Sotrovimab in solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Despite widespread implementation of vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) can remain particularly vulnerable to this disease. The present study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of sotrovimab in the treatment of SOTRs with COVID-19.

Methods

A search was performed of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar to gather relevant evidence through July 25, 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (ver. 3.0, Biostat) was employed for data analysis.

Results

Ten studies, involving a total of 1,569 patients, were included. The meta-analysis revealed significant differences between the patients administered sotrovimab and those treated with the standard of care. These differences were observed in mortality rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.67), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.57), intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.62), the need for supplemental oxygen therapy (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.51), and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.70). However, no significant difference was observed between sotrovimab and other treatments regarding the rates of hospitalization or ICU admission (P>0.05). Regarding safety, sotrovimab was associated with a lower rate of adverse events compared to the absence of sotrovimab (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.02-0.86).

Conclusions

These results suggest that sotrovimab may improve efficacy outcomes among SOTRs with COVID-19. Nevertheless, additional high-quality trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

Comparative efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) with molnupiravir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To end this, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to collect relevant evidence up to February 15, 2023. The risk of bias was evaluated using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Eighteen studies involving 57 659 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed a significant difference between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir in terms of all-cause mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.67), all-cause hospitalization rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.54-0.69), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.38-0.99), and negative polymerase chain reaction conversion time (mean difference = -1.55, 95% CI: -1.74 to -1.37). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of COVID-19 rebound (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.71-1.07). In terms of safety, although the incidence of any adverse events was higher in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.57-4.06), no significant difference was observed between the two treatments in terms of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.69-2.00). The present meta-analysis demonstrated the significant superiority of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir over molnupiravir in improving clinical efficacy in COVID-19 patients during the prevalence of Omicron variant. These findings, however, need to be further confirmed.

Artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in COVID‐19: A rapid review and meta‐analysis of current evidence

Background and Objective

Despite the pervasive vaccination program against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), people who got fully vaccinated are still contaminated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, making an effective and safe therapeutic intervention a crucial need for the patients' survival. The purpose of the present study is to seek available evidence for the efficacy and safety of three promising medications artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab against COVID‐19.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, medRxive, and Google Scholar, and the relevant articles published up to January 2022 were found. Furthermore, the clinical trial databases were screened for finding more citations. Data analysis was carried out applying The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle–Ottawa scale to assess the included studies. Meta‐analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1.

Results

Five published studies were identified as eligible. Meta‐analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the infliximab and control groups in terms of mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]: 0.65; confidence interval [CI] 95%: 0.40–1.07; p = .09). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups for the hospital discharge (RR: 1.37; CI 95%: 1.04–1.80; p = .03). No remarkable clinical benefit was observed for using imatinib in COVID‐19 patients. Artesunate showed significant improvement in patients with COVID‐19.

Conclusion

In the present, limited evidence exists for the efficacy and safety of artesunate, imatinib, and infliximab in patients with COVID‐19. The findings of WHO's Solidarity international trial will provide further information regarding these therapeutic interventions.

Pregabalin and gabapentin in neuropathic pain management after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury (SCI) has a significant negative impact on the patients’ quality of life. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the safety and efficacy of pregabalin (PGB) and gabapentin (GBP) in the treatment of neuropathic pain due to SCI. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and the Web of Science were searched up to December 2018. The reference lists of key and review studies were reviewed for additional citations. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tools for assessing the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was performed for primary and secondary outcomes. Eight studies were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis of PGB vs. placebo showed that PGB was effective for neuropathic pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.78, −0.01), anxiety (MD = −0.68; 95% CI: −0.77, −0.59), depression (mean difference [MD] = −0.99; 95% CI: −1.08, −0.89), and sleep interference (MD = −1.08; 95% CI: −1.13, −1.02). Also, GBP was more effective than a placebo for reducing pain. No significant difference was observed between the efficacy of the two drugs (MD = −0.37; 95% CI: −1.67, 0.93). There was no significant difference between the two drugs for discontinuation due to adverse events (risk ratio = 3.00; 95% CI: 0.81, 11.15). PGB and GBP were effective vs. placebos in decreasing neuropathic pain after SCI. Also, there was no significant difference between the two drugs for decreasing pain and adverse events.