Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32578156›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2020

Lopinavir-Ritonavir in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Dynamic Systematic Benefit-Risk Assessment.

Vicki Osborne, Miranda Davies, Samantha Lane, Alison Evans, Jacqueline Denyer, Sandeep Dhanda, Debabrata Roy, Saad Shakir

Open access · hybridAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The COVID-19 Patient in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit.The Surgical clinics of North America · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. COVID-19 from a cardiovascular perspectiveArchivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Efficiency of antiviral treatment in COVID-19.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vicki OsborneDrug Safety Research Unit, Bursledon Hall, Blundell Lane, Southampton, SO31 1AA, UK. vicki.osborne@dsru.org.ORCID 0000-0002-3669-6084
Miranda DaviesDrug Safety Research Unit, Bursledon Hall, Blundell Lane, Southampton, SO31 1AA, UK.
Samantha LaneDrug Safety Research Unit, Bursledon Hall, Blundell Lane, Southampton, SO31 1AA, UK.
Alison EvansDrug Safety Research Unit, Bursledon Hall, Blundell Lane, Southampton, SO31 1AA, UK.
Jacqueline DenyerDrug Safety Research Unit, Bursledon Hall, Blundell Lane, Southampton, SO31 1AA, UK.
Sandeep DhandaDrug Safety Research Unit, Bursledon Hall, Blundell Lane, Southampton, SO31 1AA, UK.
Debabrata RoyDrug Safety Research Unit, Bursledon Hall, Blundell Lane, Southampton, SO31 1AA, UK.
Saad ShakirDrug Safety Research Unit, Bursledon Hall, Blundell Lane, Southampton, SO31 1AA, UK.
Drug Safety Research Unit · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND

objectiveCOVID-19 is an ongoing, global public health crisis for which safe and effective treatments need to be identified. The benefit-risk balance for the use of lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 needs to be monitored on an ongoing basis, therefore a systematic benefit-risk assessment was designed and conducted. A key objective of this study was to provide a platform for a dynamic systematic benefit-risk evaluation; although initially this evaluation is likely to contain limited information, it is required because of the urgent unmet public need. Importantly, it allows additional data to be incorporated as they become available, and re-evaluation of the benefit-risk profile.

methodsA systematic benefit-risk assessment was conducted using the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework. The exposure of interest was lopinavir-ritonavir treatment in severe COVID-19 compared to standard of care, placebo or other treatments. A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase to identify peer-reviewed papers reporting clinical outcomes. Two clinicians constructed a value tree and ranked key benefits and risks in order of considered clinical importance.

resultsWe screened 143 papers from PubMed and 264 papers from Embase for lopinavir-ritonavir; seven papers were included in the final benefit-risk assessment. In comparison to standard of care, data for several key benefits and risks were identified for lopinavir-ritonavir. Time to clinical improvement was not significantly different for lopinavir-ritonavir in comparison to standard of care (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.80). From one study, there were fewer cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome with lopinavir-ritonavir compared with standard of care (13% vs 27%). There also appeared to be fewer serious adverse events with lopinavir-ritonavir (20%) vs standard of care (32%). Limited data were available for comparison of lopinavir-ritonavir to other treatments.

conclusionsBased on currently available data, there was no clear benefit for the use of lopinavir-ritonavir compared to standard of care in severe COVID-19. Risk data suggested a possible decrease in serious adverse events. There was a reduction in acute respiratory distress syndrome with lopinavir-ritonavir in one study. Overall, the benefit-risk profile for lopinavir-ritonavir in severe COVID-19 cannot be considered positive until further efficacy and effectiveness data become available.

Indexed as

Coronavirus InfectionsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralRitonavirAdultBetacoronavirusCOVID-19COVID-19 Drug TreatmentHumansLopinavirRisk AssessmentSARS-CoV-2LopinavirRitonavir

Identifiers

PMID32578156
PMCPMC7309686
OpenAlexW3035929545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.