4.7 Review

Efficacy and Safety of Molnupiravir Treatment for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106870

关键词

COVID-19; Molnupiravir; Randomized controlled trials; SARS-CoV-2

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in the treatment of COVID-19. The meta-analysis results showed that molnupiravir can accelerate the rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients, but it does not significantly reduce mortality and hospitalisation.
Introduction: There are currently some differences in the research results of molnupiravir. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) and medRxiv were searched to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 1 January 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials was used to assess the bias risk of the included studies. Revman 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. Results: Nine RCTs were included, including 31 573 COVID-19 patients, of whom 15 846 received molnupiravir. The meta-analysis results showed that the molnupiravir group had a higher proportion in terms of clinical improvement (Day 5 RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.18-4.92; Day 10 RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.04-2.01) and real-time polymerase chain reaction negativity (Day 5 RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.38-5.62; Day 10 RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07-1.31). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of mortality, hospitalisation, adverse events and serious adverse events. Conclusions: Molnupiravir can accelerate the rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients, but it does not significantly reduce mortality and hospitalisation. & COPY; 2023 Elsevier Ltd and International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据