Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to pose a significant threat to public health worldwide. The purpose of this study was to review current evidence obtained from randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed to identify randomized controlled trials published up to September 4, 2021 that examined the efficacy of antivirals for COVID-19 treatment. Studies that were not randomized controlled trials or that did not include treatment of COVID-19 with approved antivirals were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) method. Due to study heterogeneity, inferential statistics were not performed and data were expressed as descriptive statistics. Results Of the 2,284 articles retrieved, 31 (12,440 patients) articles were included. Overall, antivirals were more effective when administered early in the disease course. No antiviral treatment demonstrated efficacy at reducing COVID-19 mortality. Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir results suggested clinical improvement, although statistical power was low. Remdesivir exhibited efficacy in reducing time to recovery, but results were inconsistent across trials. Conclusions Although select antivirals have exhibited efficacy to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, none demonstrated efficacy in reducing mortality. Larger RCTs are needed to conclusively establish efficacy.

No abstract

Cross study heterogeneity has limited the evidence based evaluation of middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) as a treatment for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). Ongoing trials and prospective studies suggest that heterogeneity in upcoming publications may detract from subsequent meta-analyses and systemic reviews. This study aims to describe this data heterogeneity to promote harmonization with common data elements (CDEs) in publications. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were searched for published or ongoing prospective trials of MMAE. The Nested Knowledge AutoLit living review platform was utilized to classify endpoints from randomized control trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies comparing MMAE with other treatments. The qualitative synthesis feature was used to determine cross study overlap of outcome related data elements. Eighteen studies were included: 12 RCTs, two non-randomized controlled studies, two prospective single arm trials, one combined prospective and retrospective controlled study, and one prospective cohort study. The most commonly reported data element was recurrence (15/18), but seven heterogenous (non-comparable) definitions were used for ‘recurrence’. Mortality was reported in 10/18 studies, but no common timepoint was reported in more than four studies. Re-intervention and CSDH volume were reported in eight studies, CSDH width in seven, and no other outcome was common across more than five studies. There was significant heterogeneity in data element collection even among prospective registered trials of MMAE. Even among CDEs, variation in definition and timepoints prevented harmonization. A standardized approach based on CDEs may be necessary to facilitate future meta-analyses and evidence driven evaluation of MMAE treatment of CSDH.