• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Life Sci . Remdesivir: A potential game-changer or just a myth? A systematic review and meta-analysis

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Life Sci


. 2020 Oct 26;118663.
doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.118663. Online ahead of print.
Remdesivir: A potential game-changer or just a myth? A systematic review and meta-analysis


Dhan Bahadur Shrestha[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Pravash Budhathoki[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Nawazish-I-Husain Syed[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Era Rawal[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Sumit Raut[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Sitaram Khadka[SUP] 5 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Aims: COVID-19 outbreak has created a public health catastrophe all over the world. Here, we have aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on remdesivir use for COVID-19.
Main methods: We searched Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and preprint sites and identified ten studies for qualitative and four studies for quantitative analysis using PRISMA guidelines. The quantitative synthesis was performed using fixed and random effect models in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared (I[SUP]2[/SUP]) test.
Key findings: Comparing 10-day remdesivir group with placebo or standard of care (SOC) group, remdesivir reduced 14 days mortality (OR 0.61, CI 0.41-0.91), need for mechanical ventilation (OR 0.73, CI 0.54-0.97), and severe adverse effects (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88). Clinical improvement on day 28 (OR 1.59, CI 1.06-2.39), day 14 clinical recovery (OR 1.48, CI 1.19-1.84), and day 14 discharge rate (OR 1.41, CI 1.15-1.73) were better among remdesivir group. Earlier clinical improvement (MD -2.51, CI -4.16 to -0.85); and clinical recovery (MD -4.69, CI -5.11 to -4.28) were seen among the remdesivir group. Longer course (10 days) of remdesivir showed a higher discharge rate at day 14 (OR 2.11, CI 1.50-2.97), but there were significantly higher rates of serious adverse effects, and drug discontinuation than the 5-day course.
Significance: Remdesivir showed a better 14 days mortality profile, clinical recovery, and discharge rate. Overall clinical improvement and clinical recovery were earlier among the remdesivir group. 10-day remdesivir showed more adverse outcome than 5-day course with no significant benefits.

Keywords: ARDS; COVID 19; Coronavirus-2; Remdesivir; Therapeutic efficacy.
 
Back
Top Bottom