Objectives
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide updated information regarding the clinical efficacy of remdesivir in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Methods
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant articles published up to 18 November 2020.
Results
Five RCTs, including 13 544 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 3839 and 391 patients were assigned to the 10 day and 5 day remdesivir regimens, respectively. Patients receiving 5 day remdesivir therapy presented greater clinical improvement than those in the control group [OR = 1.68 (95% CI 1.18–2.40)], with no significant difference observed between the 10 day and placebo groups [OR = 1.23 (95% CI 0.90–1.68)]. Patients receiving remdesivir revealed a greater likelihood of discharge [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.32 (95% CI 1.09–1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.73 (95% CI 1.28–2.35)] and recovery [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.29 (95% CI 1.03–1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.80 (95% CI 1.31–2.48)] than those in the control group. In contrast, no mortality benefit was observed following remdesivir therapy. Furthermore, no significant association was observed between remdesivir treatment and an increased risk of adverse events.
Conclusions
Remdesivir can help improve the clinical outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a 5 day regimen, instead of a 10 day regimen, may be sufficient for treatment. Moreover, remdesivir appears as tolerable as other comparators or placebo.
This information about time-varying predictors for MPH utilization throughout treatment may provide insight into the delivery of pediatric mental health services and has important implications for the design of clinical treatment programs.
This network meta-analysis compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-viral agents for the prevention of disease progression among non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched from their inception to 28 May 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the clinical efficacy of anti-viral agents for non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. Three RCTs involving 4241 patients were included. Overall, anti-viral agents were associated with a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 related hospitalization or death compared with the placebo (OR, 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06–0.96; p = 0.04). Compared with the placebo, patients receiving nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir had the lowest risk of hospitalization or death (OR, 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06–0.24), followed by remdesivir (OR, 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03–0.57) and then molnupiravir (OR, 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46–0.99). The rank probability for each treatment calculated using the P-score revealed that nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir was the best anti-viral treatment, followed by remdesivir and then molnupiravir. Finally, anti-viral agents were not associated with an increased risk of adverse events compared with the placebo. For non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are at risk of disease progression, the currently recommended three anti-viral agents, nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir, molnupiravir and remdesivir, should continue to be recommended for the prevention of disease progression. Among them, oral nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir and intravenous remdesivir seem to be the better choice, followed by molnupiravir, as determined by this network meta-analysis. Additionally, these three anti-viral agents were shown to be as tolerable as the placebo in this clinical setting.
BackgroundTo examine the correlates of insomnia disorder with different durations in home-dwelling older adults.MethodsA cross-sectional survey in the Shih-Pai area of Taipei City, Taiwan (The Shih-Pai Sleep Study). A total 4047 subjects over the age of 65 years completed the study (2259 men and 1788 women). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and the duration of insomnia symptoms were used to identify DSM-IV 1–6 month and 6-month insomnia disorders.ResultsThe prevalence of DSM-IV defined insomnia disorder was 5.8 %; two-thirds of these case lasted for ≥6 months. The shared correlates for both 1–6 and 6-month insomnia disorders were gender (women), depression and moderate pain. Pulmonary diseases were exclusively associated with 1–6 month insomnia disorder (OR: 2.57, 95 % CI: 1.46–4.52). In contrast, heart disease (OR: 1.73, 95 % CI: 1.21–2.49) and severe pain (OR: 2.34, 95 % CI: 1.14–4.40) were associated with 6-month insomnia disorder.ConclusionThe prevalence of persistent insomnia disorder is higher than short-term insomnia disorder. Correlates for less persistent and more persistent insomnia disorder appears to be partially different. Duration quantifiers may be important in the identification of the etiology of insomnia and further studies with follow-ups are needed to examine the order of developing insomnia disorder and associated conditions.
Studies on use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and the risk of nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease (NTM-LD) are limited and have some conflicting results. We recruited 1235 NTM-LD patients and found that ICS use within 1 year was associated with increased NTM-LD, and the risk increased with elevated ICS dose and cumulative duration. Discontinuation of ICS use for more than 120 days could reduce the risk of NTM-LD to an insignificant level. For NTM species, the development of NTM-LD by ICS was highest for Mycobacterium kansasii lung disease. The pooled results of the meta-analysis showed that ICS use might increase the risk of NTM-LD with dose response in medium and high dose of daily ICS. In addition, budesonide had a smaller impact on the risk of NTM-LD than other ICS medications. The present study and meta-analysis provide evidence for ICS adjustment, including dose, discontinuation effect, and medications to possibly reduce the risk of NTM-LD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.