Effectiveness and safety of antiviral or antibody treatments for coronavirus

Patricia Rios, Amruta Radhakrishnan, Jesmin Antony, Sonia Thomas, Matthew Muller, Sharon E. Straus, Andrea C. Tricco
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.19.20039008

ABSTRACT

Background To identify safe and effective medical countermeasures (e.g., antivirals/antibodies) to address the current outbreak of a novel coronavirus (COVID-19)

Methods Comprehensive literature searches were developed by an experienced librarian for MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and biorxiv.org/medrxiv.org; additional searches for ongoing trials and unpublished studies were conducted in clinicaltrials.gov and the Global Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON). Title/abstract and full-text screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias appraisal were carried out by single reviewers.

Results 54 studies were included in the review: three controlled trials, 10 cohort studies, seven retrospective medical record/database studies, and 34 case reports or series. These studies included patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARs, n=33), middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS, n=16), COVID-19 (n=3), and unspecified coronavirus (n=2). The most common treatment was ribavirin (n=41), followed by oseltamivir (n=10) and the combination of lopinavir/ritonavir (n=7). Additional therapies included broad spectrum antibiotics (n=30), steroids (n=39) or various interferons (n=12). No eligible studies examining monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 were identified. One trial found that ribavirin prophylactic treatment statistically significantly reduced risk of MERS infection in people who had been exposed to the virus. Of the 21 studies reporting rates of ICU admission in hospitalized SARS or MERS patients, none reported statistically significant results in favour of or against antiviral therapies. Of the 40 studies reporting mortality rates in hospitalized SARS or MERS patients, one cohort study (MERS) and one retrospective study (SARS) found a statistically significant increase in the mortality rate for patients treated with ribavirin. Eighteen studies reported potential drug-related adverse effects including gastrointestinal symptoms, anemia, and altered liver function in patients receiving ribavirin.

Conclusion The current evidence for the effectiveness and safety of antiviral therapies for coronavirus is inconclusive and suffers from a lack of well-designed prospective trials or observational studies, preventing any treatment recommendations from being made. However, it is clear that the existing body of evidence is weighted heavily towards ribavirin (41/54 studies), which has not shown conclusive evidence of effectiveness and may cause harmful adverse events so future investigations may consider focusing on other candidates for antiviral therapy.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Research Questions

The Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Branch of the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) submitted a query on the effectiveness and safety of antiviral, antibody, or other medical countermeasures for the treatment of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN). They requested the DSEN Methods and Application Group in Indirect Comparisons (MAGIC) Team conduct a rapid review on this topic with an approximate 2-week timeline.

The overall objective of this rapid review was to identify safe and effective medical countermeasures to address the current outbreak of a novel coronavirus (COVID-19). In order to focus the research question to increase feasibility, we proposed the following key research questions:

  1. What is the effectiveness and safety of any antiviral and/or monoclonal antibody treatment currently available to treat (COVID-19)?

  2. What is the effectiveness and safety of currently available antiviral therapies used to treat other coronavirus infections?

METHODS

Overall methods

The rapid review conduct was guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions1 along with the Rapid Review Guide for Health Policy and Systems Research2. The team used an integrated knowledge translation approach, with consultation from the knowledge users from the Public Health Agency of Canada at the following stages: question development, literature search, study inclusion, interpretation of results, and draft report. After the report is submitted to the Public Health Agency of Canada, a manuscript will be prepared for publication and we will invite our knowledge users to join us as coauthors. We will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement3 to guide the reporting of our rapid review results; a PRISMA extension specific to rapid reviews is currently under development.

Literature search

Comprehensive literature searches addressing both research question 1 (RQ1) and research question 2 (RQ2) were developed by an experienced librarian for MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and biorxiv.org/medrxiv.org databases. Grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was located using keyword searches of relevant terms (e.g. coronavirus, SARS, etc.) in clinicaltrials.gov and GIDEON (Global Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology Network). Additionally, the final set of included articles was cross-referenced with a list studies provided by our knowledge users from the Public Health Agency of Health as part of the scoping process for this review. The full MEDLINE search strategy and grey literature search keywords can be found in Appendix 1.

Eligibility criteria

The Eligibility criteria followed the PICOST framework and consisted of:

Population (for research question 1 (RQ1) and 2 (RQ2)

Individuals of any age treated for a coronavirus infection. Subgroups of interest include older adults aged >65 years, pediatric, pregnant, or immunocompromised patients.

Intervention

  • The following interventions were eligible for RQ1:

    • Antiviral medications approved for use in COVID-19 or currently in pre-clinical trials (animal studies, excluding in vitro studies) for treating COVID-19 (see Table 1).

