Abstract
Background and aim Several therapeutic agents have been investigated for the treatment of novel Coronavirus-2019 (nCOV-2019). We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of various treatment modalities in nCOV-2019 patients.
Methods An extensive literature search was conducted before 22 May 2020 in PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane library databases. Quality assessment was performed using Newcastle Ottawa Scale. A fixed-effect model was applied if I2 <50%, else the results were combined using random-effect model. Risk Ratio (RR) or Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) along-with 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) were used to pool the results. Between study heterogeneity was explored using influence and sensitivity analyses & publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Entire statistical analysis was conducted in R version 3.6.2.
Results Eighty-one studies involving 44 in vitro and 37 clinical studies including 8662 nCOV-2019 patients were included in the review. Lopinavir-Ritonavir compared to controls was significantly associated with shorter mean time to clinical improvement (SMD -0.32; 95%CI -0.57 to -0.06) and Remdesivir compared to placebo was significantly associated with better overall clinical improvement (RR 1.17; 95%CI 1.07 to 1.29). Hydroxychloroquine was associated with less overall clinical improvement (RR 0.88; 95%CI 0.79 to 0.98) and longer time to clinical improvement (SMD 0.64; 95%CI 0.33 to 0.94), It additionally had higher all-cause mortality (RR 1.6; 95%CI 1.26 to 2.03) and more total adverse events (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.13).
Conclusion Our meta-analysis suggests that except in vitro studies, no treatment till now has shown clear-cut benefit on nCOV-2019 patients. Lopinavir-Ritonavir and Remdesivir have shown some benefits in terms less time to clinical improvement and better overall clinical improvement. Hydroxychloroquine use has a risk of higher mortality and adverse events. Results from upcoming large clinical trials must be awaited to draw any profound conclusions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
CRD42020175792
Funding Statement
No funding was received for this work.
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:
Since, we conducted a meta-analysis, no ethics clearance was required. The systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered in PROSPERO and the protocol has been approved. PROSPERO ID: CRD42020175792
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
Data Availability
The above manuscript is a systematic review and meta-analysis and the data individual study data has been collected from the articles. The raw data for meta-analysis may be available upon request for the critical appraisal of the manuscript.
