Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review
Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated growing research on treatment options. We aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of studies evaluating COVID-19 treatment.Design Rapid scoping reviewData sources Medline, Embase and biorxiv/medrxiv from inception to 15 May 2021.Setting Hospi...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022-06-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/6/e045115.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832583879464058880 |
|---|---|
| author | Sharon E Straus Jesmin Antony Andrea C Tricco Rachel Warren Erin Macdonald Ba Pham Milan Patel Fatemeh Yazdi Amruta Radhakrishnan Marco Ghassemi Patricia Rios Chantal Williams Naveeta Ramkissoon Matthew P Muller Nazia Darvesh Gordon V Cormack Maura R Grossman Melissa Kampman Reid Robson |
| author_facet | Sharon E Straus Jesmin Antony Andrea C Tricco Rachel Warren Erin Macdonald Ba Pham Milan Patel Fatemeh Yazdi Amruta Radhakrishnan Marco Ghassemi Patricia Rios Chantal Williams Naveeta Ramkissoon Matthew P Muller Nazia Darvesh Gordon V Cormack Maura R Grossman Melissa Kampman Reid Robson |
| author_sort | Sharon E Straus |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated growing research on treatment options. We aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of studies evaluating COVID-19 treatment.Design Rapid scoping reviewData sources Medline, Embase and biorxiv/medrxiv from inception to 15 May 2021.Setting Hospital and community care.Participants COVID-19 patients of all ages.Interventions COVID-19 treatment.Results The literature search identified 616 relevant primary studies of which 188 were randomised controlled trials and 299 relevant evidence syntheses. The studies and evidence syntheses were conducted in 51 and 39 countries, respectively.Most studies enrolled patients admitted to acute care hospitals (84%), included on average 169 participants, with an average age of 60 years, study duration of 28 days, number of effect outcomes of four and number of harm outcomes of one. The most common primary outcome was death (32%).The included studies evaluated 214 treatment options. The most common treatments were tocilizumab (11%), hydroxychloroquine (9%) and convalescent plasma (7%). The most common therapeutic categories were non-steroidal immunosuppressants (18%), steroids (15%) and antivirals (14%). The most common therapeutic categories involving multiple drugs were antimalarials/antibiotics (16%), steroids/non-steroidal immunosuppressants (9%) and antimalarials/antivirals/antivirals (7%). The most common treatments evaluated in systematic reviews were hydroxychloroquine (11%), remdesivir (8%), tocilizumab (7%) and steroids (7%).The evaluated treatment was in favour 50% and 36% of the evaluations, according to the conclusion of the authors of primary studies and evidence syntheses, respectively.Conclusions This rapid scoping review characterised a growing body of comparative-effectiveness primary studies and evidence syntheses. The results suggest future studies should focus on children, elderly ≥65 years of age, patients with mild symptoms, outpatient treatment, multimechanism therapies, harms and active comparators. The results also suggest that future living evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis would provide additional information for decision-makers on managing COVID-19. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-268fe399c89346c0b9638e88e29a24de |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022-06-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-268fe399c89346c0b9638e88e29a24de2025-01-28T02:25:09ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552022-06-0112610.1136/bmjopen-2020-045115Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping reviewSharon E Straus0Jesmin Antony1Andrea C Tricco2Rachel Warren3Erin Macdonald4Ba Pham5Milan Patel6Fatemeh Yazdi7Amruta Radhakrishnan8Marco Ghassemi9Patricia Rios10Chantal Williams11Naveeta Ramkissoon12Matthew P Muller13Nazia Darvesh14Gordon V Cormack15Maura R Grossman16Melissa Kampman17Reid Robson18St. Michael’s Hospital Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michaels Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaMarie Curie, Research and Policy, London, UKLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael`s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canadaresearch coordinator1 Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Health Center, Richmond, Virginia, USAsenior clinical research associateCentre for Global Child Health, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael`s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaWomen’s College Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaIndependent Researcher, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael`s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaKnowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael`s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaDavid R. Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CanadaDavid R. Cheriton School of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, CanadaEpidemiology and Evidence Evaluation for Safety and Effectiveness Section, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael`s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaObjectives The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated growing research on treatment options. We aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of studies evaluating COVID-19 treatment.Design Rapid scoping reviewData sources Medline, Embase and biorxiv/medrxiv from inception to 15 May 2021.Setting Hospital and community care.Participants COVID-19 patients of all ages.Interventions COVID-19 treatment.Results The literature search identified 616 relevant primary studies of which 188 were randomised controlled trials and 299 relevant evidence syntheses. The studies and evidence syntheses were conducted in 51 and 39 countries, respectively.Most studies enrolled patients admitted to acute care hospitals (84%), included on average 169 participants, with an average age of 60 years, study duration of 28 days, number of effect outcomes of four and number of harm outcomes of one. The most common primary outcome was death (32%).The included studies evaluated 214 treatment options. The most common treatments were tocilizumab (11%), hydroxychloroquine (9%) and convalescent plasma (7%). The most common therapeutic categories were non-steroidal immunosuppressants (18%), steroids (15%) and antivirals (14%). The most common therapeutic categories involving multiple drugs were antimalarials/antibiotics (16%), steroids/non-steroidal immunosuppressants (9%) and antimalarials/antivirals/antivirals (7%). The most common treatments evaluated in systematic reviews were hydroxychloroquine (11%), remdesivir (8%), tocilizumab (7%) and steroids (7%).The evaluated treatment was in favour 50% and 36% of the evaluations, according to the conclusion of the authors of primary studies and evidence syntheses, respectively.Conclusions This rapid scoping review characterised a growing body of comparative-effectiveness primary studies and evidence syntheses. The results suggest future studies should focus on children, elderly ≥65 years of age, patients with mild symptoms, outpatient treatment, multimechanism therapies, harms and active comparators. The results also suggest that future living evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis would provide additional information for decision-makers on managing COVID-19.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/6/e045115.full |
| spellingShingle | Sharon E Straus Jesmin Antony Andrea C Tricco Rachel Warren Erin Macdonald Ba Pham Milan Patel Fatemeh Yazdi Amruta Radhakrishnan Marco Ghassemi Patricia Rios Chantal Williams Naveeta Ramkissoon Matthew P Muller Nazia Darvesh Gordon V Cormack Maura R Grossman Melissa Kampman Reid Robson Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review BMJ Open |
| title | Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review |
| title_full | Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review |
| title_fullStr | Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review |
| title_short | Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review |
| title_sort | comparative effectiveness research of covid 19 treatment a rapid scoping review |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/6/e045115.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sharonestraus comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT jesminantony comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT andreactricco comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT rachelwarren comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT erinmacdonald comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT bapham comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT milanpatel comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT fatemehyazdi comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT amrutaradhakrishnan comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT marcoghassemi comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT patriciarios comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT chantalwilliams comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT naveetaramkissoon comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT matthewpmuller comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT naziadarvesh comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT gordonvcormack comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT maurargrossman comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT melissakampman comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview AT reidrobson comparativeeffectivenessresearchofcovid19treatmentarapidscopingreview |