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.

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

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety of treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 are uncertain. We systematically reviewed efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: Studies evaluating remdesivir in adults with hospitalized COVID-19 were searched in several engines until August 21, 2020. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: We included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2296) [two vs. placebo (n = 1299) and two comparing 5-day vs. 10-day regimens (n = 997)], and two case series (n = 88). Studies used intravenous remdesivir 200mg the first day and 100mg for four or nine more days. One RCT (n = 236) was stopped early due to AEs; the other three RCTs reported outcomes between 11 and 15 days. Time to recovery was decreased by 4 days with remdesivir vs. placebo in one RCT (n = 1063), and by 0.8 days with 5-days vs. 10-days of therapy in another RCT (n = 397). Clinical improvement was better for 5-days regimen vs. standard of care in one RCT (n = 600). Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28, I2 = 43%) and need for invasive ventilation (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42, I2 = 60%) vs. placebo at 14 days but had fewer SAEs; 5-day decreased need for invasive ventilation and SAEs vs. 10-day in one RCT (n = 397). No differences in all-cause mortality or SAEs were seen among 5-day, 10-day and standard of care. There were some concerns of bias to high risk of bias in RCTs. Heterogeneity between studies could be due to different severities of disease, days of therapy before outcome determination, and how ordinal data was analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: There is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Until stronger evidence emerges, we cannot conclude that remdesivir is efficacious for treating COVID-19.

Comparative efficacy of bone anabolic therapies in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the effects of bone anabolic therapies (BATs) - specifically, drug therapy with teriparatide, abaloparatide or romosozumab - on fractures, bone mineral density (BMD), and bone metabolites in postmenopausal osteoporosis. METHODS: Six computerized engines were searched through to November 2018. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of BATs on postmenopausal osteoporosis and with at least 6 months of follow-up. Controls were placebo, no treatment, or bisphosphonates. Primary outcomes were vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Secondary outcomes were: BMD determined by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry at total hip, lumbar spine, and femoral neck; N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (PINP); C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX); and severe adverse events (SAE). We followed the PRISMA guidelines for reporting, and used version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Frequentist network meta-analyses were performed per outcome. Effects for dichotomous and continuous outcomes were expressed as relative risks and mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals. We used p-scores to rank best treatments per outcome. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (n = 18,940) were evaluated. Mean ages ranged between 61 and 74 years, and follow-up times between 6 and 30 months. Four RCTs (n = 971) excluded patients with previous fractures. In contrast to placebo/no treatment, all BATs significantly reduced the risk of vertebral fractures, but no intervention significantly reduced the risk of non-vertebral fractures; abaloparatide ranked better than other interventions for both fracture types (p-scores: 0.95, and 0.89, respectively). All BATs significantly increased BMD at all locations in comparison with placebo/no treatment; romosozumab consistently ranked better than other interventions at all BMD locations (p-scores >0.86). Teriparatide ranked better than other interventions for increasing PINP. No differences in SAE were observed among treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Abaloparatide, romosozumab, and teriparatide are the best treatments, respectively, to reduce vertebral/non-vertebral fractures, increase BMD, and increase bone formation.