    • Monoclonal antibodies approved for use in COVID-19 or currently in pre-clinical trials (animal studies, excluding in vitro studies) for treating COVID-19.

  • The following interventions were of interest for RQ2:

    • Antiviral agents used alone or in combination that are approved for use in coronavirus treatment or are being examined in clinical trials for use in coronavirus treatment (Table 1).

View this table:
Table 1: Example list of relevant interventions*

Comparator (for RQ1 and RQ2)

One of the interventions listed above, no intervention, or placebo.

Outcomes (for RQ1 and RQ2)

lab-confirmed coronavirus infection, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mortality, and adverse events (e.g., exacerbation of infection).

Study designs

  • The following study designs were eligible for RQ1:

    • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs

    • Non-randomized studies (e.g., non-randomized trials, interrupted time series, controlled before after)

    • Observational studies (e.g., cohort, case control, cross-sectional)

    • Case studies, case reports, and case series

    • Pre-clinical (animal) studies

  • The following study designs were eligible for RQ2:

    • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs

    • Non-randomized studies (e.g., quasi-RCTs, non-randomized trials, interrupted time series, controlled before after)

    • Observational studies (e.g., cohort, case control, cross-sectional)

Time periods (for RQ1 and RQ2)

All periods of time and duration of follow-up were eligible.

Other (for RQ1 and RQ2)

Only studies published in English were eligible for inclusion, due to the short timelines for this review. Relevant studies written in languages other than English and relevant studies of an ineligible design (e.g., trial protocol, literature review) will be excluded but reported in an appendix of possibly relevant articles (Appendix 2).

Study selection

For both level 1 (title/abstract) and level 2 (full-text) screening, a screening form was prepared based on the eligibility criteria and pilot-tested by the review team using 25 citations prior to level 1 screening and 10 full text articles prior to level 2 screening. Agreement between reviewers was sufficiently high (>75%) in both cases so no further pilot-testing was required. Full screening was completed by a single reviewer for both level 1 and level 2 using Synthesi.SR, the team’s proprietary online software [https://breakthroughkt.ca/login.php].

Data items and data abstraction

Items for data abstraction included study characteristics (e.g., study period, study design, country of conduct), patient characteristics (e.g., mean age, age range, co-morbidities), intervention details (e.g., type of intervention, dose, timing of treatment), comparator details (e.g., comparator intervention, dose), and outcome results (e.g., hospitalizations due to coronavirus, adverse events, mortality) at the longest duration of follow-up.

A standardized data abstraction form was developed to capture data on the above listed items. Prior to data abstraction, a calibration exercise was completed to test the form amongst the entire review team using two randomly selected full-text articles. Following successful completion of the calibration exercise, included studies were abstracted by single reviewers.

Risk of bias appraisal

Risk of bias appraisal was carried out by single reviewers using Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool4 for controlled trials and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale5 (NOS) for cohort or case-control studies.

Synthesis

Included studies were synthesized descriptively including summary statistics and detailed tables of study characteristics and results. Tables of study results are organized according to study design and where available, information on relevant subgroups were highlighted.

RESULTS

Literature Search

The database search returned a total of 4,491 citations, while the grey literature searches returned 305 citations, and 8 additional citations were identified from the articles provided by our knowledge users from the Public Health Agency of Canada for level 1 screening. A total of 4,567 citations were excluded after level 1 screening and a further 81 citations were identified as ineligible for the current review but potentially of interest to knowledge users, leaving 156 potentially relevant articles to be passed to level 2 screening. The full-text for 29 articles could not be obtained in time to be screened for this review and were added to the inventory of potentially relevant articles. Of the 127 articles screened at level 2, 74 were passed to data abstraction. During data abstraction a further 20 articles were excluded due to lack of relevant outcomes, leaving 54 articles included in this review (Figure 1).

Figure 1:
Figure 1: Study Flow Diagram

Characteristics of included studies

Of the 54 studies included in this review three were controlled trials6-8, 10 were cohort studies9-18, seven were retrospective medical record/database studies19-25, and 34 were case reports or case series26-59 (Table 2). All of the included studies were published between 2003 and 2020 with the majority conducted in Hong Kong (n=14), followed by China (n=12), Saudi Arabia (n=10), Canada (n=5), South Korea (n=4), Taiwan (n=3), and one each from France, Germany, Greece, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Sample sizes for the studies ranged from single patients in the case reports to groups of >1000 patients in the cohort studies. Overall, the majority of studies (n=33) dealt with treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), followed by Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS; n=16), COVID-19 (n=3) and two studies treated unspecified coronavirus.

