Remdesivir: A potential game-changer or just a myth? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Shrestha, Dhan Bahadur et al.
MetadataShow full item record
Aims: COVID-19 outbreak has created a public health catastrophe all over the world. Here, we have aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on remdesivir use for COVID-19. Main methods: We searched Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and preprint sites and identified ten studies for qualitative and four studies for quantitative analysis using PRISMA guidelines. The quantitative synthesis was performed using fixed and random effect models in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared (I2) test. Key findings: Comparing 10-day remdesivir group with placebo or standard of care (SOC) group, remdesivir reduced 14 days mortality (OR 0.61, CI 0.41–0.91), need for mechanical ventilation (OR 0.73, CI 0.54–0.97), and severe adverse effects (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88). Clinical improvement on day 28 (OR 1.59, CI 1.06–2.39), day 14 clinical recovery (OR 1.48, CI 1.19–1.84), and day 14 discharge rate (OR 1.41, CI 1.15–1.73) were better among remdesivir group. Earlier clinical improvement (MD −2.51, CI −4.16 to −0.85); and clinical recovery (MD −4.69, CI −5.11 to −4.28) were seen among the remdesivir group. Longer course (10 days) of remdesivir showed a higher discharge rate at day 14 (OR 2.11, CI 1.50–2.97), but there were significantly higher rates of serious adverse effects, and drug discontinuation than the 5-day course. Significance: Remdesivir showed a better 14 days mortality profile, clinical recovery, and discharge rate. Overall clinical improvement and clinical recovery were earlier among the remdesivir group. 10-day remdesivir showed more adverse outcome than 5-day course with no significant benefits.