Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34331674›Full record

SynthesisInfection2022

Efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mulugeta T Angamo, Mohammed A Mohammed, Gregory M Peterson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Infection, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Use of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia
    Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mulugeta T AngamoSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia. Mulugeta.Angamo@utas.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8604-6258
Mohammed A MohammedSchool of Pharmacy, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Gregory M PetersonSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
University of Tasmania · AUUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis review was aimed to synthesise the best available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir in the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19.

methodRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting the effectiveness and safety of remdesivir were searched via databases and other sources from December 2019 to December 2020. Two independent reviewers performed literature screening, data extraction and assessment of risk bias. Seven studies involving 3686 patients were included.

resultsTreatment with remdesivir was associated with an increase in clinical recovery rate by 21% (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.08-1.35) on day 7 and 29% (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.22-1.37) on day 14. The likelihoods of requiring high-flow supplemental oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation in the remdesivir group were lower than in the placebo group by 27% (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.54-0.99) and 47% (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.39-0.72), respectively. Remdesivir-treated patients showed a 39% (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.79) reduction in the risk of mortality on day 14 compared to the control group; however, there was no significant difference on day 28. Serious adverse effects (SAEs) were significantly less common in patients treated with remdesivir, with an absolute risk difference of 6% (RD -0.06; 95% CI -0.09 to -0.03).

conclusionDespite conditional recommendation against its use, remdesivir could still be effective in early clinical improvement; reduction of early mortality and avoiding high-flow supplemental oxygen and invasive mechanical ventilation among hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Remdesivir was also well tolerated without significant SAEs compared to placebo, yet available evidence from clinical studies support the need to conduct close monitoring.

Indexed as

COVID-19 Drug TreatmentAdenosine MonophosphateAlanineHumansSARS-CoV-2Adenosine MonophosphateAlanineremdesivirCoronavirus deisease-19EffectivenessRemdesivirSafety

Identifiers

PMID34331674
PMCPMC8325414
OpenAlexW3186301197

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.