Objectives: To gather initial data on the effectiveness and tolerability of the addition of Ondansetron to bowel preparation regimens to justify a funded, larger, placebo-controlled study. Methods: Design, Setting, and Participants:: A total of 41 pediatric and young adult (age 2-22) patients participated in a single center, open label, parallel randomized trial, with simple randomization. All patients were recruited as outpatients, and all procedures occurred as outpatient procedures, with both recruitment and procedures occurring at a low-resource urban academic medical center in Brooklyn.Interventions and Outcome Measures:: The intervention studied was a single dose of oral-dissolving tablet Ondansetron provided before initiation of bowel preparation using a standardized prep of Polyethylene Glycol 3350 and Bisacodyl. There were 2 arms, a study arm using typical preparation (Polyethylene Glycol 3350 and Bisacodyl) and Ondansetron, and a control arm (Polyethylene Glycol 3350 and Bisacodyl). Patients received standard weight-based dosing. The primary outcome measure assessed was the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to assess efficacy of preparation. Secondary objectives included evaluation of patient satisfaction via a survey answered by each patient. The questionnaire assessed the presence of the following symptoms during bowel prep: abdominal pain, nausea, bloating, vomiting, scale of ease/difficulty, and if the entire bowel prep was completed. Results: No benefit to BBPS from the addition of Ondansetron to bowel preparation was observed. Statistically significant improvement in reports of abdominal pain (35% decrease in Ondansetron arm) was noted with a P = 0.019. No statistically significant improvement was noted in other symptoms although all domains showed nonsignificant improvement in the Ondansetron arm. Conclusion: No benefit to efficacy of preparation as measured by the BBPS was observed. A single dose of Ondansetron before bowel preparation reduced reports of abdominal pain by 35%, with other symptomatic improvements suggesting possible improvements to be confirmed by a higher-powered study. Trial registration: NCT05439772.
Importance/Background: With a scarcity of high-grade evidence for COVID-19 treatment, researchers and health care providers across the world have resorted to classical and historical interventions. Immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CPT) is one such therapeutic option. Methods: A systematized search was conducted for articles published between December 2019 and 18th January 2021 focusing on convalescent plasma efficacy and safety in COVID-19. The primary outcomes were defined as mortality benefit in patients treated with convalescent plasma compared to standard therapy/placebo. The secondary outcome was pooled mortality rate and the adverse event rate in convalescent plasma-treated patients. Results: A total of 27,706 patients were included in the qualitative analysis, and a total of 3,262 (2,127 in convalescent plasma-treated patients and 1,135 in the non-convalescent plasma/control group) patients died. The quantitative synthesis in 23 studies showed that the odds of mortality in patients who received plasma therapy were significantly lower than those in patients who did not receive plasma therapy [odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.80, p < 0.0001, I 2 = 15%). The mortality benefit remains the same even for 14 trials/prospective studies (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.81, p = 0.001, I 2 = 22%) as well as for nine case series/retrospective observational studies (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, p = 0.01, I 2 = 0%). However, in a subgroup analysis for 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there was no statistically significant reduction in mortality between the CPT group compared to the non-CPT group (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53-1.08, p = 0.13, I 2 = 7%). Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis of 10 RCTs, excluding the study with the highest statistical weight, displayed a lower mortality rate compared to that of non-CPT COVID-19 patients (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.97, p = 0.04, I 2 = 0%). The observed pooled mortality rate was 12.9% (95% CI 9.7-16.9%), and the pooled adverse event rate was 6.1% (95% CI 3.2-11.6), with significant heterogeneity. Conclusions and Relevance: Our systemic review and meta-analysis suggests that CPT could be an effective therapeutic option with promising evidence on the safety and reduced mortality in concomitant treatment for COVID-19 along with antiviral/antimicrobial drugs, steroids, and other supportive care. Future exploratory studies could benefit from more standardized reporting, especially in terms of the timing of interventions and clinically relevant outcomes, like days until discharge from the hospital and improvement of clinical symptoms.
Importance/Background: During current public health emergency of COVID-19 pandemic, repurposing of existing antiviral drugs may be an efficient strategy since there is no proven effective treatment. Published literature shows Remdesivir has broad-spectrum antiviral activity against numerous RNA viruses and has been recently recognized as a promising therapy against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for full length manuscripts published between inception and July 19th, 2020 focussing on efficacy and safety of Remdesivir in COVID-19. The primary outcomes were defined as mortality rate and median days to recovery based on the available pooled data. The secondary outcome was adverse events rate and drug discontinuation rate. Statistical Analysis: All outcomes were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software package (Bio stat, Englewood, NJ, USA). Results: A total of 1,895 patients from 9 studies were included in this qualitative synthesis. In patients treated with Remdesivir, the mean recovery time was 15.84 days (95% CI 11.68-20, SE 2.12; I 2 = 97.24) and the pooled mortality rate was 11.3% (95% CI 7.9-16%; I 2 = 74.85). However, treatment with Remdesivir was associated with adverse effects (55.3%, 95% CI 31.5-76.9%; I 2 = 97.66) eventually warranting the discontinuation of the drug (17.8%, 95% CI 8.6-33.1%; I 2 = 95.64). The meta-analysis of three clinical trials indicated that administration of Remdesivir significantly reduces the mortality compared to the placebo (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.84, p ≤ 0.001; I 2 = 16.6). Conclusions and Relevance: The result of contemporary meta-analysis suggests mortality benefit with Remdesivir in COVID-19 and median recovery time was over 2 weeks. The pooled mortality with Remdesivir was found to be very low, and this analysis can shed light on this potential treatment for COVID-19 patients.
