 6 (moderately valuable). CONCLUSION: Creating explicit instructions for extracting data for quality improvement studies helps enhance the consistency of data extraction. This is important because it is difficult for LHS to vet these quality improvement studies on their own and they would value AHRQ's support in that regard.

The Role of Suppressing Inflammation in the Treatment of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To review the 3 anti-inflammatory drugs, canakinumab, colchicine, and methotrexate, that have been investigated in major clinical trials for treating patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). DATA SOURCES: An Ovid MEDLINE literature search (1946 to February 2, 2020) was performed using search strategy [(C-reactive protein OR ASCVD OR cardiac disease OR cardiovascular disease) AND (canakinumab OR methotrexate OR Colchicine)]. Additional references were identified from the citations. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: English-language studies assessing the impact of these 3 drugs on inflammation as measured by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) or the association with reducing ASCVD events were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Canakinumab and colchicine significantly reduced ASCVD events in high-risk patients with median baseline hs-CRP levels of ~4.0 mg/L. Methotrexate was ineffective at reducing ASCVD events in high-risk patients, but their baseline hs-CRP concentrations were a median of <2 mg/L. In subgroup analyses of the Canakinumab Antiinflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study (CANTOS), patients whose baseline hs-CRP was 2 to 4 mg/L had benefits from canakinumab therapy similar to those with baseline levels exceeding 4. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: Even with the best current drug therapies, patients with underlying inflammation can benefit from the addition of both colchicine and canakinumab to further lower CV events. Given its cost, colchicine is a more attractive option. CONCLUSIONS: Patients at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular disease events with an hs-CRP of 2 mg/L or greater can reduce the occurrence of ASCVD events with canakinumab or colchicine therapy. Colchicine is the preferable option, in particular for those with myocardial infarction, given its more reasonable cost.

Effects of intermittent versus continuous dieting on weight and body composition in obese and overweight people: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent dieting may be an alternative to continuous dieting for weight reduction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of intermittent dieting versus continuous dieting on weight and body composition in overweight or obese adults. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Five databases were searched until February 2018 for RCTs comparing intermittent versus continuous dieting. Intermittent dieting consisted of two types: regular intermittent was caloric restriction interspersed with days of weight maintenance or ad libitum eating; intensified intermittent was caloric restriction interspersed with days of even lower caloric restriction. Continuous was continual caloric restriction. Primary outcomes were weight, body fat, lean mass, waist circumference, hip circumference, and energy expenditure. Data were pooled by the inverse variance method using random-effects models and expressed as mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Nine trials met the inclusion criteria (n = 782), six comparing regular intermittent vs continuous (n = 553), and three comparing intensified intermittent vs continuous (n = 229). Populations were heterogeneous: obese only in five studies, and overweight or obese (mixed) in four studies. Lean mass was significantly lower in regular intermittent vs continuous (MD -0.86 kg; 95% CI -1.62 to -0.10; p = 0.03). No differences were found for the remaining outcomes for both comparisons (regular intermittent or intensified intermittent vs continuous). There was low heterogeneity of effects across trials. Subgroup effects by time to follow-up, gender, per-protocol versus intention-to-treat, enforced exercise, and diabetes were similar to main analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review in obese and overweight individuals showed that regular intermittent dieting decreased lean mass compared to continuous dieting. There were no differences in effects for either intermittent vs continuous interventions across all other outcomes. In contrast to previous systematic reviews, this study suggested that lean mass is better preserved in continuous dieting compared to regular intermittent dieting.

