Objectives We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide updated information regarding the clinical efficacy of remdesivir in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant articles published up to 18 November 2020. Results Five RCTs, including 13 544 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 3839 and 391 patients were assigned to the 10 day and 5 day remdesivir regimens, respectively. Patients receiving 5 day remdesivir therapy presented greater clinical improvement than those in the control group [OR = 1.68 (95% CI 1.18–2.40)], with no significant difference observed between the 10 day and placebo groups [OR = 1.23 (95% CI 0.90–1.68)]. Patients receiving remdesivir revealed a greater likelihood of discharge [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.32 (95% CI 1.09–1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.73 (95% CI 1.28–2.35)] and recovery [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.29 (95% CI 1.03–1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.80 (95% CI 1.31–2.48)] than those in the control group. In contrast, no mortality benefit was observed following remdesivir therapy. Furthermore, no significant association was observed between remdesivir treatment and an increased risk of adverse events. Conclusions Remdesivir can help improve the clinical outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a 5 day regimen, instead of a 10 day regimen, may be sufficient for treatment. Moreover, remdesivir appears as tolerable as other comparators or placebo.

To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mABs) for outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, http://ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) databases were searched from inception to July 19, 2021. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of neutralizing mABs in the treatment of COVID‐19 outpatients were included. The Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included RCTs. The primary outcome was the risk of COVID‐19‐related hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visits. The secondary outcomes were the risk of death and adverse events (AEs). Five articles were included, in which 3309 patients received neutralizing mAB and 2397 patients received a placebo. A significantly lower rate of hospitalization or ED visits was observed among patients who received neutralizing mABs than those who received a placebo (1.7% vs. 6.5%, odds ratios (OR): 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19–0.36; I2 = 0%). In addition, the rate of hospitalization was significantly lower in the patients who received neutralizing mABs than in the control group (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.17−0.34; I2 = 0%). The mortality rate was also significantly lower in the patients who received neutralizing mABs than in the control group (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.05−0.58; I2 = 3%). Neutralizing mABs were associated with a similar risk of any AE (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.64–1.01; I2 = 52%) and a lower risk of serious AEs (OR: 0.37; 97% CI: 0.19–0.72; I2 = 45%) compared with a placebo. Neutralizing mABs can help reduce the risk of hospitalization or ED visits in COVID‐19 outpatients. For these patients, neutralizing mABs are safe and not associated with a higher risk of AEs than a placebo.

This network meta-analysis compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-viral agents for the prevention of disease progression among non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched from their inception to 28 May 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the clinical efficacy of anti-viral agents for non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. Three RCTs involving 4241 patients were included. Overall, anti-viral agents were associated with a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 related hospitalization or death compared with the placebo (OR, 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06–0.96; p = 0.04). Compared with the placebo, patients receiving nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir had the lowest risk of hospitalization or death (OR, 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06–0.24), followed by remdesivir (OR, 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03–0.57) and then molnupiravir (OR, 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46–0.99). The rank probability for each treatment calculated using the P-score revealed that nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir was the best anti-viral treatment, followed by remdesivir and then molnupiravir. Finally, anti-viral agents were not associated with an increased risk of adverse events compared with the placebo. For non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are at risk of disease progression, the currently recommended three anti-viral agents, nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir, molnupiravir and remdesivir, should continue to be recommended for the prevention of disease progression. Among them, oral nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir and intravenous remdesivir seem to be the better choice, followed by molnupiravir, as determined by this network meta-analysis. Additionally, these three anti-viral agents were shown to be as tolerable as the placebo in this clinical setting.