Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have shown clinical benefits against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Several studies have reported the use of bamlanivimab as a promising treatment option for COVID-19. AIM: To synthesize the latest evidence for the efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab alone in the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar using "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19", "LY-CoV555", and "Bamlanivimab" keywords up to January 25, 2023. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane bias tools. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 3.0 was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies involving 47368 patients were included. A significant difference was observed between the bamlanivimab and standard of care/placebo groups in terms of mortality rate [risk ratio (RR) = 50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.70], hospitalization rate (RR = 0.51; 95%CI: 0.39-0.68), and emergency department (ED) visits (RR = 0.69; 95%CI: 0.47-0.99); while the two groups exhibited no significant difference in terms of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (P > 0.05). Compared to other mAbs, bamlanivimab was associated with a higher rate of hospitalization (RR = 1.44; 95%CI: 1.07-1.94). However, no significant difference was detected between the bamlanivimab and other mAbs groups in terms of mortality rate, ICU admission, and ED (P > 0.05). The incidence of any adverse events was similar between the bamlanivimab and control groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although the results suggest the efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab in COVID-19 patients, further research is required to confirm the efficacy of this drug for the current circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA). RESULTS: Our search identified and included 13 studies involving 16166 patients. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups in terms of the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 3.70). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization rate (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83), and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84). In terms of safety, molnupiravir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30). CONCLUSION: The current findings indicate that sotrovimab may be more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatments for other effectiveness outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Further research is required to provide a better comparison of these interventions in treating COVID-19 patients.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) and sotrovimab for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to explore relevant studies from January 2021 to November 2023. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Data analysis was conducted using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (version 3.0). RESULTS: Fifteen retrospective studies involving 13, 306 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab groups in terms of mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 1.38), hospitalization rate (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.22), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.10), and intensive unit care admission (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.38 to 10.07). In terms of safety, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.29 to 9.17). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis showed that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab have similar effectiveness in treating COVID-19 patients. However, the certainty of evidence supporting these findings is low. High-quality research is needed to better compare these interventions in COVID-19.

Sotrovimab in solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Despite widespread implementation of vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) can remain particularly vulnerable to this disease. The present study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of sotrovimab in the treatment of SOTRs with COVID-19. Methods: A search was performed of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar to gather relevant evidence through July 25, 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (ver. 3.0, Biostat) was employed for data analysis. Results: Ten studies, involving a total of 1,569 patients, were included. The meta-analysis revealed significant differences between the patients administered sotrovimab and those treated with the standard of care. These differences were observed in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.67), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.57), intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.62), the need for supplemental oxygen therapy (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.51), and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.70). However, no significant difference was observed between sotrovimab and other treatments regarding the rates of hospitalization or ICU admission (P>0.05). Regarding safety, sotrovimab was associated with a lower rate of adverse events compared to the absence of sotrovimab (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.02-0.86). Conclusions: These results suggest that sotrovimab may improve efficacy outcomes among SOTRs with COVID-19. Nevertheless, additional high-quality trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

Comparative efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) with molnupiravir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To end this, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to collect relevant evidence up to February 15, 2023. The risk of bias was evaluated using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Eighteen studies involving 57 659 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed a significant difference between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in terms of all-cause mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.67), all-cause hospitalization rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.54-0.69), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.38-0.99), and negative polymerase chain reaction conversion time (mean difference = -1.55, 95% CI: -1.74 to -1.37). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of COVID-19 rebound (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.71-1.07). In terms of safety, although the incidence of any adverse events was higher in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.57-4.06), no significant difference was observed between the two treatments in terms of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.69-2.00). The present meta-analysis demonstrated the significant superiority of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir over molnupiravir in improving clinical efficacy in COVID-19 patients during the prevalence of Omicron variant. These findings, however, need to be further confirmed.

