0
selected
-
1.
Effective antiviral regimens to reduce COVID-19 hospitalizations: a systematic comparison of randomized controlled trials
Sullivan DJ, Focosi D, Hanley D, Franchini M, Ou J, Casadevall A, Paneth N
medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. 2022
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antiviral therapy has a greater impact when provided early in the disease to outpatients, potentially preventing hospitalization and subsequent deaths, while reducing healthcare system pressure. Controversies persist about the best treatment option for COVID-19 outpatients at risk of disease progression to hospital. No head-to-head RCT has been conducted to compare the three major modalities in current use-oral/intravenous antivirals, monoclonal antibodies and COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). METHODS We assembled data from March 2020 to April 2022 from published outpatient RCTs examining authorized COVID-19 therapies with hospitalization as the major endpoint, and that also assessed mortality, symptom resolution, underlying risk factors for progression, timing and dose of the intervention in relationship to evolving variants of concern (VOC). FINDINGS CCP, monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals each had comparable efficacy converging to 80% hospital risk reduction dependent on the dose and the timing of the intervention. Most RCTs targeted populations with at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. Control group hospitalizations were less than 10% in 16 of 20 RCTs. Amongst the effective two CCP trials, monoclonals and three antiviral small molecules, deaths were reduced by 90% from 44 total in combined control arm to 4 in intervention arms. The overall risk of bias was deemed low for nine studies and some concerns for eight. The I (2) statistic heterogeneity amongst the outpatient trials with endpoint hospitalization is 72% (p-< 0.01). INTERPRETATION The emerging resistance of Omicron BA.2 and related sublineages (XE, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5) to monoclonal antibodies suggests a pressing need to reevaluate CCP (nowadays largely available from vaccinees with high neutralizing antibody levels) for COVID19 outpatients at risk of disease progression, especially in settings with constrained medical resources. FUNDING This study was funded by the US Department of Defense, in collaboration with the Defense Health Agency and NIH. RESEARCH IN CONTEXT Evidence before this study: To date no head-to-head randomized controlled trial (RCT) has ever compared treatment options for COVID-19 outpatients, making comparisons and treatment choices difficult. We assembled RCTs with hospitalization as the primary endpoint. A literature search of MEDLINE (through PubMed), medRxiv and bioRxiv databases was carried out inclusive of RCTs published from March 2020 to April 2022 inclusive, using the search terms ("COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2" OR "coronavirus disease 2019") AND ("treatment" OR "therapy") AND ("outpatient" OR "hospitalization"). The risk of bias obtained at COVID-19-Network Meta-Analysis (NMA), was low in half of the studies with some concerns for the remaining.Added value of this study: This systematic review compared outcomes among RCTs of outpatient therapy for COVID-19, taking into account time between onset of symptoms and treatment administration. We found that small-chemical antivirals, convalescent plasma and anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies had comparable efficacy. Trials of monoclonals were performed prior to the recognition that they had become ineffective against the Omicron sublineages.Implications of all the available evidence: Monoclonal antibodies and small chemical antivirals each have drawbacks. Both take time to be developed and are expensive. Monoclonals can lose efficacy with viral mutation, and chemical antivirals have contraindications and adverse events. Convalescent plasma retains its potency and is likely to be the only accessible therapeutic option for low-and-middle income countries.
PICO Summary
Population
COVID-19 outpatients at risk of disease progression (20 studies).
Intervention
Convalescent plasma (CCP).
Comparison
Antiviral agents; monoclonal antibodies.
Outcome
CCP, monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals each had comparable efficacy converging to 80% hospital risk reduction dependent on the dose and the timing of the intervention. Most randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeted populations with at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. Control group hospitalizations were less than 10% in 16 of 20 RCTs. Amongst the effective two CCP trials, monoclonals and three antiviral small molecules, deaths were reduced by 90% from 44 total in combined control arm to 4 in intervention arms. The overall risk of bias was deemed low for nine studies.
-
2.
Safety and Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: An Overview of Systematic Reviews
Franchini M, Corsini F, Focosi D, Cruciani M
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland). 2021;11(9)
Abstract
Convalescent plasma (CP) from patients recovered from COVID-19 is one of the most studied anti-viral therapies against SARS-COV-2 infection. The aim of this study is to summarize the evidence from the available systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of CP in COVID-19 through an overview of the published systematic reviews (SRs). A systematic literature search was conducted up to August 2021 in Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Medrxiv databases to identify systematic reviews focusing on CP use in COVID-19. Two review authors independently evaluated reviews for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality of evidence using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Reviews) and GRADE tools. The following outcomes were analyzed: mortality, viral clearance, clinical improvement, length of hospital stay, adverse reactions. In addition, where possible, subgroup analyses were performed according to study design (e.g., RCTs vs. non-RCTs), CP neutralizing antibody titer and timing of administration, and disease severity. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the checklist for systematic reviews AMSTAR-2 and the GRADE assessment. Overall, 29 SRs met the inclusion criteria based on 53 unique primary studies (17 RCT and 36 non-RCT). Limitations to the methodological quality of reviews most commonly related to absence of a protocol (11/29) and funding sources of primary studies (27/29). Of the 89 analyses on which GRADE judgements were made, effect estimates were judged to be of high/moderate certainty in four analyses, moderate in 38, low in 38, very low in nine. Despite the variability in the certainty of the evidence, mostly related to the risk of bias and inconsistency, the results of this umbrella review highlight a mortality reduction in CP over standard therapy when administered early and at high titer, without increased adverse reactions.