View this table:
Table 2: Summary Study and Patient Characteristics

The majority of studies were conducted in adult populations (n=52), one case report31 and one case series36 included infant and pediatric populations, respectively. Four case reports/series29,45,46,48 specifically included immunocompromised patients and one case study34 included a pregnant woman with MERS; however, the majority of study populations included patients with comorbid conditions (n=33). Common comorbidities included diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and renal failure (Appendix 3). The most common antiviral studied was ribavirin (n=41), followed by oseltamivir (n=10) and the combination of lopinavir/ritonavir (n=7). Additional therapies used in the studies included a variety of broad spectrum antibiotics (n=30), steroids including hyrdcortisone, methylprednisone, or prednisolone (n=39) or various interferons (n=12; Appendix 3). No animal or human trials investigating monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 were found in this rapid review. All of the studies recruited from or reported on hospitalized populations and the most commonly reported outcome was mortality (n=40), followed by ICU admission (n=21) and adverse events (n=18).

Risk of Bias Results

The 34 case reports/series and 7 retrospective studies included in this review were not assessed for risk of bias due to the inherent bias in the type of study design. The 3 trials were assessed with the Cochrane RoB tool4 and the 10 cohort studies were assessed using the NOS5. The risk of bias in the 3 included trials was overall difficult to judge due to a lack of adequate descriptions of study methods (Figure 2). All three of the trials were at high or unclear risk of bias on the following components: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of participants/personnel (Appendix 5). The cohort studies were of fair quality overall; most of the studies suffered from a lack of representative sampling (n=8), failed to demonstrate that the outcomes of interest were not present at the start of the study (n=8), or failed to adequately ensure the comparability of cohorts (n=4; Figure 3). The complete NOS results are provided in Appendix 5.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Cochrane RoB results - Controlled trials (n=3)
Figure 3:
Figure 3: NOS Results - Cohort studies (n=10)

Studies of COVID-19

Three studies examining patients infected with COVID-19 were included in this review: one case report35 and two case series56,57.

The case report35 included a 35-year-year old man, the first American diagnosed with COVID-19. He, he was initially treated with vancomycin and cefepime which are standard treatments for suspected community-acquired pneumonia. Upon lab-confirmation of COVID-19 infection, the antibiotics were stopped and the patient was started on Remdesivir 7 days after initial admission to hospital. At study end, the patient remained hospitalized with the majority of symptoms resolved (see appendices 3 and 4 for complete details).

The two case series56,57 were conducted in China and included 4 and 138 patients, respectively. All patients were hospitalized and initial diagnosis was made based on WHO Criteria later confirmed by lab-testing of the patient specimens. The case series included an approximately even number of male and female (55% v 45%) patients ranging in age from 19 to 68 years old, with a variety of co-morbidities including cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney or liver disease, COPD, and diabetes (Appendix 3). In one case series57, patients (n=4) were treated with a combination of lopinavir/ritonavir, Arbidol (umifenovir), antibiotics, Shufeng Jiedu Capsule (Traditional Chinese Medicine), and intravenous immunoglobulins (Appendix 4). At study end (15 days),) two patients tested negative for COVID-19 and were subsequently discharged from the hospital and two patients remained hospitalized, one of whom still required mechanical ventilation (Appendix 4). In the larger case series56, 124 patients were treated with oseltamivir combined with antibiotic therapy in 89 patients and combined with glucocorticoids in 62 patients (Appendix 4). Over the course of the study, 34 patients treated with oseltamivir were admitted to the ICU, 17 of which required invasive mechanical ventilation. At study end (19 days),) 47 patients had been discharged and 6 patients died, all of whom had been admitted to ICU (Appendix 4).

Ongoing human trials for COVID-19

Four currently ongoing randomized controlled trials proposing to test treatments for COVID-19 were identified through keyword searches of clinicaltrials.gov. All four trials are being carried out in China, three are investigating antiviral medications (lopinavir/ritonavir, arbidol (umifenovir), darunavir, cobicstat, and, ASC09/ritonavir) and one trial is investigating a combination of lopinavir/ritonavir with Traditional Chinese Medicines (TCM). At the time of this writing two of the trials have started recruiting patients (further details in Table 3).

View this table:
Table 3: Details of ongoing COVID-19 trials

Effectiveness Outcomes

Infection Prevention

One of the included trials7 examined the effectiveness of ribavirin combined with lopinavir/ritonavir compared to no treatment as a prophylactic measure for healthcare workers highly exposed to MERS through unprotected exposure to a patient with pneumonia later confirmed to be caused by MERS-CoV. None of the subjects in the prophylaxis arm (ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir) developed MERS while 6 subjects in the control arm were infected with MERS as confirmed by rPT-PCR testing. The risk of infection was statistically significantly lower in the prophylaxis arm (adjusted odds ratio: 0.405, 95% CI 0.274 to 0.599, p=0.009; Appendix 4).

