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.

There are more single inhaler device triple therapy available for COPD patients now. However, the effect of long-term triple therapy fixed dose combination (FDC) on mortality remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of one-year single inhaler device triple therapy, including long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), with dual therapies, comprised of either LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA, on the mortality of patients with COPD. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Embase databases, and clinical trial registry of clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared single inhaler device triple and dual therapies for 52 weeks were selected for the meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. A total of 6 RCTs were selected for the meta-analysis, including 10,274 patients who received single inhaler device triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC) and 12,395 patients who received ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA dual therapy. Risk of death was significantly lower in the ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC group compared to the LABA/LAMA group (RR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.53–0.90, p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in mortality between the ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC and ICS/LABA therapy groups (RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.72–1.24, p = 0.66). In addition, patients receiving ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC therapy had less moderate or severe exacerbations compared with the dual therapy groups (RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.73–0.80, p < 0.001 for LABA/LAMA; RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.78–0.90, p < 0.001 for ICS/LABA). By contrast, the risk of pneumonia in the ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC group was higher than in the LABA/LAMA group (RR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.21–1.68, p < 0.001). In conclusion, ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC therapy could help improve the clinical outcomes of patients with COPD. However, triple therapy could increase the risk of pneumonia in comparison with LABA/LAMA dual therapy.