Oral turmeric/curcumin effects on inflammatory markers in chronic inflammatory diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Turmeric extract or active component curcumin may have anti-inflammatory effects in people with chronic inflammatory diseases. The effect of turmeric or curcumin on a wide range of inflammatory markers has not been evaluated in a systematic review. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of oral turmeric or curcumin on inflammatory markers (CRP, hsCRP, IL-1, IL-6, TNF) in patients with a wide range of chronic inflammatory diseases. Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane library were evaluated until June 2018. Random effects meta-analyses with inverse variance methods and stratified by turmeric or curcumin were performed. Effects were expressed as mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Risk of bias of RCTs was evaluated with the Cochrane tool. Nineteen RCTs were identified; included patients had rheumatic diseases, advanced chronic kidney disease with hemodialysis, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular diseases. Turmeric was the intervention in 5 RCTs (n = 356) and curcumin/curcuminoids in 14 RCTs (n = 988). Follow up times ranged between 4 and 16 weeks. One RCT had high risk of bias. In comparison to controls, turmeric or curcumin did not significantly decrease levels of CRP (MD -2.71 mg/L, 95%CI -5.73 to 0.31, p = 0.08, 5 studies), hsCRP (MD -1.44 mg/L, 95%CI -2.94 to 0.06, p = 0.06, 6 studies), IL-1 beta (MD -4.25 pg/mL, 95%CI -13.32 to 4.82, p = 0.36, 2 studies), IL-6 (MD -0.71 pg/mL, 95%CI -1.68 to 0.25, p = 0.15), and TNF alpha (MD -1.23 pg/mL, 95%CI -3.01 to 0.55, p = 0.18, 7 studies). There were no differences between turmeric and curcumin interventions. High heterogeneity of effects was observed for all markers across studies, except hsCRP. Other inflammatory markers such as IL-1 alpha, TNF beta, IL-17, and IL-22 had scarce data. Turmeric or curcumin did not decrease several inflammatory markers in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases.

Efficacy and safety of ivermectin for treatment of non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials with 7,035 participants.

INTRODUCTION: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin in non-hospitalized patients with early COVID-19. METHODS: Five databases were searched until October 17, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with COVID-19 treated with ivermectin against standard of care (SoC), placebo, or active drug. Primary outcomes were hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV), clinical improvement, clinical worsening, viral clearance, and severe adverse events (SAEs). Random effects meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. Pre-specified subgroup analyses (ivermectin dose, control type, risk of bias, follow-up, and country income) and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs (n=7,035) were included. The controls were placebo in nine RCTs, SoC in two RCTs, and placebo or active drug in one RCT. Ivermectin did not reduce hospitalization (relative risk [RR], 0.81, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.64-1.03; 8 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.73-1.33; 9 RCTs, low QoE), or AEs (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.75-1.07; 9 RCTs, very low QoE) vs. controls. Ivermectin did not reduce MV, clinical worsening, or SAEs and did not increase clinical improvement and viral clearance vs. controls (very low QoE for secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with main analyses, and TSA-adjusted risk for hospitalization was similar to main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, ivermectin did not have effect on clinical, non-clinical or safety outcomes versus controls. Ivermectin should not be recommended as treatment in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Efficacy of early treatment with hydroxychloroquine in people with mild to moderate COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: No early treatment intervention for COVID-19 has proven effective to date. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as early treatment for COVID-19. Material and methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine for early treatment of COVID-19 were searched in five engines and preprint websites until September 14, 2021. Primary outcomes were hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included COVID-19 symptom resolution, viral clearance, and adverse events. Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed and quality of evidence (QoE) per outcome was assessed with GRADE methods. Results: Five RCTs (n = 1848) were included. The comparator was placebo in four RCTs and usual care in one RCT. The RCTs used hydroxychloroquine total doses between 1,600 and 4,400 mg and had follow-up times between 14 and 90 days. Compared to the controls, early treatment with hydroxychloroquine did not reduce hospitalizations (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.47-1.36, I 2 = 2%, 5 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.16-3.68, I 2 = 0%, 5 RCTs, very low QoE), symptom resolution (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.77-1.16, I 2 = 71%, 3 RCTs, low QoE) or viral clearance at 14 days (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.27, I 2 = 65%, 2 RCTs, low QoE). There was a larger non-significant increase of adverse events with hydroxychloroquine vs. controls (RR = 2.17, 95% CI: 0.86-5.45, I 2 = 92%, 5 RCTs, very low QoE). Conclusions: Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious as early treatment for COVID-19 infections in RCTs with low to very low quality of evidence for all outcomes. More RCTs are needed to elucidate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as early treatment intervention.