Pregabalin in patients with post-traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of pregabalin versus placebo in post-traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain (PTNP). METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant evidence up to January 2022. The Cochran tool was used to assess the quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Data analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. RESULTS: Three RCTs involving 821 patients were included in the meta-analysis. A significant difference was observed between pregabalin and placebo in terms of the pain score (the standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.14, 95% CI: 0.28 to -0.006, p = 0.04) and sleep interference (MD = -0.25, 95% CI: -0.39 to -0.11, p = 0.00). There was also a significant difference between pregabalin and placebo regarding somnolence (risk ratio [RR] = 2.78; 95% CI: 1.64-4.71, p = 0.00), dizziness (RR = 4.13; 95% CI: 2.71-6.28, p = 0.00), and disturbance in attention (RR: 2.97; 95% CI: 1.02-8.65, p = 0.04). However, no significant difference was observed between pregabalin and placebo in terms of headache (RR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.70-2.06, p = 0.50), fatigue (RR = 1.42; 95% CI: 0.82-2.47, p = 0.20), nausea (RR = 1.52; 95% CI: 0.88-2.62, p = 0.13), constipation (RR = 1.84; 95% CI: 0.78-4.29, p = 0.15), and discontinuation (RR = 1.52; 95% CI: 0.45-5.06, p = 0.49). CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, pregabalin showed better efficacy in reducing PTNP and improving sleep interference. However, it was associated with higher adverse events. Further RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Efficacy and safety of regdanvimab in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19: A rapid review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regdanvimab, an anti-SARS-COV-2 monoclonal antibody approved by the European Medicines Agency in November 2021, for the treatment of confirmed COVID-19 disease. METHODS: Cochrane Library, PubMed, medRxiv and Google Scholar were searched for relevant evidence up to October 27, 2022. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools. Data were analysed using RevMan software. RESULTS: Eight studies involving 4793 patients were included. A significant difference was observed between the regdanvimab and no-regdanvimab groups in terms of length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD] = -1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.80 to -0.43), clinical recovery (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.38 to 3.18), disease progression (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.33), the need for oxygen therapy (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.43) and duration of oxygen therapy (MD = -3.00, 95% CI: -4.44 to -1.56). However, no significant difference was detected between 2 groups regarding mortality rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.11 to 1.89), need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.89) and hospital admission rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.03). The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.18). CONCLUSION: Regdanvimab was not effective in reducing mortality and hospital admission rate in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, but it was effective in improving other efficacy outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) for COVID-19: A rapid review and meta-analysis.

This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were searched to identify the relevant evidence up to November 10, 2022. The reference lists of key studies were also scanned to find additional records. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane tools for assessing the risk of bias. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 3.0 was employed for data analysis. Twenty-three studies involving 314 353 patients were included in the analysis. The findings of the meta-analysis showed a significant difference between the Paxlovid and no-Paxlovid groups in terms of mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14-0.45), hospitalization rate (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.24-0.69), polymerase chain reaction negative conversion time (mean difference [MD] = -2.46; 95% CI: -4.31 to -0.61), and hospitalization or death rate (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.06-0.46). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of COVID-19 rebound (OR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.67-1.04), emergency department visit (OR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.45-1.24), intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.13-1.01), and adverse events (OR = 2.20; 95% CI: 0.42-11.47). The results of the present study support the efficacy and safety of Paxlovid in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Further research is needed to investigate the COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment.

Efficacy and safety of sotrovimab in patients with COVID-19: A rapid review and meta-analysis.

The therapeutic potential of sotrovimab in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a controversial issue. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sotrovimab in COVID-19 patients. To this end, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were searched up to 15 August 2022. The reference lists of key studies were also scanned to find additional records. Meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis. Seventeen studies involving 27,429 patients were included. A significant difference was observed in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.25-0.63, p = 0.00), hospitalisation rate (OR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.43-0.65. p = 0.00), hospital or death rate (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.25-0.73, p = 0.00), the need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.33-0.96, p = 0.03), and ICU admission (OR = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.17-0.67, p = 0.00) of the sotrovimab-receiving group compared to those having no sotrovimab. However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of disease progression (OR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.16-1.24, p = 0.12) and emergency department visit (OR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.83-1.24, p = 0.87). The two groups had no significant difference in terms of incidence of adverse events (OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.78-1.23, p = 0.88). The findings of the present meta-analysis support that sotrovimab could be an effective and safe treatment option to reduce mortality and hospitalisation rate in both Delta and Omicron Variants of COVID-19.

Rapid review and meta-analysis of adverse events associated with molnupiravir in patients with COVID-19.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety profile of molnupiravir in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, medRxive and Google Scholar were searched for articles published up to April 25, 2022. Meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. RESULTS: Four trials involving 2241 patients met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was observed between molnupiravir at 200, 400 and 800 mg compared with placebo (200 mg: risk ratio [RR] = 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-1.20; P = .80; 400 mg: RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.64-1.02; P = .07; 800 mg: RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.83-1.06; P = .36) for any adverse events (AEs); at 200, 400 and 800 mg compared with placebo (200 mg: RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.41-1.63; P = .57; 400 mg: RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.41-1.61; P = .56; 800 mg: RR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.59-1.08; P = .15) for serious adverse events; at 200, 400 and 800 mg compared with placebo (200 mg: RR = 1.74; 95% CI: 0.48-6.30; P = .39; 400 mg: RR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.28-4.09; P = .91; 800 mg: RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.17-1.28; P = .14) for AEs leading to death; and at 200, 400 and 800 mg compared with placebo (200 mg: RR = 1.50; 95% CI: 0.26-8.55; P = .64; 400 mg: RR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.17-5.68; P = .99; 800 mg: RR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.31-1.23; P = .17) for treatment discontinuation due to AEs. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that the use of three doses of molnupiravir (200, 400 and 800 mg) is safe for COVID-19 patients. Further research is needed to confirm the present findings.

Artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in COVID-19: A rapid review and meta-analysis of current evidence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite the pervasive vaccination program against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), fully vaccinated people are still being infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, making an effective and safe therapeutic intervention a crucial need for the patients' survival. The purpose of the present study is to seek available evidence for the efficacy and safety of three promising medications artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab against COVID-19. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, medRxive, and Google Scholar up to January 2022. Furthermore, the clinical trial databases were screened to find more citations. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1. RESULTS: Five published studies were identified as eligible. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the infliximab and control groups in terms of mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-1.07; p = 0.09). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups for the hospital discharge (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.04-1.80; p = 0.03). No remarkable clinical benefit was observed in favor of using imatinib for COVID-19 patients. Artesunate showed significant improvement in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In the present, limited evidence exists for the efficacy and safety of artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in patients with COVID-19. The findings of WHO's Solidarity international trial will provide further information regarding these therapeutic interventions.

Efficacy and safety of arbidol (umifenovir) in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide the latest evidence for the efficacy and safety of arbidol (umifenovir) in COVID-19 treatment. METHODS: A literature systematic search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and medRxiv up to May 2021. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was observed between arbidol and non-antiviral treatment groups neither for primary outcomes, including the negative rate of PCR (NR-PCR) on Day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.14) and Day 14 (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96-1.25), and PCR negative conversion time (PCR-NCT; mean difference [MD]: 0.74; 95% CI: -0.87 to 2.34), nor secondary outcomes (p > .05). However, arbidol was associated with higher adverse events (RR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.06-4.73). Compared with lopinavir/ritonavir, arbidol showed better efficacy for primary outcomes (p < .05). Adding arbidol to lopinavir/ritonavir also led to better efficacy in terms of NR-PCR on Day 7 and PCR-NCT (p < .05). There was no significant difference between arbidol and chloroquine in primary outcomes (p > .05). No remarkable therapeutic effect was observed between arbidol and other agents (p > .05). CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis showed no significant benefit of using arbidol compared with non-antiviral treatment or other therapeutic agents against COVID-19 disease. High-quality studies are needed to establish the efficacy and safety of arbidol for COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The efficacy and safety of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of HCQ in addition to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of sciences, and medRxiv were searched up to March 15, 2021. Clinical studies registry databases were also searched for identifying potential clinical trials. The references list of the key studies was reviewed to identify additional relevant resources. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Jadad checklist. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3). Eleven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8161 patients were identified as eligible for meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of negative rate of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.08; P = 0.76), PCR negative conversion time (Mean difference [MD]: - 1.06, 95% CI - 3.10, 0.97; P = 0.30), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 1.00, 1.20; P = 0.06), body temperature recovery time (MD: - 0.64, 95% CI - 1.37, 0.10; P = 0.09), length of hospital stay (MD: - 0.17, 95% CI - 0.80, 0.46; P = 0.59), use of mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.95, 1.32; P = 0.19), and disease progression (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.37, 1.85; P = 0.64). However, there was a significant difference between two groups regarding adverse events (RR: 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P < 0.05). The findings suggest that the addition of HCQ to SOC has no benefit in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it is associated with more adverse events.

The efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

The novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and marketed drugs are being tested for repurposing, including Favipiravir. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We registered the protocol in the PROSPERO (CRD42020180032). All clinical trials which addressed the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in comparison to other control groups for treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV2 were included. We searched electronic databases including LitCovid/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scientific Information Database up to 31 December 2020. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane Collaboration criteria. All analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2, and the risk ratio index was calculated. Egger and Begg test was used for assessing publication bias. Nine studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a significant clinical improvement in the Favipiravir group versus the control group during seven days after hospitalization (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.41; P = 0.001). Viral clearance was more in 14 days after hospitalization in Favipiravir group than control group, but this finding marginally not significant (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.98-1.25; P = 0.094). Requiring supplemental oxygen therapy in the Favipiravir group was 7% less than the control group, (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.67-1.28; P = 0.664). Transferred to ICU and adverse events were not statistically different between two groups. The mortality rate in the Favipiravir group was approximately 30% less than the control group, but this finding not statistically significant. Favipiravir possibly exerted no significant beneficial effect in the term of mortality in the general group of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. We should consider that perhaps the use of antiviral once the patient has symptoms is too late and this would explain their low efficacy in the clinical setting.

