ABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions used in treating COVID-19 and form a basis for an evidence-based guideline of COVID-19 management by evaluating the level of evidence behind each treatment regimen in different clinical settings.
Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis
Data Sources PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv, SSRN, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to June 9th, 2020.
Study Selection Published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and baseline-adjusted observational studies which met our predefined eligibility criteria.
Main Outcome Measures The outcomes of interest were mortality, progression to severe disease (severe pneumonia or admission to intensive care unit (ICU)), time to viral clearance, QT prolongation, fatal cardiac complications, and non-cardiac serious adverse events. The level of evidence behind each outcome was also measured using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.
Results 49 studies with a total of 20212 confounder-adjusted patients were included for analysis. The risk of progression to severe pneumonia or ICU admission was significantly reduced with tocilizumab (GRADE low), anakinra (GRADE very low), and remdesivir (GRADE high) compared to standard care. Tocilizumab was shown to reduce mortality rate for both moderate-severe patients in the non-ICU setting at admission (Odds ratio (OR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.54, GRADE low) and critically ill patients in the ICU setting (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91, GRADE low). High dose IVIG reduced death rate (GRADE low) while corticosteroids increased mortality for critically ill patients (GRADE moderate). Convalescent plasma and hydroxychloroquine were shown to promote viral clearance (OR 11.39, 95% CI 3.91 to 33.18, GRADE low and OR 6.08, 95% CI 2.74 to 13.48, GRADE moderate, respectively) while not altering mortality or progression to the severe courses. The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was shown to be associated with increased QT prolongation incidence (OR 1,85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.26, GRADE low) and fatal cardiac complications in cardiac-impaired populations (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.05, GRADE low). High-dose (>600mg/day) hydroxychloroquine monotherapy was significantly associated with increased non-cardiac serious adverse events (GRADE moderate).
Conclusion Anti-inflammatory agents (tocilizumab, anakinra, and IVIG) and remdesivir may safely and effectively improve outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Widely used hydroxychloroquine provides marginal clinical benefit in improving viral clearance rates whilst posing both cardiac and non-cardiac safety risks, especially in the vulnerable population. Only 20% of current evidence on pharmacological management of COVID-19 is on moderate and high evidence certainty and can be considered in practice and policy; remaining 80% are of low or very low certainty and warrant further studies to establish firm conclusions.
Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020186527.
Section 1: What is already known on this topic
- Numerous clinical trials and observational studies have investigated various pharmacological agents as potential treatment for COVID-19.
- Results from numerous studies are heterogeneous and sometimes even contradictory to one another, making it difficult for clinicians to determine which treatments are truly effective.
- Level of evidence behind each outcome from diverse studies remains unknown.
Section 2: What this study adds
- Anti-inflammatory agents (tocilizumab, anakinra, and IVIG) and remdesivir may safely and effectively improve clinical outcomes of COVID-19.
- Widely used hydroxychloroquine provides marginal clinical benefit in improving viral clearance rates whilst posing both cardiac and non-cardiac safety risks.
- Only 20% of current evidence on pharmacological management of COVID-19 is on moderate/high evidence certainty and can be considered in practice and policy; remaining 80% are of low or very low certainty and warrant further studies to establish firm conclusions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
There was no funding source for this study. MS Kim and MH An had full access to all of the data in the study and MS Kim and T Hwang had final decision responsibility to submit for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable. This study involves a systematic review and thus all data are available in open sources.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This manuscript has been reviewed and is approved by all authors.
Min Seo Kim, Min Ho An, Won Jun Kim, Tae-Ho Hwang have no commercial associations that may present a conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript.
Data Availability
Not applicable. This study is a systematic review and thus involve data available in open sources and publications.