ICU Admission

Of the 21 studies reporting this outcome, one was a randomized trial6 comparing ribavirin supplemented with hydrocortisone to ribavirin alone; three were cohort studies14,15,17 comparing oseltamivir to steroid treatment alone, ribavirin with continuous steroid treatment to ribavirin with high-dose ‘pulse’ steroids, and ribavirin to steroid and/or antibiotic treatment; three were retrospective studies19,20,25 examining the effectiveness of ribavirin and oseltamivir alone or in combination with other drugs; and 14 were case reports/series33,34,37,40,42,44,45,47,50,51,53,55-57 examining ribavirin, oseltamivir, lopinavir/ritonavir alone or in combination with steroids or antibiotics. None of the trials, cohorts, or retrospective studies demonstrated statistically significant results between any of the comparisons (i.e., in favour of or against the effectiveness of ribavirin, oseltamivir or lopinavir/ritonavir) in reducing the risk of ICU admission for patients with SARS or MERS. The case reports and series were similarly inconclusive, none of the study authors reported a particular advantage for patients with COVID-19, SARS, or MERS treated with ribavirin, oseltamivir, or lopinavir/ritonavir.

Special populations

One case series45 included 4 patients with hematological malignancies that acquired MERS infections. The patients were all treated with oseltamivir and one patient required admission to the ICU due to worsening symptoms. One case report34 of a pregnant woman with MERS described initially attempting treatment with antibiotics but the patient did not respond and was transferred to ICU where antiviral treatments were initiated but the patient continued to deteriorate and died. In a case series36 of 4 pediatric patients with SARS, all 4 were treated with ribavirin and 2 patients required mechanical ventilation during the course of their illness.

Mortality

Mortality was reported in two of the included trials (ribavirin), all 10 cohort studies (ribavirin, lopinavir/ritonavir, oseltamivir), all seven retrospective studies (ribavirin, lopinavir/ritonavir, oseltamivir), and 21 case reports or case series (ribavirin, oseltamivir, lopinavir/ritonavir). The comparative studies (trials and cohorts) failed to find statistically significant results indicating that none of the antivirals they examined were effective in reducing mortality for SARS or MERS. One cohort study10 of MERS patients found that treatment with ribavirin and interferons significantly increased 90-day mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio: 2.27, 95% CI 1.20-4.32). The patients in this cohort were generally older (median age 57 (IQR 47-70)) and had a number of underlying chronic conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung, renal, or liver disease and malignancy including leukemia or lymphoma which may in part explain the increased risk. One retrospective study20 of SARS patients found the 21-day mortality rate was significantly higher in a cohort of patients treated with ribavirin compared to matched historical controls (6.5%, 95% CI 1.9% to 11.8%). Patients in this study were largely middle aged (34 to 57 years of age); however a large proportion of patients that died (approximately 80%) had underlying conditions such as diabetes or cancer.

The two case series56,57 and one case report35 that included patients with COVID-19 that used Remdesivir (1 patient), lopinavir/ritonavir (4 cases) and oseltamivir (124 cases) reported 6 deaths in the cohort treated with oseltamivir.

Special Populations

The four cases reports/series29,45,46,48 that included immunosuppressed patients with MERS (5 patients) and unspecified coronavirus (2 patients) reported 3 deaths all in patients with hematological malignancies treated with foscarnet (n=1) and oseltamivir (n=2). One patient with HIV and 2 patients with hematological malignancies that acquired MERS were treated with ribavirin and oseltamivir respectively and survived after being hospitalized for their illness (38 and 28 days respectively). The case report34 of a pregnant woman with MERS treated with oseltamivir and later ribavirin succumbed to septic shock 8 days after admission to hospital. The two case series31,36 that included pediatric patients treated with ribavirin reported no mortality at study end.

