MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106264330 · doi:10.1101/2020.11.16.20232876

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

2020· preprint· en· W3106264330 on OpenAlexaff
Ariel Izcovich, Reed Siemieniuk, Jessica J Bartoszko, Long Ge, Dena Zeraatkar, Elena Kum, Assem M. Khamis, Bram Rochwerg, Thomas Agoritsas, Derek K. Chu, Shelley McLeod, Reem A. Mustafa, Per Olav Vandvik, Romina Brignardello‐Petersen

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstituteUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialHydroxychloroquineMeta-analysisPlaceboAdverse effectLopinavirInternal medicineRelative riskConfidence intervalDeliriumIntensive care medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction In an attempt to improve outcomes for patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), several drugs, such as remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine (with or without azithromycin), and lopinavir/ritonavir, have been evaluated for treatment. While much attention focuses on potential benefits of these drugs, this must be weighed against their adverse effects. Methods We searched 32 databases in multiple languages from 1 December 2019 to 27 October 2020. We included randomized trials if they compared any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. A related world health organization (WHO) guideline panel selected the interventions to address and identified possible adverse effects that might be important to patients. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analyzed data using a fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results We included 16 randomized trials which enrolled 8226 patients. Compared to standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference [RD] 8 fewer per 1000, 95% confidence interval (CI): 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI: 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of serious cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI: 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI: 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI: 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI: 23 more to 110 more) compared to standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI: 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI: 100 more to 210 more) compared to standard care or placebo. Conclusion Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Remdesivir may have no effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.683
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.683
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0360.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207