Efficacy and harms of tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of tocilizumab (TCZ), which is an antibody blocking IL-6 receptors, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Five electronic databases and two preprint webpages were searched until March 4, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) cohorts assessing TCZ effects in hospitalized, COVID-19 adult patients were included. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical worsening, clinical improvement, need for mechanical ventilation, and adverse events (AE). Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Nine RCTs (n = 7,021) and nine IPTW cohorts (n = 7,796) were included. TCZ significantly reduced all-cause mortality in RCTs (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.81-0.98, p = 0.03; moderate QoE) and non-significantly in cohorts (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.44-1.02, p = 0.08; very low QoE) vs. control (standard of care [SOC] or placebo). TCZ significantly reduced the need for mechanical ventilation (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.71-0.90, p = 0.001; moderate QoE) and length of stay (MD -1.92 days, 95%CI -3.46 to -0.38, p = 0.01; low QoE) vs. control in RCTs. There was no significant difference in clinical improvement or worsening between treatments. AEs, severe AEs, bleeding and thrombotic events were similar between arms in RCTs, but there was higher neutropenia risk with TCZ (very low QoE). Subgroup analyses by disease severity or risk of bias (RoB) were consistent with main analyses. Quality of evidence was moderate to very low in both RCTs and cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to SOC or placebo, TCZ reduced all-cause mortality in all studies and reduced mechanical ventilation and length of stay in RCTs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Other clinical outcomes were not significantly impacted. TCZ did not have effect on AEs, except a significant increased neutropenia risk in RCTs. TCZ has a potential role in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Beneficial and Harmful Effects of Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment and Prophylaxis of COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed beneficial and harmful effects of monoclonal antibodies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, and prophylaxis in individuals exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. METHODS: We searched 5 engines and 3 registries until November 3, 2021 for randomized controlled trials evaluating monoclonal antibodies vs control in hospitalized or non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19, or as prophylaxis. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, COVID-19-related death, and serious adverse events; hospitalization for non-hospitalized; and development of symptomatic COVID-19 for prophylaxis. Inverse variance random effects models were used for meta-analyses. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included: 20 in hospitalized patients (n = 8253), 5 in non-hospitalized patients (n = 2922), and 2 in prophylaxis (n = 2680). In hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies slightly reduced mechanical ventilation (relative risk [RR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.9; I2 = 20%, low certainty of evidence) and bacteremia (RR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92; I2 = 7%, low certainty of evidence); evidence was very uncertain about the effect on adverse events (RR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; I2 = 77%, very low certainty of evidence). In non-hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalizations (RR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.53; I2 = 0%, high certainty of evidence) and may slightly reduce serious adverse events (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.01; I2 = 33%, low certainty of evidence). In prophylaxis studies, monoclonal antibodies probably reduced viral load slightly (mean difference -0.8 log10; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.39, moderate certainty of evidence). There were no effects on other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibodies had limited effects on most of the outcomes in COVID-19 patients, and when used as prophylaxis. Additional data are needed to determine their efficacy and safety.

Impact of Prophylactic Hydroxychloroquine on People at High Risk of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

There are no proven prophylactic interventions for COVID-19. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of prophylactic hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 were searched in several engines until 8 December 2020. Primary outcomes included RT-PCR positivity, COVID-19 infections (positive RT-PCR or compatible COVID-19 symptoms), and all-cause mortality. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for all outcomes. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 5579) and one cohort (n = 106) were included. Placebo was the comparator in four RCTs, and usual care in one RCT. Compared to the controls, five RCTs showed that hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis did not reduce RT-PCR positivity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.16), COVID-19 infection (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78-1.22), or all-cause mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.27-1.99). There were no differences of effects by pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis. Prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of diarrhea, abdominal pain, or vomiting (RR 4.56, 95% CI 1.58-13.19). There were no effects of hydroxychloroquine on other secondary outcomes. Quality of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 infections, defined either as RT-PCR positivity or as a composite of RT-PCR positivity or compatible symptoms. Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce all-cause mortality, clinical worsening, or adverse events.

