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 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.

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.