Therapeutic interventions for COVID-19: a living overview of reviews. (December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Khalili, Malahat; Chegeni, Maryam; Javadi, Sara; Farokhnia, Mehrdad; Sharifi, Hamid; Karamouzian, Mohammad
• Is Part Of: Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. Volume 14(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-12
• Subjects: COVID-19 -- pandemic -- review -- therapeutics; Respiratory organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Respiratory agents -- Periodicals; Pulmonary pharmacology -- Periodicals; Respiratory Tract Diseases -- Periodicals; Respiratory System Agents -- therapeutic use -- Periodicals; Respiratory Tract Diseases -- drug therapy -- Periodicals; Lung Diseases -- drug therapy -- Periodicals; Appareil respiratoire -- Maladies -- Traitement -- Périodiques; Agents respiratoires -- Périodiques; Pharmacologie pulmonaire -- Périodiques; 616.2005
• DOI: 10.1177/1753466620976021
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1753-4658

Abstract

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread worldwide, but safe and effective treatment options remain unavailable. Numerous systematic reviews of varying qualities have tried to summarize the evidence on the available therapeutic interventions for COVID-19. This overview of reviews aims to provide a succinct summary of the findings of systematic reviews on different pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic interventions for COVID-19. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO database of publications on COVID-19 from 1 December 2019 through to 11 June 2020 for peer-reviewed systematic review studies that reported on potential pharmacological or non-pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Quality assessment was completed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) measure. Results: Out of 816 non-duplicate studies, 45 were included in the overview. Antiviral and antibiotic agents, corticosteroids, and anti-malarial agents were the most common drug classes used to treat COVID-19; however, there was no direct or strong evidence to support their efficacy. Oxygen therapy and ventilatory support was the most common non-pharmacological supportive care. The quality of most of the included reviews was rated as low or critically low. Conclusion: This overview of reviews demonstrates that although some therapeutic interventions may be beneficial to specific subgroups of COVID-19 patients, the available data are insufficient to strongly recommend any particular treatment option to be used at a population level. Future systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatments should adhere to the recommended systematic review methodologies and ensure that promptness and comprehensiveness are balanced. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.