Efficacy and Safety of Hydroxychloroquine for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients were searched until 2nd of December 2020. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, need of mechanical ventilation, need of non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission and oxygen support at 14 and 30 days. Secondary outcomes were clinical recovery and worsening, discharge, radiological progression of pneumonia, virologic clearance, serious adverse events (SAE) and adverse events. Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. Thirteen RCTs (n=18,540) were included. Hydroxychloroquine total doses ranged between 2000 and 12,400 mg; treatment durations were from 5 to 16 days and follow up times between 5 and 30 days. Compared to controls, hydroxychloroquine non-significantly increased mortality at 14 days (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.92-1.25) or 30 days (RR 1.08, 95%CI 1.00-1.16). Hydroxychloroquine did not affect other primary or secondary outcomes, except SAEs that were significantly higher than the control (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.05-1.46). Eleven RCTs had high or some concerns of bias. Subgroup analyses were consistent with main analyses. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients and caused more severe adverse events. Hydroxychloroquine should not be recommended as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Efficacy and harms of convalescent plasma for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We systematically reviewed benefits and harms of convalescent plasma (CP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing CP effects on hospitalized, adult COVID-19 patients were searched until November 24, 2020. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement, and adverse events. RESULTS: Five RCTs (n = 1067) and 6 cohorts (n = 881) were included. Three and 1 RCTs had some concerns and high RoB, respectively; and there was serious RoB in all cohorts. Convalescent plasma did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of severe (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33-1.10) or moderate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.09-3.86) COVID-19 vs. standard of care (SOC); CP reduced all-cause mortality vs. SOC in cohorts (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91). Convalescent plasma did not reduce invasive ventilation vs. SOC in moderate disease (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.47-1.55). In comparison to placebo + SOC, CP did not affect all-cause mortality (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.48-1.16) or clinical improvement (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82-1.40) in severe patients. Adverse and serious adverse events were scarce, similar between CP and controls. Quality of evidence was low or very low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to SOC or placebo + SOC, CP did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma did not have an effect on other clinical or safety outcomes. Until now there is no good quality evidence to recommend CP for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Renal Denervation for Uncontrolled and Resistant Hypertension: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Comparative efficacy and safety of renal denervation (RDN) interventions for uncontrolled (UH) and resistant hypertension (RH) is unknown. We assessed the comparative efficacy and safety of existing RDN interventions for UH and RH. Six search engines were searched up to 1 May 2020. Primary outcomes were mean 24-h ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure (SBP). Secondary outcomes were mean 24-h ambulatory and office diastolic blood pressure (DBP), clinical outcomes, and serious adverse events. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses were used to evaluate effects of RDN interventions. Twenty randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2152) were included, 15 in RH (n = 1544) and five in UH (n = 608). Intervention arms included radiofrequency (RF) in main renal artery (MRA) (n = 10), RF in MRA and branches (n = 4), RF in MRA+ antihypertensive therapy (AHT) (n = 5), ultrasound (US) in MRA (n = 3), sham (n = 8), and AHT (n = 9). RF in MRA and branches ranked as the best treatment to reduce 24-h ambulatory, daytime, and nighttime SBP and DBP versus other interventions (p-scores: 0.83 to 0.97); significant blood pressure effects were found versus sham or AHT. RF in MRA+AHT was the best treatment to reduce office SBP and DBP (p-scores: 0.84 and 0.90, respectively). RF in MRA and branches was the most efficacious versus other interventions to reduce 24-h ambulatory SBP and DBP in UH or RH.

Meta-Analysis.

When a review is performed following predefined steps (ie, systematically) and its results are quantitatively analyzed, it is called meta-analysis. Publication of meta-analyses has increased exponentially in pubmed.gov; using the key word "meta-analysis," 1,473 titles were yielded in 2007 and 176,704 on January 2020. Well-designed and reported meta-analyses provide valuable information for clinicians, researchers, and policymakers. The aim of this study was to provide CHEST peer reviewers, as well as authors and researchers in training, with tools that can help to improve the quality and timeliness of journal reviews, as well as the quality of the meta-analyses submitted. This article also is intended to be a practical guide to inform authors about the key features of meta-analyses to be considered when producing their review.