Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Purpose

The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed.

Results

Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode.

Conclusion

Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency

Objective

To investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach.

Study Design and Setting

In this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints).

Results

We included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4–57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth.

Conclusion

There was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication.

A case of coinfection of a pediatric patient with acute SARS-COV-2 with MIS-C and severe DENV-2 in Mexico: a case report

Background

COVID-19 cases have been increasing since the epidemic started. One of the major concerns is how clinical symptomatology would behave after coinfection with another virus.

Case presentation

In this case report, a pediatric native patient from Estado de Mexico (EDOMEX), MEX had severe DENV-2 and acute SARS-CoV-2 at the same time. The clinical features were severe thrombocytopenia, secondary septic shock, cerebral edema, pericardial effusion, fluid overload that exhibited bipalpebral edema in all four extremities, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), coronary artery ectasia (CAE), multisystemic inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), and probable COVID-19 pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that triggered patient intubation. The patient presented unusual symptomatology according to the literature. After 15 days of intubation and 15 more days under surveillance, he was released without respiratory sequelae and without treatment after major clinical improvement.

Conclusion

The aim of this manuscript is to present clinical challenges that coinfection may cause in pediatric patients, even though COVID-19 in children does not tend to be as severe as in other sectors of the population.

Evaluation of the Treatment Efficacy and Safety of Remdesivir for COVID-19: a Meta-analysis

Remdesivir is one of few FDA-approved treatments for severe cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To better assess its efficacy and safety, we conducted a meta-analysis to systematically identify and synthesize existing findings. We conducted a comprehensive literature search among six electronic databases and unpublished studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to summarize the risk ratio (RR) and rate estimates from eligible studies. Funnel plots, the Egger test, and the trim and fill analysis were used to detect publication bias. Thirteen eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis, giving a pooled sample size of 10,002 COVID-19 hospitalized patients (5068 administered remdesivir; 4934 control). Among patients on remdesivir, we synthesized mortality (15%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9%, 22%), clinical improvement (64%, 95% CI: 51%, 78%), recovery (70%, 95% CI: 57%, 83%), hospital discharge (74%, 95% CI: 60%, 87%), serious adverse effect (SAE) (21%, 95% CI:13%, 29%), and Grade 3 or 4 adverse effect (AE) (30%, 95% CI: 12%, 48%). Patients on remdesivir were 17% (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.06) less likely to die than those within the control group. Additionally, remdesivir had favorable outcomes in terms of clinical improvement, recovery, and hospital discharge. Lastly, non-mechanically ventilated patients had better overall clinical outcomes than mechanically ventilated patients. Remdesivir shows a moderate-favorable treatment efficacy among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with disproportionate impact among non-mechanically ventilated patients; however, a substantial proportion of COVID-19 patients may suffer from SAE or Grade 3 or 4 AE during the treatment course.

Third force in the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV2) depends on RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) enzyme complex for its genomic replications and thus can be inhibited by nucleoside analogues. An example is Remdesivir, which is a non-obligate chain terminator of RdRp. Therefore, we investigate the activities of Remdesivir against COVID-19.

Method

This is a systematic-review and meta-analysis of the literature on the effectiveness of Remdesivir in the management of COVID-19 through MEDLINE (from Jan 2019 to January 2021), EMBASE (from Jan 2019 to January 2021), Publics Ovidius Naso (Ovoid), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in Issue 1 of 12, January 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was applied and the questions generated in conformity with the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). Statistical analysis was performed in Stata v. 12.1 (StataCorp, Texas USA).

Results

The outcome of the reviewed relevant journals and the cross-references including clinical trials, systematic reviews and metanalysis were documented. Out of 569,000 articles, 11 roundly-suited the inclusion criteria. The comparative effects of Remdesivir on death (OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.57, 1.08) and recovery (OR = 2.22; p5% CI = 1.80, 2.73) were calculated.

Conclusion

Remdesivir is useful in the treatment of COVID-19 especially the severe disease. However, it should be used with caution since all the adverse effects are not known. We recommend Remdesivir as an alternative/third-force in the treatment of severe and critical COVID-19.