Safety Outcomes

Adverse Events

One of the included trials7, seven of the cohort studies9-11,13-15,17, three of the retrospective studies20,21,25, and seven case reports/series28,38,39,42,43,50,51 reported treatment related adverse events while two retrospective studies and three case reports/series reported that no treatment related adverse events occurred. In the trial7 examining the effectiveness of ribavirin/lopinavir/ritonavir compared to no treatment as a prophylactic measure for healthcare workers, treatment-related adverse events were widely reported in the prophylaxis arm, including: GI symptoms (diarrhea n=9, nausea n=9, stomatitis n=4), anemia (n=9), leucopenia (n=8) and hyperbilirubinemia (n=20). All adverse effects occurred during prophylactic therapy and resolved shortly after conclusion of treatment with no further intervention. Overall, the most commonly reported adverse events were anemia (n=12 studies) and altered liver function (n=5 studies) in patients treated with ribavirin. Other treatment related adverse events included gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g., nausea, vomiting), changes in kidney function, cardiac events (e.g., bradycardia, atrial fibrillation), hyperglycemia, and changes in mental status (e.g., confusion, anxiety). It should be noted however, that in the studies reporting cardiac adverse events, hyperglycemia, and mental status changes patients were receiving steroids as well as ribavirin.

Special Populations

None of the studies that included special populations reported treatment-related adverse events.

DISCUSSION

The Public Health Agency of Canada commissioned a rapid review to address the urgent question of the effectiveness and safety of antiviral or antibody therapies in the treatment of coronavirus. A comprehensive literature search of both electronic databases and grey literature sources resulted in 54 studies of various antiviral treatments in patients diagnosed with COVID-19, SARS, or MERS; however, no animal or human studies of monoclonal antibodies could be found.

Overall the results of the included studies proved inconclusive on the effectiveness of antiviral drugs in treating coronavirus infections and prevent any particular treatments from being recommended for use. There is a low quality of available evidence that largely consists of case reports and case series, with few observational studies, and even fewer trials. There were however important safety signals identified in the included studies, particularly the possible development of anemia and altered liver function in patients receiving ribavirin treatment. It is similarly difficult to recommend a particular antiviral drug as a promising candidate for further investigation due to the variable quality and inconclusive results of the current evidence. This review does show however that the existing body of evidence is weighted heavily towards studies of ribavirin which has shown no particular efficacy in treating coronavirus and may in fact cause harmful adverse effects. Future investigations into potential antiviral therapies for coronavirus may be best served by pointing their attention to other drug candidates.

There are several limitations to the review methods employed here, single screening and abstraction for example, however they were selected to thoughtfully tailor our methods according to our knowledge user needs and the urgent nature of the request to provide timely results.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence for the effectiveness of antiviral therapies for coronavirus is not conclusive and suffers from a lack of well-designed prospective trials or observational studies. None of the interventions examined in this review can be recommended for use in patients with coronavirus. Similarly, no firm recommendations can be made for or against these interventions from a safety perspective due to a lack of conclusive evidence. Some important safety signals potentially related to ribavirin use were identified (anemia, altered liver function) but also require further investigation to clarify their relation to the drug.

Data Availability

All datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article.

Acknowledgements

Jessie McGowan (literature search), Tamara Rader (literature search), Krystle Amog (report preparation), Chantal Williams (report preparation), Naveeta Ramkissoon (report preparation)

APPENDIX 1 Search Strategies

MEDLINE Search Strategy

  1. coronaviridae infections/ or coronavirus infections/ or severe acute respiratory syndrome/ or SARS Virus/

  2. (coronavirus* or corona virus* or mers or middle east respiratory syndrome* or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome* or SARS or CoV or SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV or 2019-nCoV).tw,kf.

  3. 3 or/1-2

  4. dt.fs.

  5. exp Antiviral Agents/

  6. (antiviral or anti-viral or anti viral).tw,kf.

  7. (neuraminidase adj2 inhibitor).tw,kf.

  8. Remdesivir.tw,kf.

  9. (oseltamivir or Tamiflu or peramivir or Rapivab or zanamivir or Relenza or ribavirin or Ibavyr).tw,kf.

  10. (matrix adj3 inhibitors).tw,kf.

  11. exp DNA-Directed RNA Polymerases/

  12. RNA polymerase inhibitors.tw,kf.

  13. Rimantadine/

  14. Rimantadine.tw,kf.

  15. acyclic guanosine analogues.tw,kf.

  16. Acyclovir/

  17. Acyclovir.tw,kf.

  18. acyclic nucleoside phosphonate analogues.tw,kf.

  19. Cidofovir/

  20. (diphosphate or Cidofovir).tw,kf.

  21. Diphosphonates/

  22. pyrophosphate analogues.tw,kf.

  23. Foscarnet/

  24. Foscarnet.tw,kf.

  25. Oligonucleotides/

  26. Fomivirsen.tw,kf.

  27. Protease Inhibitors/

  28. (boceprevir or telaprevir or lopinavir or ritonavir or darunavir or cobicistat or Prezcobix or indinavir or Crixivan or saquinavir or Invirase).tw,kf.

