Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33121991›Full record

SynthesisLife sciences2021

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

Dhan Bahadur Shrestha, Pravash Budhathoki, Nawazish-I-Husain Syed, Era Rawal, Sumit Raut, Sitaram Khadka

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Life sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Remdesivir: Quo vadis?Biochemical pharmacology · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dhan Bahadur ShresthaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mangalbare Hospital, Morang 56600, Nepal.
Pravash BudhathokiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Dr Iwamura Memorial Hospital, Bhaktapur 44800, Nepal.
Nawazish-I-Husain SyedDepartment of Pharmacology, Punjab University College of Pharmacy, University of the Punjab, Old Campus, Lahore 54000, Pakistan. Electronic address: nawazish.pharmacy@pu.edu.pk.
Era RawalDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kathmandu Medical College, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal.
Sumit RautDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kathmandu Medical College, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal.
Sitaram KhadkaDepartment of Pharmacology, Punjab University College of Pharmacy, University of the Punjab, Old Campus, Lahore 54000, Pakistan; Department of Pharmacy, Shree Birendra Hospital, Nepalese Army Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsCOVID-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

methodsWe 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 KEY

findingsComparing 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.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Drug TreatmentAdenosine MonophosphateAlanineAntiviral AgentsHumansSARS-CoV-2Adenosine MonophosphateAlanineAntiviral AgentsremdesivirARDSCoronavirus-2COVID 19RemdesivirTherapeutic efficacy

Identifiers

PMID33121991
PMCPMC7586105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.