RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Prophylaxis for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.02.24.21250469
DO 10.1101/2021.02.24.21250469
A1 Bartoszko, Jessica J
A1 Siemieniuk, Reed AC
A1 Kum, Elena
A1 Qasim, Anila
A1 Zeraatkar, Dena
A1 Ge, Long
A1 Han, Mi Ah
A1 Sadeghirad, Behnam
A1 Agarwal, Arnav
A1 Agoritsas, Thomas
A1 Chu, Derek K
A1 Couban, Rachel
A1 Darzi, Andrea J
A1 Devji, Tahira
A1 Ghadimi, Maryam
A1 Honarmand, Kimia
A1 Izcovich, Ariel
A1 Khamis, Assem
A1 Lamontagne, Francois
A1 Loeb, Mark
A1 Marcucci, Maura
A1 McLeod, Shelley L
A1 Motaghi, Shahrzad
A1 Murthy, Srinivas
A1 Mustafa, Reem A
A1 Neary, John D
A1 Pardo-Hernandez, Hector
A1 Rada, Gabriel
A1 Rochwerg, Bram
A1 Switzer, Charlotte
A1 Tendal, Britta
A1 Thabane, Lehana
A1 Vandvik, Per O
A1 Vernooij, Robin WM
A1 Viteri-García, Andrés
A1 Wang, Ying
A1 Yao, Liang
A1 Ye, Zhikang
A1 Guyatt, Gordon H
A1 Brignardello-Petersen, Romina
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/26/2021.02.24.21250469.abstract
AB Objective To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 19 January 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 January 2021.Study selection Randomized trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were randomized to drug prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.Methods After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach.Results The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomized trials – six addressing hydroxychloroquine (6,059 participants), one addressing ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (234 participants) and two addressing ivermectin alone (540 participants), all compared to standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine has no important effect on admission to hospital (risk difference (RD) 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3 fewer to 4 more, high certainty) or mortality (RD 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 2 fewer to 3 more, high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably has no important effect on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 2 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 18 fewer to 28 more, moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (RD 19 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 1 fewer to 70 more, moderate certainty) and may have no important effect on suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 15 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 64 fewer to 41 more, low certainty). Due to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision – and thus very low certainty evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 52 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 58 fewer to 37 fewer), and ivermectin alone on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 50 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 159 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain uncertain.Conclusion Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis does not have an important effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not have an important effect on laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, we are highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.Funding This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.Competing Interest StatementDr. Sadeghirad reports receiving funding from PIPRA AG (www.pipra.ch) to conduct a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis on predictors of post-operative delirium in elderly in 2020-2021. BS also reports funding from Mitacs Canada, Accelerate internship in partnership with Nestle Canada to support his graduate student stipend from 2016 to 2018. Mitacs is a national, not-for-profit organization that has designed and delivered research and training programs in Canada working with universities, companies, and both federal and provincial governments. BS also reports funding from the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) - North America to support his graduate work for his 2015 academic year. In 2016-2017, BS worked part-time for the Cornerstone Research Group (CRG), a contract research organization. The ILSI funding and being employed by CRG are outside the required 3 year period requested on ICJME form. Dr. Loeb reports personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, grants and personal fees from Seqirus, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Medicago, outside the submitted work; and Co-investigator on ACT randomized trial of COVID-19 therapy. Dr. Ge reports grants from Ministry of Science and Technology of China, outside the submitted work.Funding StatementThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicable. All the work was developed using published data.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesNo additional data available.