SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2025
Safety evaluation of remdesivir administration in patients with severe renal impairment and coronavirus disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Remdesivir nephrotoxicity in tubular epithelial cells.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether remdesivir (RDV) is safe for patients with severe renal impairment (SRI) and COVID-19, compared to non-SRI patients or those not receiving RDV.
methodsThis study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We searched PubMed, Cohcrane, CINAHL, and Ichushi databases up to October 11, 2024. The outcomes assessed kidney injury, hepatic disorder and mortality. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective and cohort studies reporting kidney injury, hepatotoxicity, and mortality in (i) SRI patients treated with RDV versus without RDV or (ii) SRI patients versus non-SRI patients treated with RDV were included. Targeted patients were defined as adults with COVID-19 based on a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal or salivary swabs regardless of symptoms.
resultsOne randomized controlled trial and 14 cohort studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. Among SRI patients, RDV significantly reduced the incidence of kidney injury (risk ratio [RR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.27-0.97) but had no significant difference in the development of hepatic disorder (RR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.39-1.98) and mortality (RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.55-1.15). In the comparison between SRI and non-SRI patients treated with RDV, SRI patients demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of kidney injury (odds ratio [OR] = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.49-4.23), with no significant difference in the development of hepatic disorder (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.43-2.53). Meanwhile, SRI patients treated with RDV exhibited significantly higher mortality than non-SRI patients treated with RDV (OR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.51-3.22).
conclusionOur meta-analysis demonstrated that RDV administration in SRI patients with COVID-19 was safe compared to non-SRI or SRI patient treated without RDV. We suggest that the use of RDV should be actively considered for SRI patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.