Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

门诊随机对照试验减少 COVID-19 住院:系统评价和荟萃分析

阅读:4
作者:Sullivan David J, Focosi Daniele, Hanley Daniel F, Cruciani Mario, Franchini Massimo, Ou Jiangda, Casadevall Arturo, Paneth Nigel
This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

特别声明

1、本文转载旨在传播信息,不代表本网站观点,亦不对其内容的真实性承担责任。

2、其他媒体、网站或个人若从本网站转载使用,必须保留本网站注明的“来源”,并自行承担包括版权在内的相关法律责任。

3、如作者不希望本文被转载,或需洽谈转载稿费等事宜,请及时与本网站联系。

4、此外,如需投稿,也可通过邮箱info@biocloudy.com与我们取得联系。