1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir versus sotrovimab for COVID‐19: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      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 and Aim

          This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19).

          Methods

          Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis (CMA).

          Results

          Our search identified and included 13 studies involving 16166 patients. The meta‐analysis revealed a significant difference between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups in terms of the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 3.70). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization rate (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83), and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84). In terms of safety, molnupiravir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30).

          Conclusion

          The current findings indicate that sotrovimab may be more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID‐19 patients. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatments for other effectiveness outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Further research is required to provide a better comparison of these interventions in treating COVID‐19 patients.

          Abstract

          The present findings may suggest that treatment with sotrovimab is more effective than molnupiravir in reducing mortality rate in COVID‐19 patients. No significant difference was observed between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab in terms of hospitalization rate, death or hospitalization rate, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Molnupiravir was associated with higher incidence of adverse events.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

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

          ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

          Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            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: found
              • Article: not found

              Hospital admission and emergency care attendance risk for SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) compared with alpha (B.1.1.7) variants of concern: a cohort study

              Background The SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant was first detected in England in March, 2021. It has since rapidly become the predominant lineage, owing to high transmissibility. It is suspected that the delta variant is associated with more severe disease than the previously dominant alpha (B.1.1.7) variant. We aimed to characterise the severity of the delta variant compared with the alpha variant by determining the relative risk of hospital attendance outcomes. Methods This cohort study was done among all patients with COVID-19 in England between March 29 and May 23, 2021, who were identified as being infected with either the alpha or delta SARS-CoV-2 variant through whole-genome sequencing. Individual-level data on these patients were linked to routine health-care datasets on vaccination, emergency care attendance, hospital admission, and mortality (data from Public Health England's Second Generation Surveillance System and COVID-19-associated deaths dataset; the National Immunisation Management System; and NHS Digital Secondary Uses Services and Emergency Care Data Set). The risk for hospital admission and emergency care attendance were compared between patients with sequencing-confirmed delta and alpha variants for the whole cohort and by vaccination status subgroups. Stratified Cox regression was used to adjust for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, recent international travel, area of residence, calendar week, and vaccination status. Findings Individual-level data on 43 338 COVID-19-positive patients (8682 with the delta variant, 34 656 with the alpha variant; median age 31 years [IQR 17–43]) were included in our analysis. 196 (2·3%) patients with the delta variant versus 764 (2·2%) patients with the alpha variant were admitted to hospital within 14 days after the specimen was taken (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2·26 [95% CI 1·32–3·89]). 498 (5·7%) patients with the delta variant versus 1448 (4·2%) patients with the alpha variant were admitted to hospital or attended emergency care within 14 days (adjusted HR 1·45 [1·08–1·95]). Most patients were unvaccinated (32 078 [74·0%] across both groups). The HRs for vaccinated patients with the delta variant versus the alpha variant (adjusted HR for hospital admission 1·94 [95% CI 0·47–8·05] and for hospital admission or emergency care attendance 1·58 [0·69–3·61]) were similar to the HRs for unvaccinated patients (2·32 [1·29–4·16] and 1·43 [1·04–1·97]; p=0·82 for both) but the precision for the vaccinated subgroup was low. Interpretation This large national study found a higher hospital admission or emergency care attendance risk for patients with COVID-19 infected with the delta variant compared with the alpha variant. Results suggest that outbreaks of the delta variant in unvaccinated populations might lead to a greater burden on health-care services than the alpha variant. Funding Medical Research Council; UK Research and Innovation; Department of Health and Social Care; and National Institute for Health Research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                b_amani@alumnus.tums.ac.ir
                Journal
                Immun Inflamm Dis
                Immun Inflamm Dis
                10.1002/(ISSN)2050-4527
                IID3
                Immunity, Inflammation and Disease
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2050-4527
                23 April 2024
                April 2024
                : 12
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1002/iid3.v12.4 )
                : e1262
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence Behnam Amani, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Qods St., Keshavarz Blvd., Tehran, Iran.

                Email: b_amani@ 123456alumnus.tums.ac.ir

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4298-1807
                Article
                IID31262
                10.1002/iid3.1262
                11037253
                38652021
                776d0cde-284b-4cf6-aed9-ecb42b9cd72b
                © 2024 The Authors. Immunity, Inflammation and Disease published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 03 April 2024
                : 04 September 2023
                : 12 April 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 2, Pages: 11, Words: 5264
                Categories
                Review Article
                Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                April 2024
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.4.0 mode:remove_FC converted:23.04.2024

                covid‐19,effectiveness,molnupiravir,safety,sars‐cov‐2,sotrovimab

                Comments

                Comment on this article