-
3.
Platelet-rich plasma for sports-related muscle, tendon and ligament injuries: an umbrella review
Cruciani M, Franchini M, Mengoli C, Marano G, Pati I, Masiello F, Profili S, Veropalumbo E, Pupella S, Vaglio S, et al
Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue. 2019;17(6):465-478
Abstract
BACKGROUND Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used in different non-transfusion indications due to its role in tissue regeneration and healing. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews (umbrella review) is to provide a summary of the existing research syntheses related to PRP use for sports-related muscle, tendon and ligament injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify systematic reviews focusing on PRP use for sports-related muscle, tendon and ligament injuries. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the GRADE assessment. RESULTS Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies evaluated PRP use for acute muscle injury, and 17 evaluated PRP use for tendon and ligament injury. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of the dose and number of PRP injections, and the control groups. Three of the 5 reviews evaluating acute muscle injury concluded that PRP had no effect on the outcomes considered. One review shows superior efficacy of rehabilitation exercise compared to PRP. One review shows that PRP may result in an earlier return to sport for acute grade I-II injury. Eight out of the 17 reviews evaluating PRP for tendon and ligament injuries show a statistically significant (p<0.05) difference in pain and/or function outcome measures favouring PRP compared to controls, although most of the observed differences were small. Adverse events data and quality of life outcomes were rarely analysed or reported in the included studies and were considered clinically insignificant. DISCUSSION In most of the included reviews, the available evidence was judged to be of low/very low quality due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision, thus making the level of certainty of these findings low and not adequate to support the general use of PRP in this setting.
-
4.
Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma as conservative treatment in orthopaedics: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Franchini M, Cruciani M, Mengoli C, Marano G, Pupella S, Veropalumbo E, Masiello F, Pati I, Vaglio S, Liumbruno GM
Blood Transfusion = Trasfusione Del Sangue. 2018;:1-12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the benefit of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in non-surgical orthopaedic procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (through PUBMED), Embase, and SCOPUS. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies and checked reference lists to identify additional studies. RESULTS We found 36 randomised controlled trials (2,073 patients) that met our inclusion criteria. The included studies mostly had small numbers of participants (from 20 to 225). Twenty-eight studies included patients with lateral epicondylitis or plantar fasciitis. PRP was compared to local steroids injection (19 studies), saline injection (6 studies), autologous whole blood (4 studies), local anaesthetic injection (3 studies), dry needling injection (3 studies), and to other comparators (4 studies). Primary outcomes were pain and function scores, and adverse events. On average, it is unclear whether or not use of PRP compared to controls reduces pain scores and functional score at short- (up to 3 months) and medium- (4-6 months) term follow-up. The available evidence for all the comparisons was rated as very low quality due to inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias in most of the selected studies. There were no serious adverse events related to PRP injection or control treatments. CONCLUSIONS The results of this meta-analysis, which documents the very marginal effectiveness of PRP compared to controls, does not support the use of PRP as conservative treatment in orthopaedics.
-
5.
Effect of Helicobacter pylori eradication on platelet count in idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a systematic review and meta- analysis
Franchini M, Cruciani M, Mengoli C, Pizzolo G, Veneri D
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2007;60((2):):237-246.
Abstract
Background: There is a debate in the recent literature about the effect of Helicobacter pylori eradication on platelet count in patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). In order to clarify this controversial issue, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of the available literature. Methods: The meta-analytic comparison was focused on the difference in the platelet count increase between the experimental arm (H. pylori- infected patients who responded to eradication therapy) and each control arm (H. pylori -infected patients who failed to respond to eradication therapy; H. pylori -infected patients who did not receive eradication therapy and H. pylori-negative patients) and was expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD). Moreover, in order to explain the heterogeneity, a meta-regression model was fitted with arm-level covariates. Results: Data involving 788 ITP patients were collected from 17 articles (16 studies with a prospective cohort design and 1 randomized trial). There was a statistically significant difference in the increase in platelet count in patients in whom eradication was successful compared with control groups (WMD, 40.77 × 10(9)/L (95% CI, 20.92-60.63) compared with untreated patients; 52.16 (95% CI, 34.26-70.05) compared with patients who failed eradication and 46.35 (95% CI, 27.79-64.91) compared with H. pylori -negative patients). Moreover, in the meta-regression model, the success of H. pylori eradication was highly significant as an explanatory variable for platelet count increase. Conclusions: Our analysis shows a strict correlation between H. pylori eradication and increase in platelet count. However, due to intrinsic limits in the design of the studies analysed, further evidence from randomized clinical trials is required to confirm the effect of eradication treatment on platelet count.