MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200444118 · doi:10.1101/2021.12.17.21268008

Fluvoxamine for Outpatient COVID-19 to Prevent Hospitalization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W4200444118 on OpenAlexaff
Todd C. Lee, Simone N. Vigod, Émilie Bortolussi‐Courval, Ryan Hanula, David R. Boulware, Eric J. Lenze, Angela M. Reiersen, Emily G. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPharmacological Receptor Mechanisms and Effects
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrequentist inferenceMedicineConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisRelative riskFluvoxamineClinical trialMEDLINEInternal medicineBayesian probabilityStatisticsBayesian inferenceFluoxetine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Importance Widely available and affordable options for the outpatient management of COVID-19 are needed, particularly therapies that prevent hospitalization. Objective Perform a meta-analysis of the available randomized clinical trial evidence for fluvoxamine in the outpatient management of COVID-19. Data Sources World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study Selection Completed outpatient trials with available results which compared fluvoxamine to placebo. Data Extraction and Synthesis We followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We extracted study details in terms of inclusion criteria, trial demographics and the pre-specified outcome of all-cause hospitalization. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We conducted a frequentist random effects meta-analysis, as well as two sensitivity analyses using a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis with different estimates of prior probability: a weakly neutral prior (50% chance of efficacy with 95% confidence interval for Risk Ratio [RR] between 0.5 and 2) and a moderately optimistic prior (85% chance of efficacy). We contextualized the results by estimating the probability of any effect (RR ≤1) and moderate effect (RR ≤0.9) on reducing hospitalization. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) All cause hospitalization. Results 2196 participants were included from 3 identified trials. The risk ratios for hospitalization were 0.75 (95%CI, 0.57-0.97) for the frequentist analysis, 0.78 (95%CI 0.58-1.08) for the Bayesian weakly neutral prior, and 0.73 (95%CI, 0.53-1.01) for the Bayesian moderately optimistic prior. Depending on the scenario, the probability of any effect on hospitalization ranged from 94.1% to 98.3% and a moderate effect from 81.6% to 91.1%. Conclusions and Relevance Under a variety of assumptions, fluvoxamine shows a high probability of preventing hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19. While ongoing randomized trials are important to evaluate alternative doses, explore the effectiveness in vaccinated patients, and provide further refinement to these estimates, fluvoxamine could be recommended as a treatment option, particularly in resource-limited settings or persons without access to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy or direct antivirals. Key Points Question Does early administration of fluvoxamine prevent hospitalization in symptomatic adult outpatients with confirmed COVID-19? Findings In this meta-analysis with Bayesian sensitivity analyses that accounted for varying prior probabilities, there was a high probability (94.1% to 98.3%) that fluvoxamine reduces hospitalization with frequentist risk ratio of 0.75 (95%CI 0.57-0.97). Meaning Fluvoxamine is a widely available and inexpensive option that prevents hospitalization in patients with early COVID-19 based on randomized controlled trial evidence to date.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.309 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicPharmacological Receptor Mechanisms and EffectsFrench-language works237,207