Lopinavir/Ritonavir for COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To provide the latest evidence on the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir compared to other treatment options for COVID-19. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochran Library, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for the relevant records up to April 2021. Moreover, we scanned MedRxiv, Google Scholar, and clinical registry databases to identify additional records. We have used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tools to assess the quality of studies. This Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software (version 5.3). RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. No significant difference was observed between lopinavir/ritonavir and non-antiviral treatment groups in terms of negative rate of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) on day 7 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.09; P=0.17), and day 14 (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.05; P=0.25), PCR negative conversion time (mean difference [MD]: 1.09; 95% CI: -0.10 to 2.29; P=0.07), secondary outcomes, and adverse events (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine as well as lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine regarding the efficacy outcomes (P>0.05). However, lopinavir/ritonavir showed better efficacy than arbidol for the same outcomes (P<0.05). Lopinavir/ritonavir plus arbidol was effective compared to arbidol alone in terms of the negative rate of PCR on day 7 (P=0.02). However, this difference was not significant regarding other efficacy outcomes (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Lopinavir/ritonavir has no more treatment effects than other therapeutic agents used herein in COVID-19 patients.

Pregabalin and gabapentin in neuropathic pain management after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury (SCI) has a significant negative impact on the patients' quality of life. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the safety and efficacy of pregabalin (PGB) and gabapentin (GBP) in the treatment of neuropathic pain due to SCI. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and the Web of Science were searched up to December 2018. The reference lists of key and review studies were reviewed for additional citations. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tools for assessing the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was performed for primary and secondary outcomes. Eight studies were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis of PGB vs. placebo showed that PGB was effective for neuropathic pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.78, -0.01), anxiety (MD = -0.68; 95% CI: -0.77, -0.59), depression (mean difference [MD] = -0.99; 95% CI: -1.08, -0.89), and sleep interference (MD = -1.08; 95% CI: -1.13, -1.02). Also, GBP was more effective than a placebo for reducing pain. No significant difference was observed between the efficacy of the two drugs (MD = -0.37; 95% CI: -1.67, 0.93). There was no significant difference between the two drugs for discontinuation due to adverse events (risk ratio = 3.00; 95% CI: 0.81, 11.15). PGB and GBP were effective vs. placebos in decreasing neuropathic pain after SCI. Also, there was no significant difference between the two drugs for decreasing pain and adverse events.

Efficacy and Safety of Dulaglutide Compared to Liraglutide: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Diabetes mellitus has been always one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in the last decades. There exist a wide range of pharmacological agents for controlling this disease. However, these agents fare differently in terms of efficacy and safety. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare dulaglutide and liraglutide, two glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, in terms of efficacy and safety, drawing on a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out in January 2018. The articles were evaluated by two independent investigators and their quality was evaluated using Jadad scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's tools. Finally, the eligible articles entered the study. HbA1c and FBS were considered as efficacy outcomes. Safety profile was evaluated based on several outcomes such as serious side effects and vital signs. Three articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results indicated that the mean difference (MD) of HbA1c reduction was -0.10% (95% CI, -0.20% to -0.01%, P=0.03) in the patients who received dulaglutide in comparison with the patients who received liraglutide. In addition, dulaglutide was safer than liraglutide in terms of gastrointestinal problems (RR=0.85, 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.99, P=0.04, I2=55%) and heart rate (RR=-1.14, 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.38, P=0.003, I2=0%). Once-weekly dulaglutide showed a further reduction in HbA1c compared to once-daily liraglutide. However, comparisons between these regimens indicated no significant difference between groups in either FBS reduction or safety profile. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed in treatment discontinuation, hypoglycemia events, and vital signs.

The Clinical Efficacy of Imiglucerase versus Eliglustat in Patients with Gaucher's Disease Type 1: A Systematic Review.

Gaucher's disease (GD) is one of the most common lysosomal diseases in humans. It results from ß-glucosidase deficiency and leads to necrosis, especially in macrophages with the accumulation of glucosylceramidase in cells. Most of the deleterious effects of the disease are seen in the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of Imiglucerase with Eliglustat in treating patients with GD. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to August, 2018. Predefined inclusion criteria for included studies were based on search methodology and are as follows: All randomized, quasi-randomized controlled, and cohort studies about patients with GD Type 1 that Imiglucerase was compared with Eliglustat were included. Two authors independently choose the papers based on the inclusion criteria. From 2979 recognized studies, three studies including two randomized clinical trials and one cohort study were recognized to meet the inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were hemoglobin level, platelets count, liver, and spleen size, and the secondary outcomes were the immunological side effects of the medicines and bone complications. The results showed that there is no meaningful difference between the two medicines in terms of increasing blood hemoglobin, platelets count, and reducing the liver and spleen size. The findings of this review showed that both medicines are effective in the treatment of GD Type 1 and there is no statistically significant difference between their efficacies.