  29. Integrase Inhibitors/

  30. (raltegravir or elvitegravir or dolutegravir).tw,kf.

  31. HIV Fusion Inhibitors/

  32. (maraviroc or Celsentri).tw,kf.

  33. Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors/

  34. nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.tw,kf.

  35. (abacavir or Ziagen or emtricitabine or Emtriva or lamivudine or Epivir or tenofovir or Viread or zidovudine or azidothymidine or Retrovir).tw,kf.

  36. nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.tw,kf.

  37. (doravirine or Pifeltro or efavirenz or Sustiva or etravirine or Intelence or nevirapine or Viramune or rilpivirine or Edurant).tw,kf.

  38. exp Interferon beta-1b/

  39. (Betaseron or Extavia).tw,kf.

  40. or/5-39

  41. Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/

  42. (abciximab or Reopro or adalimumab or Humira or Amjevita or alefacept or Amevive or alemtuzumab or Campath or basiliximab or Simulect or belimumab or Benlysta or bezlotoxumab or Zinplava or canakinumab or Ilaris or certolizumab or Cimzia or cetuximab or Erbitux or daclizumab or Zenapax or Zinbryta or denosumab or Prolia OR, Xgeva or efalizumab or Raptiva or golimumab or Simponi or inflectra or Remicade or ipilimumab or Yervoy or ixekizumab or Taltz or natalizumab or Tysabri or nivolumab or Opdivo or olaratumab or Lartruvo or omalizumab or Xolair or palivizumab or Synagis or panitumumab or Vectibix or pembrolizumab or Keytruda or rituximab or Rituxan or tocilizumab or Actemra or trastuzumab or Herceptin or secukinumab or Cosentyx or ustekinumab or Stelara).tw,kf.

  43. exp Antibodies, Monoclonal/

  44. or/41-43

  45. medical countermeasures/

  46. (countermeasure* or counter measure*).tw,kf.

  47. 45 or 46

  48. 4 or 40 or 44 or 47

  49. 3 and 48

  50. animals/ not humans/

  51. 49 not 50

APPENDIX 2 Potentially relevant articles not included in this review

View this table:

APPENDIX 3 Detailed Table of Study and Patient Characteristics

View this table:

APPENDIX 4 Detailed Table of Interventions and Outcomes

View this table:

APPENDIX 5 Quality Appraisal/Risk of Bias – Complete Results

View this table:

Footnotes

  • Copyright claims/Disclaimers The intellectual property rights in data and results generated from the work reported in this document are held in joint ownership between the MAGIC team and the named Contributors.

