Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments in Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 1.8 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Critical Care Research and Practice Pub Date : 2024-11-27 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1155/ccrp/2973795
Mahmoud Alwakeel, Francois Abi Fadel, Abdelrahman Nanah, Yan Wang, Mohamed K A Awad, Fatima Abdeljaleel, Mohammed Obeidat, Talha Saleem, Saira Afzal, Dina Alayan, Mary Pat Harnegie, Xiaofeng Wang, Abhijit Duggal, Peng Zhang
{"title":"Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments in Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Mahmoud Alwakeel, Francois Abi Fadel, Abdelrahman Nanah, Yan Wang, Mohamed K A Awad, Fatima Abdeljaleel, Mohammed Obeidat, Talha Saleem, Saira Afzal, Dina Alayan, Mary Pat Harnegie, Xiaofeng Wang, Abhijit Duggal, Peng Zhang","doi":"10.1155/ccrp/2973795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> Examining the cumulative evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating the use of pharmacological agents for the treatment of COVID-19 infections in patients with critical illness. <b>Data Sources:</b> Databases Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were RCTs that enrolled patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection who are critically ill. Only RCTs that examined therapeutic agents against one another or no intervention, placebo, or standard of care, were included. <b>Data Extraction:</b> Pairs of reviewers extracted data independently. Outcomes of interest included the overall reported mortality defined as either the ICU mortality, hospital mortality, mortality within 28 days or mortality within 90 days. <b>Data Synthesis:</b> A total of 40 studies (11,613 patients) evaluated 50 therapeutic intervention arms divided into five main therapy categories; steroids, antiviral medications, immunomodulators, plasma therapies [intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), convalescent plasma and/or, therapeutic plasma exchange], and therapeutic anticoagulation. Immunomodulators was the only group with possible mortality benefit, risk ratio (RR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.73; 0.95), with nonsignificant heterogeneity (<i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 8%, <i>p</i>=0.36). In contrast, the other therapy groups showed no significant impact on mortality, as indicated by their respective pooled RRs: steroids [RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82; 1.01), <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 31%], antiviral medications [RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.82; 1.49), <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 57%], plasma therapies [RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.58; 1.01), <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 36%], and anticoagulation [RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.95; 1.18), <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0%]. <b>Conclusions:</b> This meta-analysis highlights both the heterogeneity and a lack of benefit from therapies evaluated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of the RCTs were developed based on limited observational data. Future RCTs investigating pharmaceutical interventions in critically ill patients during pandemics need to be designed based on better evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":46583,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Research and Practice","volume":"2024 ","pages":"2973795"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11617054/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/ccrp/2973795","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Examining the cumulative evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating the use of pharmacological agents for the treatment of COVID-19 infections in patients with critical illness. Data Sources: Databases Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were RCTs that enrolled patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection who are critically ill. Only RCTs that examined therapeutic agents against one another or no intervention, placebo, or standard of care, were included. Data Extraction: Pairs of reviewers extracted data independently. Outcomes of interest included the overall reported mortality defined as either the ICU mortality, hospital mortality, mortality within 28 days or mortality within 90 days. Data Synthesis: A total of 40 studies (11,613 patients) evaluated 50 therapeutic intervention arms divided into five main therapy categories; steroids, antiviral medications, immunomodulators, plasma therapies [intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), convalescent plasma and/or, therapeutic plasma exchange], and therapeutic anticoagulation. Immunomodulators was the only group with possible mortality benefit, risk ratio (RR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.73; 0.95), with nonsignificant heterogeneity (I 2 = 8%, p=0.36). In contrast, the other therapy groups showed no significant impact on mortality, as indicated by their respective pooled RRs: steroids [RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82; 1.01), I 2 = 31%], antiviral medications [RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.82; 1.49), I 2 = 57%], plasma therapies [RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.58; 1.01), I 2 = 36%], and anticoagulation [RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.95; 1.18), I 2 = 0%]. Conclusions: This meta-analysis highlights both the heterogeneity and a lack of benefit from therapies evaluated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of the RCTs were developed based on limited observational data. Future RCTs investigating pharmaceutical interventions in critically ill patients during pandemics need to be designed based on better evidence.

重症监护病房治疗COVID-19的疗效:随机对照试验的系统评价和meta分析
目的:检查随机对照试验(RCTs)的累积证据,评估药物治疗COVID-19感染危重患者的使用情况。数据来源:数据库Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL和Cochrane。研究选择:纳入标准为随机对照试验,纳入确诊或疑似COVID-19感染的危重患者。仅包括检查治疗药物相互对照或无干预、安慰剂或标准护理的随机对照试验。数据提取:对审稿人独立提取数据。研究结果包括总体报告死亡率,定义为ICU死亡率、医院死亡率、28天内死亡率或90天内死亡率。数据综合:共有40项研究(11,613例患者)评估了50个治疗干预组,分为5个主要治疗类别;类固醇、抗病毒药物、免疫调节剂、血浆治疗[静脉注射免疫球蛋白(IVIG)、恢复期血浆和/或治疗性血浆置换]和治疗性抗凝。免疫调节剂是唯一可能降低死亡率的组,风险比(RR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.73;0.95),异质性不显著(i2 = 8%, p=0.36)。相比之下,其他治疗组对死亡率没有显着影响,正如它们各自的合并RR所表明的那样:类固醇[RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82;1.01), I 2 = 31%],抗病毒药物[RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.82;1.49), I 2 = 57%],血浆治疗[RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.58;1.01), I 2 = 36%],抗凝[RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.95;1.18), i2 = 0%]。结论:该荟萃分析强调了COVID-19大流行期间评估的治疗方法的异质性和缺乏益处。许多随机对照试验是基于有限的观测数据制定的。未来调查大流行期间重症患者药物干预措施的随机对照试验需要基于更好的证据进行设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Care Research and Practice
Critical Care Research and Practice CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信