Suppr超能文献

新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)重症监护治疗的疗效:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments in Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

作者信息

Alwakeel Mahmoud, Abi Fadel Francois, Nanah Abdelrahman, Wang Yan, Awad Mohamed K A, Abdeljaleel Fatima, Obeidat Mohammed, Saleem Talha, Afzal Saira, Alayan Dina, Harnegie Mary Pat, Wang Xiaofeng, Duggal Abhijit, Zhang Peng

机构信息

Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Department of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Fairview Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

出版信息

Crit Care Res Pract. 2024 Nov 27;2024:2973795. doi: 10.1155/ccrp/2973795. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

Examining the cumulative evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating the use of pharmacological agents for the treatment of COVID-19 infections in patients with critical illness. Databases Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were RCTs that enrolled patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection who are critically ill. Only RCTs that examined therapeutic agents against one another or no intervention, placebo, or standard of care, were included. Pairs of reviewers extracted data independently. Outcomes of interest included the overall reported mortality defined as either the ICU mortality, hospital mortality, mortality within 28 days or mortality within 90 days. A total of 40 studies (11,613 patients) evaluated 50 therapeutic intervention arms divided into five main therapy categories; steroids, antiviral medications, immunomodulators, plasma therapies [intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), convalescent plasma and/or, therapeutic plasma exchange], and therapeutic anticoagulation. Immunomodulators was the only group with possible mortality benefit, risk ratio (RR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.73; 0.95), with nonsignificant heterogeneity (  = 8%, =0.36). In contrast, the other therapy groups showed no significant impact on mortality, as indicated by their respective pooled RRs: steroids [RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82; 1.01),  = 31%], antiviral medications [RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.82; 1.49),  = 57%], plasma therapies [RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.58; 1.01),  = 36%], and anticoagulation [RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.95; 1.18),  = 0%]. This meta-analysis highlights both the heterogeneity and a lack of benefit from therapies evaluated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of the RCTs were developed based on limited observational data. Future RCTs investigating pharmaceutical interventions in critically ill patients during pandemics need to be designed based on better evidence.

摘要

审查随机对照试验(RCT)的累积证据,评估药物制剂在治疗危重症COVID-19感染患者中的应用。数据库包括Medline、Embase、Web of Science、Scopus、CINAHL和Cochrane。研究选择:纳入标准为纳入确诊或疑似COVID-19感染的危重症患者的RCT。仅纳入比较治疗药物相互之间或与无干预、安慰剂或护理标准的RCT。由两名审查员独立提取数据。感兴趣的结局包括总体报告死亡率,定义为重症监护病房死亡率、医院死亡率、28天内死亡率或90天内死亡率。共有40项研究(11613例患者)评估了50个治疗干预组,分为五个主要治疗类别;类固醇、抗病毒药物、免疫调节剂、血浆疗法[静脉注射免疫球蛋白(IVIG)、康复期血浆和/或治疗性血浆置换]以及治疗性抗凝。免疫调节剂是唯一可能有降低死亡率益处的组,风险比(RR)为0.83(95%CI 0.73;0.95),异质性不显著(I² = 8%,P = 0.36)。相比之下,其他治疗组对死亡率无显著影响,其各自合并RR如下:类固醇[RR 0.91(95%CI 0.82;1.01),I² = 31%]、抗病毒药物[RR 1.11(95%CI 0.82;1.49),I² = 57%]、血浆疗法[RR 0.77(95%CI 0.58;1.01),I² = 36%]和抗凝[RR 1.06(95%CI 0.95;1.18),I² = 0%]。这项荟萃分析突出了COVID-19大流行期间评估的治疗方法的异质性和缺乏益处。许多RCT是基于有限的观察数据开展的。未来在大流行期间对危重症患者进行药物干预的RCT需要基于更好的证据进行设计。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验