  • Users are permitted to disseminate the data and results presented in this report provided that the dissemination (i) does not misrepresent the data, results, analyses or conclusions, and (ii) is consistent with academic practice, the rights of any third party publisher, and applicable laws. Any dissemination of the data and results from this document shall properly acknowledge the MAGIC team and named Contributors.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Collaboration TC. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. http://training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 25 October 2017.
  2. 2.↵
    Tricco AC LE, Straus SE, ed Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
  3. 3.↵
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine. 2009;151(4):264–269.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2011;343:d5928.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    GA W, B S, D OC, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 25 October 2017.
  6. 6.↵
    Lee N, Allen Chan KC, Hui DS, et al. Effects of early corticosteroid treatment on plasma SARS-associated Coronavirus RNA concentrations in adult patients. Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology. 2004;31(4):304–309.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Park SY, Lee JS, Son JS, et al. Post-exposure prophylaxis for Middle East respiratory syndrome in healthcare workers. The Journal of hospital infection. 2019;101(1):42–46.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    Zhao Z, Zhang F, Xu M, et al. Description and clinical treatment of an early outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Guangzhou, PR China. Journal of medical microbiology. 2003;52(Pt 8):715–720.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Alkhadhairi E; Alzubairy S; Abuzaid MA A. Ribavirin plus interferon in the management of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: a historical control study of 113 patients [Corrigendum to 2017 ACCP Annual Meeting]. Pharmacotherapy. 2018;38(4):483.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    Arabi YM, Shalhoub S, Mandourah Y, et al. Ribavirin and Interferon Therapy for Critically Ill Patients With Middle East Respiratory Syndrome: A Multicenter Observational Study. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2019.
  11. 11.↵
    Chan KS, Lai ST, Chu CM, et al. Treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome with lopinavir/ritonavir: a multicentre retrospective matched cohort study. Hong Kong medical journal = Xianggang yi xue za zhi. 2003;9(6):399–406.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.
    Choi WS, Kang CI, Kim Y, et al. Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome in the Republic of Korea. Infection & chemotherapy. 2016;48(2):118–126.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Chu CM, Cheng VC, Hung IF, et al. Role of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of SARS: initial virological and clinical findings. Thorax. 2004;59(3):252–256.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Guo L, Han Y, Li J, et al. Long-term outcomes in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome treated with oseltamivir: a 12-year longitudinal study. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE. 2019;12(10):12464–12471.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Ho JC, Ooi GC, Mok TY, et al. High-dose pulse versus nonpulse corticosteroid regimens in severe acute respiratory syndrome. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2003;168(12):1449–1456.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.
    Lau EH, Cowling BJ, Muller MP, et al. Effectiveness of ribavirin and corticosteroids for severe acute respiratory syndrome. The American journal of medicine. 2009;122(12):1150.e1111-1121.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Leong HN, Ang B, Earnest A, Teoh C, Xu W, Leo YS. Investigational use of ribavirin in the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome, Singapore, 2003. Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH. 2004;9(8):923–927.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Li S, Wang R, Zhang Y, et al. Symptom combinations associated with outcome and therapeutic effects in a cohort of cases with SARS. The American journal of Chinese medicine. 2006;34(6):937–947.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Alhumaid S, Tobaiqy M, Albagshi M, et al. MERS-CoV transmitted from animal-to-human vs MERSCoV transmitted from human-to-human: Comparison of virulence and therapeutic outcomes in a Saudi hospital. Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2018;17(6):1155–1164.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Booth CM, Matukas LM, Tomlinson GA, et al. Clinical features and short-term outcomes of 144 patients with SARS in the greater Toronto area. Jama. 2003;289(21):2801–2809.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    Chiou HE, Liu CL, Buttrey MJ, et al. Adverse effects of ribavirin and outcome in severe acute respiratory syndrome: experience in two medical centers. Chest. 2005;128(1):263–272.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.
    Habib AMG, Ali MAE, Zouaoui BR, Taha MAH, Mohammed BS, Saquib N. Clinical outcomes among hospital patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection. BMC infectious diseases. 2019;19(1):870.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.
    Khalid I, Alraddadi BM, Dairi Y, et al. Acute Management and Long-Term Survival Among Subjects With Severe Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Pneumonia and ARDS. Respiratory care. 2016;61(3):340–348.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.
    Liu CY, Huang LJ, Lai CH, et al. Clinical characteristics, management and prognostic factors in patients with probable severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in a SARS center in Taiwan. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA. 2005;68(3):110–117.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Muller MP, Dresser L, Raboud J, et al. Adverse events associated with high-dose ribavirin: evidence from the Toronto outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27(4):494–503.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Al-Tawfiq JA, Hinedi K. The calm before the storm: clinical observations of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) patients. Journal of chemotherapy (Florence, Italy). 2018;30(3):179–182.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.
    Al-Tawfiq JA, Momattin H, Dib J, Memish ZA. Ribavirin and interferon therapy in patients infected with the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: an observational study. International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases. 2014;20:42–46.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Avendano M, Derkach P, Swan S. Clinical course and management of SARS in health care workers in Toronto: a case series. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l’Association medicale canadienne. 2003;168(13):1649–1660.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Bogdanov R, Koeppen S, Beelen DW, Steckel NK. Coronavirus-encephalitis after Haploidentical Hematopoetic Stem Cell Transplantation (haplo-HSCT). Oncology Research and Treatment. 2017;40 (Supplement 3):62–63.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.
