6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in COVID-19 management: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in acute COVID-19 treatment remains under investigation, with conflicting results reported from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Different dosing regimens may have contributed to the contradictory findings.

          Objectives

          To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SSRIs and the impact of different dosing regimens in acute COVID-19 treatment.

          Data sources

          Seven databases were searched from January 2020 to December 2022. Trial registries, previous reviews, and preprint servers were hand-searched.

          Study eligibility criteria

          RCTs and observational studies with no language restrictions.

          Participants

          COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients.

          Interventions

          SSRIs prescribed after diagnosis compared against placebo or standard of care.

          Assessment of risk of bias

          Risk of bias was rated with RoB2 and ROBINS-I.

          Methods of data synthesis

          Outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits, hypoxemia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, ventilator support, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RCT data was pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Observational findings were narratively described. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on SSRI dose, and sensitivity analyses were conducted excluding high risk of bias studies. GRADE was used to assess quality of evidence (QoE).

          Results

          Six RCTs (N=4,197) and 5 observational studies (N=1,156) were included. Meta-analyses associated fluvoxamine with reduced mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.82) and hospitalization (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.99) based on moderate QoE. Medium-dose fluvoxamine (100 mg b.i.d.) was associated with reduced mortality, hospitalization, and composite of hospitalization/emergency room visits but not low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg b.i.d.). Fluvoxamine was not associated with increased SAEs. Observational studies support fluvoxamine use and highlighted fluoxetine as a possible alternative SSRI for COVID-19 treatment.

          Conclusions

          Fluvoxamine remains a candidate pharmacotherapy for treating COVID-19 outpatients. Medium-dose fluvoxamine may be preferable over low-dose fluvoxamine.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

              Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Microbiol Infect
                Clin Microbiol Infect
                Clinical Microbiology and Infection
                European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                1198-743X
                1469-0691
                16 January 2023
                16 January 2023
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 King's College Cir, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
                [3 ]Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1201 E Marshall St, Richmond, VA 23298, USA
                [4 ]Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry (Windsor Campus), University of Western Ontario, 455 California Ave, Windsor, ON N9B 2Y9, Canada
                [5 ]Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic (Rochester), 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
                [6 ]Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 3L8, Canada
                [7 ]Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5, Canada
                Author notes
                [] Corresponding author. , Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 King’s College Cir, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada, Tel.: +(613) 618 9734; fax: +(416) 978 2011, E-mail:
                Article
                S1198-743X(23)00032-0
                10.1016/j.cmi.2023.01.010
                9841740
                36657488
                93969546-a6e1-497d-84e2-5afcb3474b5f
                © 2023 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 8 November 2022
                : 21 December 2022
                : 9 January 2023
                Categories
                Systematic Review

                Microbiology & Virology
                covid-19,fluvoxamine,meta-analysis,sars-cov-2,selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor

                Comments

                Comment on this article