Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)
Authors: Juul Sophie , Nielsen Emil Eik , Feinberg Joshua , Siddiqui Faiza , Jørgensen Caroline Kamp , Barot Emily , Holgersson Johan , Nielsen Niklas , Bentzer Peter , Veroniki Areti Angeliki , Thabane Lehana , Bu Fanlong , Klingenberg Sarah , Gluud Christian , Jakobsen Janus Christian 
Published: November 2020

Background

COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19.

Methods and findings

We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance top= 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology.

We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias.

Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00;p= 0.05; I2= 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99;p= 0.04; I2= 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33;p= 0.49; I2= 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached.

Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07;p= 0.31; I2= 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00;p= 0.05; I2= 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events.

Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87;p= 0.02; I2= 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects.

Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14;p= 0.12; I2= 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96;p= 0.02; I2= 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects.

Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69;p< 0.00; I2= 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexidine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects.

Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%.

Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%.

All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses.

Conclusions

No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intraveneous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexidine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.

Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020178787

Author summary

Why was this study done?

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has spread rapidly worldwide, causing an international outbreak of the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

There is a need for a living systematic review evaluating the beneficial and harmful effects of all possible interventions for treatment of COVID-19.

What did the researchers do and find?

We conducted the second edition of our living systematic review with meta-analyses and Trial sequential analyses to compare the effects of all treatment interventions for COVID-19.

Very low certainty evidence indicated that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intraveneous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexidine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events.

Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our predefined outcomes but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects.

None of the remaining trials showed evidence of a difference of the experimental interventions on our predefined outcomes.

What do these findings mean?

No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists

More high quality, low risk of bias randomized clinical trials are urgently needed.