    Cheng FW, Ng EK, Li AM, et al. Clinical, virologic and immunologic profiles of a young infant with severe acute respiratory syndrome. The Pediatric infectious disease journal. 2005;24(6):567–568.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Cheng WT, Li CK, Leung TF, et al. Ribavirin for SARS in children. Clinical pediatrics. 2004;43(2):193–196.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.
    Chiang CH, Chen HM, Shih JF, Su WJ, Perng RP. Management of hospital-acquired severe acute respiratory syndrome with different disease spectrum. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA. 2003;66(6):328–338.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Gomersall CD, Joynt GM, Lam P, et al. Short-term outcome of critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome. Intensive care medicine. 2004;30(3):381–387.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    Habib Z, Asghar F, El Masry K, El Reddy M, Ravi M. MERS-CoV in pregnancy. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2015;2):274.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    Holshue ML, DeBolt C, Lindquist S, et al. First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States. The New England journal of medicine. 2020.
  36. 36.↵
    Hon KL, Leung CW, Cheng WT, et al. Clinical presentations and outcome of severe acute respiratory syndrome in children. Lancet (London, England). 2003;361(9370):1701–1703.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    Khalid I, Kadri M, Dairi Y, et al. Outcome of intubated patients with middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome in a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Conference: American Thoracic Society International Conference, ATS. 2015;191 (MeetingAbstracts).
  38. 38.↵
    Kim I, Lee JE, Kim KH, Lee S, Lee K, Mok JH. Successful treatment of suspected organizing pneumonia in a patient with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection: a case report. Journal of thoracic disease. 2016;8(10):E1190–e1194.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    Knowles SR, Phillips EJ, Dresser L, Matukas L. Common adverse events associated with the use of ribavirin for severe acute respiratory syndrome in Canada. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2003;37(8):1139–1142.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    Kwan BC, Leung CB, Szeto CC, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome in dialysis patients. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN. 2004;15(7):1883–1888.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.
    Lam MF, Ooi GC, Lam B, et al. An indolent case of severe acute respiratory syndrome. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2004;169(1):125–128.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. 42.↵
    Lau AC, So LK, Miu FP, et al. Outcome of coronavirus-associated severe acute respiratory syndrome using a standard treatment protocol. Respirology (Carlton, Vic). 2004;9(2):173–183.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    Lee JY, Kim YJ, Chung EH, et al. The clinical and virological features of the first imported case causing MERS-CoV outbreak in South Korea, 2015. BMC infectious diseases. 2017;17(1):498.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Lopez V, Chan KS, Wong YC. Nursing care of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome in the intensive care unit: case reports in Hong Kong. International journal of nursing studies. 2004;41(3):263–272.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    Motabi IH, Zaidi SZA, Ibrahim MH, et al. Report of middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERSCoV) infection in four patients with hematological malignancies treated at king fahad medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Blood Conference: 58th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Hematology, ASH. 2016;128(22).
  46. 46.↵
    Oger C, Lefebure A, Martelli S, Brugiere O, Lhuillier E, Arnaud P. Effectiveness of oral ribavirin in immunocompromised adults with respiratory viral infections. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy. 2017;39 (1):298.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    Poutanen SM, Low DE, Henry B, et al. Identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Canada. The New England journal of medicine. 2003;348(20):1995–2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. 48.↵
    Shalhoub S, AlZahrani A, Simhairi R, Mushtaq A. Successful recovery of MERS CoV pneumonia in a patient with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: a case report. Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology. 2015;62:69–71.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.
    So LK, Lau AC, Yam LY, et al. Development of a standard treatment protocol for severe acute respiratory syndrome. Lancet (London, England). 2003;361(9369):1615–1617.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. 50.↵
    Spanakis N, Tsiodras S, Haagmans BL, et al. Virological and serological analysis of a recent Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection case on a triple combination antiviral regimen. International journal of antimicrobial agents. 2014;44(6):528–532.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    Sung JJ, Wu A, Joynt GM, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome: report of treatment and outcome after a major outbreak. Thorax. 2004;59(5):414–420.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.
    Tang HL, Cheuk A, Chu KH, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome in haemodialysis patients: a report of two cases. Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association. 2003;18(10):2178–2181.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    Tiwari A, Chan S, Wong A, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Hong Kong: patients’ experiences. Nursing outlook. 2003;51(5):212–219.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. 54.
    Tsang KW, Ho PL, Ooi GC, et al. A cluster of cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong. The New England journal of medicine. 2003;348(20):1977–1985.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  55. 55.↵
    Tsui PT, Kwok ML, Yuen H, Lai ST. Severe acute respiratory syndrome: clinical outcome and prognostic correlates. Emerging infectious diseases. 2003;9(9):1064–1069.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 56.↵
    Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, et al. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. Jama. 2020.
  57. 57.↵
    Wang Z, Chen X, Lu Y, Chen F, Zhang W. Clinical characteristics and therapeutic procedure for four cases with 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia receiving combined Chinese and Western medicine treatment. Bioscience trends. 2020.
  58. 58.
    Wong PN, Mak SK, Lo KY, et al. Clinical presentation and outcome of severe acute respiratory syndrome in dialysis patients. American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation. 2003;42(5):1075–1081.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    Wu W, Wang J, Liu P, et al. A hospital outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Guangzhou, China. Chinese medical journal. 2003;116(6):811–818.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top
Posted March 23, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Effectiveness and safety of antiviral or antibody treatments for coronavirus
Patricia Rios, Amruta Radhakrishnan, Jesmin Antony, Sonia Thomas, Matthew Muller, Sharon E. Straus, Andrea C. Tricco
medRxiv 2020.03.19.20039008; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.19.20039008
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area